1 Friday, 7 November 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number
8 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 Mr. Karnavas, are you ready to start?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour, I am ready. Thank you.
12 JUDGE LIU: Just bear in mind we still have a witness waiting
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand that, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: WITNESS P-120 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued].
18 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. I believe we were on notebook -- the notebook that has been marked
21 for identification purposes as 333. So with the assistance of the court
22 usher, I would like you to look at the notebook. And in particular I
23 would like you to look at what has been marked for identification purposes
24 from that notebook as P258. And I believe you may be able to find it with
25 the last numbers as 632. And for the record it would be P258/D is what
1 I'm asking the gentleman to look at and the English translation of that
2 would be found on P258/C.
3 Have you had a chance to look -- find the page, sir? Perhaps it
4 might be easier to also provide the gentleman with Exhibit P258 so he can
5 make the comparison.
6 A. I have the notebook in front of me and the page with the number.
7 So 00800632.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And if that is the page, then I do have that page in front of me
10 that you're referring to.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you. And just for the record, if you could look at
12 the copy that has been marked for identification purposes as P258/D, if
13 you could look at that and tell us whether that is a true, accurate, and
14 fair copy of what appears in the notebook.
15 A. I didn't hear the Bosnian interpretation of your question.
16 Q. Well, we must have a technical problem.
17 Can you hear me now?
18 A. I don't hear the Bosnian translation again. I can hear the
19 interpreter now.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. If you could be so kind as to try to make a
21 comparison between the copy, which is marked at the bottom of the page as
22 P258/D, with the notebook which has the numbers at the top of the page as
24 A. Judging by the way this copy looks and the page with this number,
25 it is a copy of the page from the book.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, if I could direct your attention towards the
2 bottom of the page -- pages, in particular to the one message that appears
3 to have been taken at I believe it's 2126. Can you look at that, sir.
4 A. Yes, I see that message.
5 Q. And if you look at that message, would it not, sir, be true that
6 that message is a summary, as opposed to a verbatim message of what might
7 have been heard and what might have been recorded by your unit when you
8 were supervising it?
9 A. I don't know what you mean by a summary, but according to the
10 practice that we had, this is just additional information for the centre
11 which processed this information.
12 Q. All right. Maybe we can just revisit some of the issues we talked
13 about yesterday. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, the
14 practice was to try to locate a conversation and upon doing so, to record
15 it, tape record it that is, and thereafter to faithfully, diligently,
16 accurately transcribe it word for word, verbatim. Was that not the
17 practice that was put in place in the unit in which you served? Yes or
19 A. That was the school, textbook example, of the practice that
20 should have been followed.
21 Q. Okay. Given this answer, might we conclude that the textbook
22 approach, the textbook practice, which you were taught and, I take it, you
23 were supposed to follow, was that always followed by your unit?
24 A. I don't agree with this remark. The primary thing was to carry
25 out the orders of the command. Each order meant that there was certain
1 problems in its implementation that needed to be resolved out in the
2 field. So the primary objective was to carry out the order as fully as it
3 was possible to carry it out regardless of the problems which we may come
4 up against. And there is no need for me to go into those.
5 Q. All right. Well, first, no one is saying that the practice was
6 right or wrong, but what I am showing you is a deviation of what was
7 supposed to be the practice, the one you which told us when the Prosecutor
8 was questioning you, and that is, that you would tape-record the
9 conversations and have them transcribed verbatim, as opposed to making
10 summaries of conversations.
11 A. I'm afraid that I'm being asked a question here in a way in which
12 this issue cannot be treated. Two experts from the area that we are
13 dealing with, or let's say two soldiers, let's rule out the experts, know
14 exactly how an order needs to be carried out. If someone else who is not
15 in this field looks at this order, it doesn't have the same significance
16 for him as it would for a soldier who is supposed to carry out this order.
17 If this was to be so, then in the world it would be enough to have just
18 one profession for any kind of job. But in this case, in order to
19 interpret an order and carry it out in the actual doing of it, you need
20 people to know how far this order reaches, how possible it is to implement
21 it, and whether it has been carried out fully or whether there were
22 deviations from it. If I did not act according to orders, then my command
23 would have to take disciplinary measures against me, and then that would
24 mean perhaps going to court or some punishment or so on. As far as I
25 know, I have never been reported for any kind of a violation and I was
1 certainly never convicted of any violation.
2 Q. Can we assume, sir, that in carrying out your orders that seemed
3 to have been somewhat liberally interpreted by you, given your position,
4 that sometimes the practice was to try to tape-record an entire
5 conversation and then transcribe it, write it out, faithfully. And then
6 on other occasions to simply jot down a few notes, something that might be
7 interesting, or make a summary?
8 A. The idea was to get a faithful conversation. The voracity or the
9 faithfulness of the conversation -- not the faithfulness, but the need to
10 transcribe the conversation from the tape depended on the assessment of
11 how important the conversation was. Unfortunately, it would happen that
12 on the channels people would speak unlinked dialogues. They would mention
13 names which had nothing to do with anything which could not be put in the
14 dialogue. But, for example, if a person noted down these contacts for a
15 long time which were not in the form of a conversation, in a way, they
16 would gather a collection of information which could be interesting for
17 the centre to be able to find out the location of those people. And from
18 the locations from where these people were speaking from, they could
19 identify perhaps the units which would perhaps be active in the zones
20 where they were.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I have one more exhibit in line of
23 this chapter of my cross. I can go into it or just for the record note
24 that it would be P237, which also demonstrates that it's a mere summary
25 and not an actual verbatim conversation transcribed. I can -- given that
1 we're short of time, I can confront the witness or move on, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you claim that, I think we better have a
3 look at this piece of document.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. Perhaps we could give the
5 gentleman what has been marked as P237 for identification purposes. And
6 for the record, it would also -- we should also give the gentleman P322,
7 that would be the notebook from which this intercept or partial intercept
8 comes from.
9 Q. Sir, you're now being shown two pieces of document. One would be
10 the notebook and in the notebook if you could be so kind as to flip to the
11 page that is 00778906 at the top right-hand corner. And for the record,
12 that would be found on P327/B. If you could look at that and look at the
13 bottom of the page at the notation, the handwritten notation that was
14 taken at approximately 0834 hours.
15 If you could please first compare the notebook with the copies
16 that were made of the notebook by the Prosecution. Do you see it, sir?
17 A. This is obviously a copy of the page of which the last three
18 numbers are 906.
19 Q. Correct. Now, if we go to the top of the page, clearly we see a
20 mere notation of what might have been a conversation that was intercepted
21 as opposed to the conversation itself verbatim, the textbook approach that
22 you were taught to apply in the field, particularly given the position
23 that you held there at that time.
24 A. Yes, I see that conversation at the bottom of the page.
25 Q. But it's not a verbatim conversation, is it? It's merely a
1 notation of a conversation or a summary.
2 A. According to my recollection and the information that is given
3 here, this conversation was not particularly relevant for the command.
4 The gentleman who is mentioned in the conversation and whose name is noted
5 down here, or one of the gentlemen that is being mentioned was a commander
6 of one of the brigades of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I
7 didn't even know why somebody would be mentioning that man, and I didn't
8 know whether the command needed to be informed of this. But the intention
9 at the time was, if I remember correctly, to inform the command that there
10 was a demand or a request on the enemy's side to meet with one of the
11 commanders of the BH army. That was quite sufficient. All the other
12 information regarding to the weather, the rain, or whether it was cloudy
13 was not important, and we would be wasting our precious time in
14 transcribing such information. I believe that the information in the form
15 as it is here was in keeping with the guidelines that we had been given by
16 the command.
17 Q. So the answer to my question is that it's not a verbatim
18 conversation, but merely a summary of -- part of the conversation. Is
19 that correct?
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Viada --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is evident from the
23 MR. VIADA: Yes, Mr. President, I'm sorry. I have to object
24 because the answer to the question has been very clear in the record. So
25 it's a kind of speculation of extracting too much, perhaps the answer of
1 the witness.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Viada. Let's hear what the witness is going
3 to tell us.
4 MR. KARNAVAS:
5 Q. Could you repeat your answer, sir.
6 A. Could you please repeat your question, sir.
7 Q. Gladly. This is not a verbatim conversation transcribed, but
8 rather, it is a mere -- it is a portion, a summary of a conversation that
9 took place and overheard by your unit. Isn't that a fact?
10 A. If you look at this conversation here you have participant X and
11 Jevdjevic. The participant X said that Semso Muminovic asked Pandurevic
12 to call him on frequency 144.500. So I believe that -- I mean, it was a
13 long time ago, so I believe that this participant, who I didn't know who
14 it was, informed the other participant that this person from the Bosnian
15 side was requesting this meeting. So we cannot look at this as a summary.
16 We can look at it as one sentence which was transcribed verbatim.
17 Q. What's the level of your education, sir?
18 A. I have a university education.
19 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move to another intercept. This
20 would be from the notebook that comes under P33 -- P333. And specifically
21 I will be asking you to look at the pages or the page that ends with 618.
22 And for us -- for the rest of us, we could look at P245/G, /G. And I
23 should note that 245/F is the translated version.
24 First, sir, I would like you to look at those two exhibits and to
25 make sure that the copy that is P245/G is the same that appears in the
1 notebook under P333 in the pages that end with 618.
2 A. What I see here means that I have the original and the photocopy
3 of the page which has been marked with the last three numbers 618.
4 Q. Okay. Now, I would like to show you --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. KARNAVAS:
7 Q. I would like to show you another exhibit because we're going to do
8 a comparison by what another unit was able to transcribe from the same
9 conversation. So if you would look at what has been marked by the
10 Prosecution as 2 -- as P245/B, the English translation of it would be
11 P245/A. And that would be from notebook 327 -- or P327.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Viada.
13 MR. VIADA: Thanks, Mr. President. I have to object to this kind
14 of question, because I'm not sure that the witness is in a position to
15 answer this kind of question, cooperation from two different units. He
16 was only working in one unit. And the cooperation with the work of other
17 units is not proper for this kind of witness.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have not heard the question put forward by
19 the counsel. Let's see what kind of comparison that the counsel is
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, if you could look at what has been marked as P245/B, that
23 would be /B, that would be at the bottom of the page. And it actually
24 goes on to the following page. And at the top of the pages the numbers
25 would be ending with 535.
1 A. Yes. If that's the document you're referring to, I have two pages
2 in front of me bearing the numbers 535 and 618.
3 Q. Correct. Now, if you could look at both of those separately, the
4 one that has -- that ends with 618 was generated from a notebook from your
5 unit, while the other one was generated by another unit in another
6 location. But first, I would like you to just -- to look at both of these
7 intercepts and to tell us whether they would appear to be the same
8 conversation being monitored by two different units in two different
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Issa.
11 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, Your Honour, to intervene. I just wanted to
12 indicate if it would save time as I advised Mr. Karnavas yesterday, the
13 next witness will be dealing with this -- one of the particular
14 conversations and this particular conversation shortly. Consequently, I
15 don't think it's really necessary to go into it at this point with this
16 witness who actually as I understand it did not intercept either
18 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond briefly.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: First, before the gentleman took the stand, out of
21 courtesy and in order to save time, I informed Ms. Issa that the gentleman
22 be provided with both copies, because I would be going into this matter.
23 Secondly, the gentleman was brought in by the Prosecution as holding a
24 particular position, and then there was a line of questioning with respect
25 to his position and with respect to the quality-control process or
1 practice that was put in place. They also elicited certain questions --
2 or answers from the gentleman with respect to the practice and what would
3 happen when they could not hear certain portions of the conversation. The
4 Prosecution's theory is that these intercepts, by and large, are true,
5 accurate, complete, and reliable, something that is contested both by the
6 Blagojevic Defence team and by the Jokic Defence team. The one that I am
7 showing the gentleman is generated from a notebook which the Prosecution
8 is trying to bring in and authenticate and lay the foundation through this
9 particular witness. Obviously because of his position also he's been able
10 to flip through it, identify it, and I think it's only fair for him to be
11 able to see whether a particular intercept that is included in a notebook
12 from his particular notebook is as it purports to be according to his
13 testimony. I also want to show him another version of an intercept from
14 another location, and what we will see are some stark differences. Things
15 that are missing primarily from the notebook that the gentleman has and
16 also where they've indicated that they could not hear certain portions of
17 a conversation, they would put three dots to note that it was inaudible or
18 they could not understand it. And we will see that in their particular
19 version portions that are missing, assuming that they were said because
20 they are included in the other intercept, we do not have the three dots.
21 What I'm trying to establish here is the unreliability of these particular
22 intercepts, and that's the whole purpose of it. Simply because he didn't
23 author it, and I'm not sure whether he did, because yesterday he did
24 indicate he authored a summary, albeit he was -- in trying to come
25 forward and admit that. Nonetheless, I think he is qualified to comment
1 about the intercept in a notebook from his unit. And assuming that he can
2 read the handwriting in the other notebook, I see no reason why he cannot
3 make the comparison. Assuming he cannot read the handwriting, we took the
4 page -- of giving a copy to the translators so they could read it for him,
5 just in case there might have been a problem with him reading the
6 penmanship. But I think this is classic confrontation, compare and
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, we will hear what the witness is going to tell
9 us. But, Mr. Karnavas, I don't think you can go very far in this aspect,
10 so long as, you know, this witness is not the true author of that
11 particular evidence.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I merely wanted to point out the
13 deficiencies, not the reasons behind them. May I continue, Your Honour?
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
16 Q. Sir, have you had an opportunity to compare the two?
17 A. I must say that I'm facing a very complex task here in a place
18 like this and before the Trial Chamber. What this requires is an
19 analytical approach, you must closely monitor the document portion by
20 portion which again requires a very high level of concentration. This
21 necessarily affects my conclusion. I can't posit my conclusion with
22 precision, because I don't have the sufficient time to be able to
23 establish some sort of accurate comparison.
24 Q. Well, how about if I were to present you with a copy that
25 highlighted -- that highlights the distinctions in the two, might that be
1 able to assist you? So why don't I -- I understand you do have it, and
2 also I understand that in the copy you were provided, not only is it
3 highlighted, but you will see some corresponding numbers, "one, one, two,
4 two," and it goes all the way to nine, thereby focusing your attention to
5 the particular portions in each document, the corresponding sections. So
6 in essence, there's not a not a whole lot of analytical process of someone
7 of your calibre and your education and your engineering background would
8 need in looking at these two documents.
9 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry that I have to intervene again, Your Honour.
10 But first of all, that sarcastic comment was totally unnecessary. I don't
11 think I need to say anything more about that. Secondly, we're going to be
12 here a very long time having this witness compare the two documents when
13 we have another witness waiting to testify about this very thing. I mean,
14 We know there are differences in the documents. I don't think there's a
15 mystery in that.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I believe that you have already
17 made your point and you just want to point out there's some problems in
18 those two documents and you're not going into the very reasons of that.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: That's correct. But the gentleman here has not
20 told us that he sees that there are some gaps. So I need to hear it
21 from -- I'm pointing it for the record and I can't make the record --
22 well, I can but I can't testify. I'd love to but I can't. That's why if
23 I can hear the gentleman admit and acknowledge that at least there are
24 some areas in his intercept that are not -- that the other intercept does
25 not have, for instance, number 1. And if we were to go down to, say,
1 number 2, number 4, number 6, number 7, number 8, and number 9 that are
2 included in his version are missing -- those are portions that are missing
3 in his version but are included in the other version. Whereas, point
4 number 3 and point number 5 are totally different.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, you know the Prosecution has
6 agreed that there are some differences in those two documents. And if a
7 particular point is not that crucial to your client, I don't think you
8 have to go through this kind of practice.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Might I just go through one, Your Honour?
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, just point it out.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Just one. Okay.
12 Q. Sir, if I could focus your attention on what has been marked as 4,
13 the line number 4, in your document. And if you were to look at the
14 corresponding number 4 that would be found on P245/B, the other document
15 that ends with the numbers 535. You would agree with me, sir, would you
16 not, that what is included in the other document is not included in the
17 document from your unit. Isn't that a fact?
18 A. I have spent a long time in my civilian life doing certain jobs
19 that require a high degree of accuracy. I find it very difficult to
20 understand if someone is trying to put me in a situation where under
21 stress I should be made to study in only a couple of minutes something
22 that someone else had previously spent months studying and analysing.
23 Anything I say here, any assessment I make, would be superficial and
24 lacking in-depth analysis. In my experience, I can't justify any
25 conclusions and I don't venture into these situations when I do not feel I
1 can answer for them.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, we can do it one of two ways. I mean
3 I'm used to spending hours with this sort of a witness. Obviously we are
4 not going to do that here nor do I wish to do that here.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well --
6 MR. KARNAVAS: The other approach is for me to meet with the
7 Prosecutor, if they're willing to concede as I point out to them as their
8 own translator should have pointed out to them, specifically and, then we
9 can enter that into the record as a document. But I think that what my
10 point is that contrary to what the gentleman has testified under oath when
11 he was testifying for the Prosecution, the procedure was far from perfect,
12 was far from accurate, and was far from verbatim and that they didn't even
13 follow their own practice which is when portions were missing or they
14 could not hear portions, there would be dots placed. Again, I want to
15 stress to the Court that punctuation has been a major concern for us given
16 the one particular witness so --
17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, in the cross-examination there is no
18 need for the witness to give an answer which is entirely to your
19 satisfaction because we have the documents. I think that both the Defence
20 counsel and the Prosecution have that document. I think you have already
21 made your point, so there is no need to spend much more time on that
22 issue. You may move on.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. It's not to my
24 satisfaction. I'm trying to make a record, but I would agree with you and
25 again I want to also stress that with certain witnesses I also want to
1 point out that at some point I will be arguing their lack of credibility.
2 But in light of the answers and in light of the Court's ruling, I have no
3 further questions with respect to this witness.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
5 Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any questions to ask.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask several
7 questions, Your Honour, if I may.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please proceed.
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness?
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. I would just like to clarify a number of points concerning your
13 biography before we move on to a number of specific conversations that you
14 entered into this notebook. (redacted)
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, if you would like to ask more
20 questions about the background of this witness, you have to understand
21 that this witness is under the protective measures and we could easily go
22 to private session for that purpose.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree, Your Honour. I
24 was going to move to go into private session after my third question. If
25 you believe it's necessary now, we can, no problem with me. But my
1 original plan was to ask the first four questions and then to go into
2 private session, or rather, closed session.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you feel safe, you may proceed.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 Q. Is it usual for the corps commander to give out such an order --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please. The
13 interpreters couldn't hear the best part of the question, due to the fact
14 that the microphone was off.
15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stojanovic, would you please repeat your question
16 with the microphone on.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Is it normal procedure, is it pursuant to the rules of service
19 that the corps commander should order the transfer of a soldier from one
20 unit to another, or is this usually done by personnel administrators in
21 these units?
22 A. I must remind you, although you probably saw this in my statement,
23 of my position in the unit. I was an ordinary soldier. I was not even a
24 professional soldier. As for organisational issues and the structure of
25 the military, this is something that is usually the job of professional
1 soldiers and not of individuals who merely did their military service,
2 their regular military service.
3 Q. May I take it, then, that your level of military education would
4 have entitled you to say that you didn't know whether this was within the
5 area of competence of the corps commander or within the area of competence
6 of personnel administrators with those specific units?
7 A. I can say that I'm not familiar with the way orders circulated
8 within the army. I believe that should be the answer to your question,
9 but I can't provide a yes or no answer. In order to do that, I should
10 have to analyse your question which would take up a lot of time, no doubt.
11 Q. Very well. Practically from 1994 after going through a month of
12 training, you joined the electronic surveillance unit. Am I right in
13 claiming that until July 1995 you had spent about ten months with that
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. This ten-month period, in your opinion, was that sufficient to
17 qualify you for carrying out those activities and tasks?
18 A. What does it mean to be qualified to carry out a certain task?
19 Usually it means to meet a number of conditions. I only had a month of
20 training, and my knowledge of equipment was very basic. Usually people
21 are trained for 15 or 20 years to specialise in operating this equipment.
22 We didn't have the time and we did the best we could. We made the best of
23 it, whatever we could learn during the course, and we tried to apply the
24 knowledge acquired during our training. Now, how qualified or
25 professional our work was, I think we need more time to tell. I would
1 have been very happy if I'd had 20 years of military education behind me
2 when I started performing these tasks. That's all I can tell you.
3 Q. Can we then agree that you had the elementary knowledge to carry
4 out these tasks with the electronic surveillance unit?
5 A. The basic skills, the professional knowledge, this means that you
6 would have had to be very good at that. I can't say if it was elementary
7 knowledge. Certainly what we knew was sufficient to meet the requirements
8 of the command, the command where individuals worked who had been educated
9 in the former Yugoslav army, and they were knowledgeable enough to assess
10 whether our skills were sufficient or not. Now, you chose to call it
11 elementary. I can't say how elementary it was.
12 Q. Will you agree with me when I say that in addition to the basic
13 skills you have just spoken about from the area, first of all you need to
14 have good hearing?
15 A. This is a fact, yes.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, I would
18 like to go into private session now for several questions.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to private session, please.
20 [Private session]
12 Page 4117 – redacted – private session.
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in open session. You may proceed,
22 Mr. Stojanovic.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Witness, can you please give us a hand with this. There was an
1 exhibit that was shown to you yesterday and we would just like to clarify
2 something about that. If we can have Exhibit P233/F from binder P345
3 marked for identification purposes as 01077809.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If necessary, we have a spare
5 copy for the Chamber.
6 Q. We discussed this intercept yesterday. If you can please just
7 help me clarify a number of issues in relation to this.
8 A. I'm waiting.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you just please help us and tell us, line 7, what
10 does this mean, the thing behind the letter V, dots, brackets, unclear as
11 if premodulated [as interpreted].
12 A. It's been long since I last looked at this notebook. I no longer
13 work on the same job. I stopped doing this kind of thing as soon as I
14 left the army in April of 1996. This term, "premodulated," I really can't
15 remember any longer what exactly it meant.
16 Q. Roughly speaking, if you look at this, you can see that it was not
17 clear what the other participant in the conversation had been saying. Why
18 wasn't it clear?
19 A. This definition and the use of the term "premodulated" is an
20 attempt to explain it.
21 Q. Can I therefore conclude that this intercept was not sufficiently
22 clear at the time you recorded it and listened to it?
23 A. Your question was about this line 7, and it states clearly there
24 that in that part we were not able to hear what the speaker said. But if
25 you want to say that applies to the whole conversation, then logically we
1 should then put unclear everywhere.
2 Q. May I conclude that in the place where there are dots the way you
3 described it in the examination-in-chief, that that is what you did not
4 hear or you were not able to decipher what was being said?
5 A. It could be one of two things. In principle, as far as I can
6 recall, these could be also pauses in the conversation or some waiting
7 time. But most often in places where something was unclear, I would try
8 to write it down because markings were sometimes unreliable.
9 Q. Thank you. And if I can also direct you to the next page, the
10 last paragraph, so for the transcript 01077810. The words three dots, "We
11 are all engaged to the maximum" and then we have, "believe me," then we
12 have three dots, then the text again, and then the word: "Since this
13 morning, we have been reporting."
14 Have you found it?
15 A. Yes, I see that, that is towards the bottom on the second page
16 with the number 810.
17 Q. Would you agree with me that this word "believe me," is pronounced
18 in the Ijekavica dialect, but the word "izvestavanje," "reporting" is in
19 the Ekavica dialect?
20 A. I'm not a language expert, but that's the way it seems.
21 Q. Would you agree with me that in the Ekavica dialect, this is used
22 on the right side, on the right bank of the River Drina, so in Serbia.
23 And Ijekavski accent is used on the left bank of the River Drina in
24 Bosnia, in principle?
25 A. I couldn't agree with you, not even as an educated person. I
1 would like to remind you that if you look into it that the majority of my
2 professors were Serbs and even I spoke Ekavski dialect for a while and was
4 Q. May I then reformulate my question, rephrase my question, and say
5 that the majority dialect that is spoken in Serbia is Ekavski and
6 Ijekavski is the majority dialect spoken in Bosnia? Would that be
8 A. As far as I know, it is evident that Ekavski is used in Serbia.
9 Yes, that is evident. But in Bosnia we had both Ekavski and Ijekavski.
10 We had many people coming from Serbia so they used the Ekavski dialect and
11 they used that also in schools. On the other hand, in the time when this
12 notebook was created the official tendency was in Bosnia to speak Ekavski
13 on one side.
14 Q. So based on this sentence, we can conclude that the speaker in
15 this sentence speaks both Ekavski and Ijekavski. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, this is correct. If this was faithfully transcribed, it
17 means that that person was mixing Ekavski and Ijekavski.
18 Q. If I understood you properly, you said "If this has been
19 faithfully transcribed." If that is so, can I conclude that perhaps you
20 did not, if this is your handwriting, did not faithfully transcribe what
21 you heard?
22 A. There is always the possibility that a man makes various mistakes.
23 Even if the same conversation is transcribed twice, these mistakes can be
24 made. People are not robots. We only have identical copies made by
25 computers now. A person, human being can make a mistake.
1 Q. Yes, precisely, I agree with that. And in that context I would
2 like to ask you a few more questions, but perhaps this is the appropriate
3 time to make a break, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we still have five minutes. How long
5 will your questions last? Maybe from your direction, yourself time is up.
6 But from mine, there's still five or seven minutes.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that I
8 will not need more than 20 minutes more, maybe not even that much.
9 JUDGE LIU: Try to finish your cross-examination during this
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand. I would like to
12 ask the usher, please, to show the witness exhibit -- and for the record
13 it's an intercepted conversation which is in the notebook marked P337,
14 page 00801255 for the transcript. We have prepared excerpts in English
15 from this exhibit which we received from the Prosecutor. Thank you.
16 Q. I would just like to ask you one question. Can you remember
17 whether you identified ever in these intercepts the voice of an officer
18 named Jocic?
19 A. At this moment, I do not even remember who Jocic was, nor do I
20 remember his voice.
21 Q. The intercepts that you have in front of you, I assume that you
22 will agree with me that that is your handwriting?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Is it correct that you recorded on the third channel
25 participants -- conversations where one of the participants was Jocic?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. And let me say it again, at this point you cannot remember that
4 A. I do not remember the voice, nor do I remember who that man was.
5 Q. Thank you. Very well. You said that you managed to recognise a
6 few voices during the conversations that you listened to in that period,
7 for example, the voice of General Simic, General Tolimir, and General
8 Zivanovic. Is that true?
9 A. Yes, I did recognise those voices.
10 Q. Both previous conversations which you recorded and you listened
11 to, you listened to on the third channel on the 14th of July, 1995. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. I don't know if you're thinking of these conversations which are
14 marked 255 on this page.
15 Q. Yes, yes.
16 A. I don't see a date there.
17 Q. Can we agree that it was on channel 3?
18 A. For one conversation it states that it was the third channel, for
19 the second and third it doesn't say so.
20 Q. Can we agree that this conversation we had earlier was, as you
21 said yesterday, in response to the question of the Prosecutor and
22 afterwards looking at it, did take place on the 14th of July?
23 A. I established -- in order to establish that it was on the 14th of
24 July, I would have to check the beginning of the notebook, and the end,
25 and possibly some other dates, as well as the cycles of the conversations,
1 at what time they began and what time they finished. But this notebook
2 here, this is what I would have to do with this notebook here. I would
3 have to do it right now.
4 Q. I asked you about this past conversation when yesterday you
5 identified that it was a conversation on the 14th of July at 2227 hours.
6 A. Look, sir, you have to tell me whether you are talking about this
7 notebook that is in front of me or whether you are asking me about
8 something that happened before.
9 Q. I'm asking you about the previous conversation, not this
10 conversation or this notebook that you have in front of you, but I'm
11 asking you about a previous conversation that you had yesterday in front
12 of you and which you identified had taken place on the 14th of July at
14 A. Could you tell me what your question is for that question.
15 Q. Is the participant Jocic -- Jokic from Palma and Vilotic?
16 A. Yes, there was a conversation at 2227. I don't have the exact
17 information. I noted yesterday that this did take place on the 14th of
19 Q. Yes, thank you. That's correct. I wanted to ask you whether in
20 preparation for your testimony and in conversations with the OTP, did you
21 hear or did they ask you about whether there was a mistake in the name, is
22 it General Vilotic and is it possible that this is actually General
23 Miletic? Did the Prosecutor ask you questions to that effect?
24 A. I don't know what you're trying to say with your abbreviation OTP.
25 Q. It refers to questions from the Prosecutor.
1 A. As far as the Prosecutor is concerned, this question -- this
2 possibility Miletic or Vilotic was not a question that they put to me.
3 Q. Did you ever hear before or recognise the voice of General
5 A. At this point in time after such a long time ago, I do not
6 remember the man or his voice.
7 Q. Now, after such a long time ago, can you remember whether you ever
8 recognised the name of an officer called Jokic?
9 A. I do not remember that I recognised the voice of such a person.
10 Q. In view of the fact that we talked about a little earlier, do you
11 allow for the possibility that the person who introduced himself as Jokic,
12 because of poor audibility or a poor signal, could have been called Djokic
13 or Jocic. Is there such a possibility, perhaps?
14 A. These are more theoretical rather than practical possibilities.
15 In principle, it depends. I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, I tried
16 to be as precise as possible, especially when we're talking about the
17 participants. So I avoided putting down anything that was not clear to
19 Q. Could you please tell us, when you're listening to the
20 conversation, could you locate the place where General Vilotic was?
21 A. That is not the task of the team that worked with me. The team
22 practically did the job of listening, monitoring, tapping. The task of
23 locating places is an analytical task.
24 Q. Since this was not your job, are you saying that you don't know
25 where General Vilotic was at that time?
1 A. I can say that he was on channel 3 at that point, as far as I was
2 concerned -- if that was on channel 3, if I recall that conversation well.
3 Q. Yes. It was on channel 3, so based on that we can conclude that
4 the second participant whom you indicated as Jokic was also on channel 3?
5 A. If it's a conversation between two speakers which was recorded on
6 one channel, it must mean that I recorded the conversation from that
8 Q. But you were not concerned and it was not your job to know where
9 they were physically?
10 A. That's right. That was not part of my job.
11 Q. That's right. Thank you. Could you tell us whether you know
12 where the seat of the participants from Palma was actually located.
13 A. I knew that Palma was actually the command of the Zvornik Brigade.
14 Q. But you didn't know its location. Is that right?
15 A. If you're thinking about the geographic location, I can't tell
16 you. I really don't know that.
17 Q. From your military training, do you know that a given point in
18 time in a brigade or the brigade command, you would have the duty officer
19 of the barracks, the staff duty officer, and the operations duty officer?
20 A. I think that your questions are a little bit broader than my
21 knowledge is as a regular soldier. I would like to say that right until
22 the beginning of the war, I was just a regular soldier and that
23 automatically by the end of the war, I was given the rank of
24 non-commissioned officer. But during the war, I was just a regular
25 soldier. And as a regular soldier, I don't know if I would know anything
1 like that. The command did not enable us to learn about the structure of
2 the command and the other elements which were relevant for that.
3 Q. So can we conclude that you don't know that there was a barracks
4 duty officer, a staff duty officer, and an operations duty officer in the
6 A. I heard about these terms before. I've heard them before and I've
7 heard them now, but how it functions, where all these things are located,
8 and so on, is not something I actually thought much about.
9 Q. And let me bring this to a close. Am I right if I conclude that
10 the identification of these two participants, General Vilotic and Jokic,
11 Duty Officer of Palma, arrives from their own personal identification, so
12 that is what you heard and what you noted down?
13 A. Your question is quite exclusive and gives only one option. In
14 order to establish or identify a person, we can also do that based on the
15 conversation of the exchange operators who are actually establishing the
16 connection. So we don't need to do that purely from the conversation of
17 the participants themselves. Identification, for example, if you
18 recognise the voice of an important person, this important person would
19 never say what their name is and they don't even make calls on such
21 Q. I understand that as theory, but I'm asking you specifically now,
22 and please I'm asking you to help me. Regarding this specific
23 conversation and the answers that you have given, that you do not
24 recognise the voices of General Vilotic or Palma Duty Officer Jokic, is
25 this identification based on the fact that they themselves introduced
1 themselves in the course of this intercepted conversation?
2 A. I stated that identification can come from the fact that the
3 persons introduced themselves or from voice recognition or from
4 introductions made by those establishing the connection. So I don't know
5 whether they introduced themselves. I don't know that. I don't remember
6 the text of the conversations. I don't have it in front of me. Perhaps
7 the telephone operators said the names. My assumption is that I never --
8 I do not recall ever recognising the voice of Vilotic. Perhaps this was
9 written in the text itself, so that is how I was able to name the
10 speakers. Sometimes in the course of a conversation, it would often
11 happen that we wouldn't know who was talking unless the people themselves
12 said so or unless the telephone operator establishing the connection in
13 accordance to a procedure would tell his colleague who he's looking for,
14 who is the person looking for that person, why they are looking for that
15 person, and so on.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to finish now, Your
17 Honours, but in view of receiving such a general answer from the witness,
18 I would like again for the third time to show the witness Exhibit P233/F
19 and also from notebook 345, I would to show him page 01077809.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, is this necessary? I think you
21 have made your point clear.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If Your Honours believe that it
23 is clear enough, then I have no further need to do this. I would just
24 like to show that both participants introduced themselves. The witness
25 here noted that down, and that is the reason or the basis on which he
1 identified the participants. And if this point is clear, then I do not
2 need to show the exhibit to the witness for the third time.
3 JUDGE LIU: We have no doubt about that. Everything is clear in
4 that piece of document.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
6 no further questions.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 Any re-direct, Mr. Viada?
9 MR. VIADA: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this stage, are there any documents to tender
11 from both parties?
12 Mr. Viada?
13 MR. VIADA: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution will be
14 tendering all intercepts and all the notebooks after the last witness.
15 And we will not tender anything at this point.
16 JUDGE LIU: I see. How about the piece of paper bearing the
17 witness's name?
18 MR. VIADA: This was a mistake. I'm not sure if we have -- oh,
19 yes. Your Honour, the witness identified himself in the record, even he
20 spelled his own name. Then it's not necessary to tender this document.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I noticed there are some
22 mistakes on the corrected transcript. We went to private session for
24 Mr. Karnavas?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Do you have any documents?
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I do, Your Honour. I believe yesterday I
3 showed the gentleman the translations of what was P255/F, and that was
4 marked, the translation, as D75/1. And again, the translation of P255/D,
5 and that was marked as 76/1. There was testimony with respect to this.
6 It wasn't translated by the Prosecution. We do think they're relevant and
7 we would move for their admission, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
9 MR. VIADA: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stojanovic, any objections to Mr. Karnavas's
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't have an objection. We
13 stand by what we have said, and that is that intercepts should not be
14 admitted until we finish with all of these witnesses. As far as we're
15 concerned, we do not have any documents that we wanted to tender.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you. That is an objection, if I
17 understand it in the right way.
18 Mr. Karnavas, I'm sorry that we could not admit your document into
19 the evidence at this stage. I hope at a later stage you could also submit
20 to us a list of all those intercepts you want to be admitted into the
21 evidence, and then we'll consider it at a later stage.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, thank you very much.
24 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
25 your evidence. During the break, the usher will show you out of the room.
1 We wish you a pleasant journey back home. Thank you very much.
2 And we'll have our break and we'll resume at 4.15.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
4 [The witness entered]
5 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness. Good afternoon, Witness, can
7 you hear me?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, yes, I can.
9 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
10 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS P-121
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down.
16 Ms. Issa.
17 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Examined by Ms. Issa:
19 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. And, sir, you are a protected witness, so we will start by showing
22 you a piece of paper and ask you to confirm whether or not that is your
23 name by just indicating yes or no.
24 MS. ISSA: If I can just have the assistance of Madam Usher,
25 please. Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 MS. ISSA:
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MS. ISSA: And for the record, Your Honour, that is Exhibit P352.
5 Q. Just to start with your background, sir, I understand that you are
6 from Bosnia. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that you -- your religious faith is Muslim. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell the Judges briefly about your educational background.
11 A. I can. I completed my elementary and secondary education in my
12 native town. I studied technical sciences for a while, but I interrupted
13 my studies because money was quite short at the time. There were many of
14 us in the family, so there was no money for me to complete my studies.
15 Q. All right. And at some point, sir, in your life did you develop
16 an interest in radios and did you participate in amateur radio activities?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. When did you develop your interest in radios?
19 A. I was quite young at the time. I may have been 17 or 18 years of
20 age. That's when I first became familiar with the equipment and the way
21 it was used. I realised what it was, that it was a very good thing, a
22 very useful thing, that you could talk to someone long distance without
23 even knowing the person by using special signs speaking to the person in
24 our language or in English. I really liked it and I became an enthusiast.
25 Q. And in developing your interest in radio, sir, did you pursue a
1 certificate or some sort of education in pursuit of that interest?
2 A. Yes. I took an exam to obtain a category C for ham radio
3 operators. And then I had to keep on training myself. And then I took an
4 exam to obtain the B category license. And that's the most advanced
5 license that I have for ham radio operators.
6 Q. Did you, in fact, receive that license or certificate, the B
8 A. Yes. I obtained the certificate for B category.
9 Q. All right. Now, dealing with your service in the army, did you
10 serve with the JNA at some point, and if so, what years did you perform
11 that service?
12 A. Yes, I did compulsory military service with the former JNA in
13 1981 and 1982.
14 Q. And if you -- did you specialise in your military service during
15 that period of time, and if so, what specialty did you have?
16 A. Yes, I was in the signals branch. So while I was in the army, I
17 also took an exam for the military B certificate.
18 Q. All right. And during that period of time, sir, did you become
19 familiar with JNA radio equipment that was available in your unit?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Turning then your attention, sir, to the war in Bosnia that
22 started in 1992, I understand that you became part of the electronic
23 reconnaissance and anti-electronic warfare unit as part of the Bosnian
24 Muslim military forces. Is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And in that capacity, sir, generally speaking, what were your
2 duties and responsibilities?
3 A. My basic duty was to intercept communications, the communications
4 of the Army of Republika Srpska.
5 Q. And you served, in fact, in this type of unit until the end of the
6 war. Isn't that right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And from the period of 1992 until the end of the war, whose enemy
9 communications were you intercepting?
10 A. The communications of the Army of Republika Srpska.
11 Q. And just very briefly, sir, can you tell us what were the
12 locations in Bosnia where you worked in this capacity.
13 A. At the beginning of the war in 1992 until the end of that year,
14 for the first couple of months we were on a hill near our town. And then
15 we were transferred to an elevation called Okresanica. In 1994, I was
16 again transferred to a different location where short wave emissions by
17 the Army of Republika Srpska were being intercepted. As of spring 1994, I
18 was transferred to Konjuh. I stayed there until December when the war was
19 over. I stayed there until the very end of the war.
20 Q. And while you were at Konjuh, sir, in what capacity did you serve
21 at that location?
22 A. I worked there as an operator. I operated the equipment, the
23 tapping equipment.
24 Q. All right. Other witnesses have testified about the procedures
25 that you used when you were at Konjuh, sir. So I'm not going to ask you
1 very detailed questions in relation to that, but I will ask you if you can
2 just very briefly explain the process or what you did when you intercepted
3 a conversation.
4 A. There was an established procedure. In the room we had several
5 devices, several pieces of equipment, sometimes four, sometimes five,
6 sometimes a piece of equipment would break down and then need fixing. All
7 those were receivers, just receivers. We would receive signals from
8 telephone frequencies from the radio relay 800 and radio relay 1. These
9 devices were always on. Those were so-called scanners. These devices
10 were used to scan various frequencies. Sometimes they would stop -- they
11 would stop whenever a signal appeared on a given frequency. We would stop
12 the machine right there. We would start the reel-to-reel recorder that
13 was linked to the other piece of equipment. We would record the
14 conversation and stop the recorder afterwards. Or we would press the
15 pause button.
16 After that, we would decide if the conversation was urgent or
17 important, if the conversation was about offensive operations or about
18 private matters, something of no relevance to us. It was left to our
19 discretion to decide on the relevance of a given conversation. If the
20 conversation was important, we would immediately rewind the tape and
21 transcribe the conversation into a notebook that we had.
22 Q. Okay. And once you transcribed the conversation into the
23 notebook, what would happen next? What would you do with the
25 A. If we deemed the information contained in the conversation
1 important or if names were being dropped that we thought were important,
2 we would call another person to come over, a person who was helping us
3 with computers. The received text would then be typed into a computer.
4 The person operating the computer would then code, encrypt, this
5 information and forward it to our centre.
6 Q. Now, sir, in the process of getting the signal and pressing the
7 button on the tape recorder to tape the conversation, is it possible that
8 a small amount of information was not recorded?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the leading
10 nature of the question. The question can be rephrased. But the
11 Prosecutor -- I know we're trying to rush it, but she should be in a habit
12 of asking non-leading questions.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Issa, you may put your question is a neutral
15 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour. I thought this was the part
16 where we weren't really going to spend too much time on it. But I --
17 JUDGE LIU: You know, during the previous witnesses I think this
18 issue is a heated debate.
19 MS. ISSA: I understand that.
20 Q. When you tape-recorded a conversation, sir, did you always manage
21 to capture the entire conversation?
22 A. Not always, no. Sometimes we did succeed and sometimes we just
23 couldn't. The scanner must scan a number of frequencies before it
24 encounters a signal. So sometimes it was possible to miss out on a
25 portion of the conversation before the scanner stopped. This was
1 possible. It was the case sometimes that we failed to record something
2 that was already being said on a given frequency.
3 Q. Now, the information, sir, that was not captured on tape, was that
4 somehow captured in another form?
5 A. This information, if there was something that we heard and yet
6 failed to switch on the tape recorder, if this was something important,
7 names of participants or anything like that, code names perhaps, we would
8 write them down immediately at the top of the page.
9 Q. Okay. Is there anywhere else where you may note down information
10 of this nature, other than the notebook, at the time?
11 A. Yes. At the outset we didn't even have notebooks, so we used
12 sheets of paper. Later on we had notebooks and the order was for us to
13 write this down into those notebooks. So later, we only used notebooks
14 and then the whole thing would, of course, then be transcribed.
15 Q. Okay. Now, if there was a doubt about what was said on the
16 communication when you were listening to the tape at the time, what would
17 you do?
18 A. When listening, if there was something that we weren't sure about,
19 we would put a question mark. If we couldn't hear something at all, a
20 whole portion, we would just put dots. If by listening to the tape, it
21 wasn't possible to ascertain what was said. So we were using an
22 established system of signs, a question mark if there was something we
23 weren't sure about. If something was just missing, we would put dots
24 there and that's how we would copy the whole thing into the notebook.
25 Q. Okay. Would you write anything down that you weren't sure about?
1 A. While taking the conversation down, we wrote down exactly as we
2 heard. And if someone was using this information later on and the person
3 using our transcription couldn't understand what was going on, he would
4 just give us a call to explain. Sometimes we would listen in to a number
5 of conversations at the same time and we would just transcribe what seemed
6 important. So the tape was listened to again, and there was another
7 person who transcribed the conversation. He would come back to us with
8 questions if there was something that was still not clear and then we
9 would instruct him what to do.
10 Q. Okay. And when you mean -- when you say we would instruct him
11 what to do, can you explain to us what you mean by that.
12 A. If, for example, he couldn't read someone's handwriting because we
13 did this in a hurry, he would come back to us and say, "What's this word?"
14 and then we would tell him. If, for example, someone noticed an error in
15 the text, he would come back to us and say, "What's this? This must be an
16 error. Can you listen to the tape again, please," and then we would go
17 back to the tape, listen to it again, and give him the final version, the
18 one that he then typed into the computer.
19 Q. Okay. And can you tell us how many times you would listen to the
20 tape. You don't have to give us a specific, exact number, but
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, vague.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Which particular tape are we speaking of?
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's a general question.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: We just want a general answer.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may proceed, Ms. Issa.
5 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
7 A. If our conclusion was that the information on the tape was
8 crucial, if there was a name being referred to, the time an operation
9 would start, if there was a place being mentioned where manpower or
10 weapons would be sent, those tapes would be listened to over and over
11 again. If something was still unclear, we would just rewind and listen
12 again. If everything was clear, we would just take it down and later
13 transcribe the information.
14 Q. Thank you. Before we get to a particular conversation, can you
15 just tell us generally, sir, what did you do with the tapes after
16 transcribing a particular conversation? What happened to the tapes?
17 A. You take down the conversation and if there was still room on the
18 tape, you would press the pause button and the next time the scanner
19 stopped catching another frequency, the tape would then be recorded to the
20 end. If there were no spare tapes, midway through a shift, for example,
21 we ran out of tapes and there was no one to give us more tapes, we would
22 use the other side of the tape. And once we've used that up, we would
23 rewind the tape back to the beginning. There was a shortage of tapes at
24 the time. We sometimes even re-used old tapes.
25 Q. Okay. I want to now focus your attention, sir, to a particular
1 conversation. I will be referring to a notebook marked as P327.
2 MS. ISSA: And for ease of reference, Your Honours, that
3 conversation is binder number 2 under the date of 15 July. I will also be
4 referring to the package which is marked as Exhibit 245.
5 Q. Now, sir, I'm going to ask you to please turn to the page
7 MS. ISSA: A photocopy of that page, Your Honours, is at Exhibit
9 Q. Now, sir, you've seen this original notebook in my office. Is
10 that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Can you tell us if you recognise the notebook.
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Okay. And where does the notebook come from?
15 A. This notebook was at Konjuh where we received the conversations
16 that we were intercepting.
17 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting at page 535 through 537?
18 A. Yes, it's mine.
19 Q. Is this a conversation that you intercepted, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you transcribed the conversation into this particular
22 notebook. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, if you look at the very top of the exhibit, two people appear
25 to be identified in this conversation, sir. Who are they?
1 A. Colonel Ljubo Beara and General Krstic.
2 Q. And how did you determine that they were the participants in the
4 A. Well, first of all, we would always recognise Krstic's voice,
5 because he spoke on a number of different occasions. You soon became
6 familiar with his voice because he had a very powerful, resonant voice.
7 We always recognised Krstic. If sometimes we didn't catch the
8 introductory part of the conversation where they would introduce
9 themselves, they would sooner or later in the course of the conversation
10 say their names. If there was no way for us to know who the speakers
11 were, we would just put two question marks, speaker A, question mark,
12 speaker B, question mark. But if you look at the text of the message, the
13 way they speak to one another, they kept using their names. So it was
14 easy for us to understand who the participants were.
15 This was the channel, or rather, the frequency that he very often
16 spoke on. It was his phone. There was several ways for us to ascertain
18 Q. Okay. And when you say, "This was the frequency that he spoke
19 on," just to be clear for the record, you're referring to General Krstic.
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes. We had memorised his frequency on our equipment. We often
22 listened to him. It was important for us at the time. He was a very
23 important figure in the Army of Republika Srpska at the time.
24 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what frequency that is.
25 A. That's 205.850 [as interpreted].
1 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, before we start referring specifically to
2 the conversation or the contents of the conversation, I'd like you to tell
3 the Judges whether you're able to date this particular conversation.
4 A. I'm not able to date this conversation, because I didn't write it
6 Q. When you say you didn't write it down, you're referring to writing
7 down the date?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Precisely, I didn't write down the date.
11 Q. All right. Did you -- when you reviewed this notebook in my
12 office, sir, did you -- were you able to provide an approximate date based
13 on other dates in the notebook?
14 A. Well, yes. If I look at the dates before and after, I could say
15 that it was either the 14th or the 15th of July, 1995.
16 Q. Okay. And just so that we're clear for the record, sir, I'd like
17 you to turn to page 00804528. And can you tell the Judges what date you
18 see on that page.
19 A. On this page, I see 0907, the year is 1995.
20 Q. So that's 11 July, 1995. Correct?
21 A. Oh, yes, yes. You're quite right. Yes, that's underneath. The
22 11th of July. This one was at the top of the page, and below you can see
23 the true date this conversation took place. And you're quite right. It's
24 the 11th of July.
25 Q. Okay. Now, I'd ask you, sir, then to turn to page 537, the last
1 digits 537, and tell us if you see a date on that page.
2 A. The 16th of July, 1995.
3 Q. All right. Now, looking at the conversation itself, sir, the
4 contents of the conversation, is there anything in the conversation that
5 assists you in determining that this conversation took place, either on
6 the 14th or 15th of July?
7 A. Yes, there's this one sentence which Beara said, and that is:
8 "They will not come. There is no other solution but those 15 or 33 with
9 Indjic. Those who were supposed to come on the 13th and did not." So
10 that is that date. And then the next instructions here, what we can see,
11 it means that this conversation was transcribed after the 13th. So it can
12 be either on the 14th or the 15th. So it was before the 16th. This is
13 what I concluded based on what we have here.
14 MS. ISSA: And just for the record, Your Honour, in the translated
15 copy at P245/A, that date in the content of the conversation is found at
16 from eight lines from the bottom.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Issa, I'm sorry to interrupt, could you ask
18 the witness what is the frequency that General Krstic was on.
19 MS. ISSA: I did ask him that, Your Honour, but I will re-ask the
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I saw some problem in the transcript.
22 MS. ISSA: I appreciate that, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
23 Q. Sir, can you please tell us, what was the frequency that General
24 Krstic spoke on that you indicated earlier you were aware of he normally
25 spoke on?
1 A. Yes. The frequency was 255.850.
2 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour. I think it's okay now.
3 Q. Now, sir, turning to Prosecution Exhibit 245/E, which I'm going to
4 ask be placed on the ELMO, please. Just very briefly, can you tell us,
5 sir, what is this document.
6 A. This document could be a typed report of the conversation which
7 was recorded.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. So it's a conversation that was copied into this notebook.
10 Q. Okay. And if you can look at the top or the heading of this
11 document, can you please indicate which place is indicated, the location
12 of where the document was generated, as well as the date.
13 A. Yes, it's written down here, Konjuh, the 15th of July, 1995.
14 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, sir, have you reviewed this document when
15 you were in my office along with the conversation that you transcribed in
16 the notebook?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Is the substance of the document, the computer printout, the same
19 as the one in the notebook?
20 A. Yes. The content is the same, except there are some words in one
21 which are not in the other. But the sense of the conversation is the
23 Q. Okay. And before we get to those words, sir, can you tell us if
24 you typed the document, the computer version? Did you type that?
25 A. No. It wasn't me. It was a young man who was responsible for
1 those things. We typed those things out when we weren't busy and when he
2 wasn't there, but it was usually his job to do the typing and the -- and
3 to enter it into the log.
4 Q. All right. Thank you, sir. I'm now going to ask you some
5 specific questions about the content of the notebook and the computer
7 MS. ISSA: And, Your Honours, for ease of reference, because I
8 don't think we can place both documents on the easel, I'm going to be
9 referring to the translation of the notebook which is found at 245/A and
10 the translation of the typed version which is found at 245/C.
11 Q. Now, dealing with some of the differences, sir, in the notebook,
12 can you please look at the top of page 535 in the notebook. And I'm
13 referring you specifically to the words: "Tasic or Sladojevic." Do you
14 see that there, which is four lines from the top in the translated
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if you look at the computer printout, the typewritten version,
18 sir, four lines from the top?
19 MS. ISSA: Again in the translated version, Your Honour.
20 Q. It says Nastic, the name's Nastic or Blagojevic. Do you see that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are you able to explain or account for that particular difference?
24 A. When I was transcribing the conversation from the tape, at that
25 point that is how I heard it probably. I wrote down the way I heard it.
1 But I was even making some correction here, Sladojevic, but I continued
2 with the transcription not paying attention to the above written names. I
3 thought those were the names. Then as we continue, I see that Blagojevic
4 and Nastic appear. So I wrote down as I received it, as I heard it at
5 that point.
6 Q. Okay. So you're indicating that in your notebook, sir, you later
7 on wrote the proper names of Nastic and Blagojevic. Can you just read out
8 that sentence for us so that we know what you're referring to.
9 A. K: I'll see what I can do, but I'll disturb a lot. Please,
10 you have down there at Nastic's and Blagojevic's.
11 Q. Okay. And later we also see that you referred to the name of
12 Blagojevic two lines down from that: "Check with Blagojevic, take his Red
13 Berets again." Is that correct?
14 A. Yes. Yes. The sentence says: "Check with Blagojevic. Take his
15 Red Berets."
16 Q. Okay. I just want to direct your attention specifically to one
17 other difference, sir. If you can look at the very last line in your
18 notebook at page 0804537.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Where it says:
21 K: I'll see what I can do.
22 Can you indicate, sir, whether there's a difference between that
23 line and the last line of the typed version.
24 A. There is a difference, because in the typed version two words were
25 added which are not there in my notebook.
1 Q. Okay. And what are those two words, sir?
2 A. I apologise to everybody, but the words are, "Fuck it."
3 Q. Okay. And the rest of the sentence: "I'll see what I can do,"
4 remains the same. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes. The rest of the sentence is the same: "I'll see what I can
6 do." But here it says: "I'll see what I can." But the sense of it is
7 the same.
8 Q. Okay. In general terms, sir, when you compared these two
9 documents, are there any other differences that you noticed?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection to the term "general." If the gentleman
11 wishes -- or if the lady wants to point to specific differences because
12 there are some more specific differences, then she should do so. If she
13 wants to rephrase it to say is the conversation in essence the same type
14 versus the handwritten, that's a different question.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We also could not understand what is in general
17 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, I previously asked him if the
18 conversation was in essence the same and he indicated that it was. I
19 don't plan on going through the particular specifics of it because I don't
20 particularly think it's that important. If Mr. Karnavas wants to go
21 through the specifics of it, he can do so in cross-examination. But I
22 will rephrase my question to perhaps make it a little bit clearer with
23 Your Honour's permission.
24 JUDGE LIU: Just ask if there's any other differences.
25 MS. ISSA: Okay.
1 Q. Sir, are there any other differences that you notice between the
2 notebook and the typewritten version without having to go through every
3 single one of them?
4 A. Yes. I immediately find a difference in this line where Beara
5 says: "Okay. Let's see. They can come to Drago." And then in the typed
6 text it says: "See if they can come to Drago." So there are these
7 differences. But still I see that the sense of the sentence is the same.
8 Two lines above that it says: "I'll see what I can do." But in the typed
9 text it says: "I'll see what I can." So there are also some things that
10 were missed -- well, some words were missed, but the sense of the -- the
11 gist of the sentence remains the same. So I don't really see that much
12 difference there.
13 Q. Okay. And when you say the word "do" was missed, you're referring
14 to the notebook or the typewritten version?
15 A. That word is missing in the typed text, but the word "do" exists
16 in the text that I wrote.
17 Q. Now, sir, you actually compared the two documents very carefully
18 when you were sitting in my office. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you note -- did you find that in making these comparisons that
21 the meaning was changed between the typewritten version and the notebook?
22 A. No. The meaning stayed the same. The sense of the sentence
23 remains the same. It's just that these words are missing which were not
24 so important for us, and they speeded up the work if we just left them
1 Q. Okay. And did you notice anything in particular about the manner
2 in which the person who typed the conversation wrote?
3 A. The way that it was typed or the way it was written, everybody had
4 their own way of doing it. It was quite rushed, so when he was typing it
5 out if something was unclear to him, he would call us, or if the meaning
6 of a sentence would not be clear to him, he would call us. So that was
7 the way. I don't know what you mean in particular, but I'm just going by
8 what I see here in the notebook in front of me.
9 Q. Okay. In respect of the words that we specifically dealt with,
10 sir, the first example that we dealt with the difference between Tasic and
11 Sladojevic which you later corrected in your notebook and the two words in
12 the bottom at the very end of the conversation, the expletives before,
13 "I'll see what I can do," can you account for these differences? Can you
14 suggest any possibilities?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, it calls for speculation. The gentleman
16 is now being asked to read the mind of the typist. And unless the
17 gentleman can establish that he had a conversation with the typist, he
18 recollects having this conversation, and now he can articulate the
19 reasons, then I think it's improper. He did give an explanation as to the
20 Tasic and Sladojevic in the first line. I think that was a reasonable
21 inference that can be derived. As for the last, I think it would be
22 improper. It would be asking him to speculate.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Issa, frankly speaking, we could not
24 understand your question.
25 MS. ISSA: Okay.
1 JUDGE LIU: Maybe you could rephrase it, taking into consideration
2 the objections from the Defence.
3 MS. ISSA: All right, Your Honour. I will do that.
4 Q. Sir, can you account for these differences based on your knowledge
5 of the procedures that you were working with?
6 A. Yes. At that point, that's what I heard and that's what I wrote
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I wrote down as I heard it, first names, last names, and other
10 things. However, when the text was being typed out and sent, then it was
11 important. So the person who was typing it out, if he noticed this
12 difference, he would call all of us or he would just call me who actually
13 worked on it, then we would listen to it again. Then he would ask for the
14 correct information that he should type in. That's what we would tell
15 him. This would be it. What was written before was not correct and so
17 Q. Okay. Sir, did the typist normally have the right to add a word
18 or add something that was not normally in the notebook?
19 A. He did not have that right. It was his duty to type. He didn't
20 listen to it really that much and he didn't have too much time to work on
21 the listening devices. He didn't have time for that. His duty was to
22 type out what we recorded. And he would do it the way we would tell him.
23 It wasn't his job to change anything without our approval.
24 Q. Okay. Are you normally present, sir, when the typist is typing up
25 the report?
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I would object to that, too, Your Honour.
2 Normally -- what is normal. Is it his report or other reports? I don't
3 mean to slow down the process, but this is a rather vague --
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have no problem, you know, with this
5 question. Normally is normally.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, if the Trial Bench has no problem, then I
7 have no problem, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you for your cooperation.
9 You may proceed, Ms. Issa.
10 MS. ISSA:
11 Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
12 A. Could you please repeat the question because this last
13 conversation is still in my mind.
14 Q. Okay. Are you normally present when the typist is typing up the
16 A. If the person who is typing it out had something that was not
17 clear to him, then he would call us. But he typed by himself only the
18 things that were clear for him, and there was no ambiguity. He would call
19 us if something was not clear. We were there. It was one big room and we
20 were all working there. Perhaps somebody if they were asleep or
21 something, were not in the room, but otherwise we would all be there, so
22 it was easy.
23 Q. Okay. Can you explain why the -- a word after re-listening to the
24 tape may be added in the typewritten version but not in the notebook?
25 A. It could be added if this was not clear to the person who was
1 typing. So then he would talk to us and then we would tell him orally to
2 do it. That's what would usually happen, or if we listened to something
3 again, then we would tell him, add this and this. So it would happen only
4 in these cases.
5 Q. Okay. But my question is: Is it only added in the typewritten
6 version and not added as well in the notebook?
7 A. Yes, this one word was. I've found it here. It's not in the
8 notebook and it's in the printed version.
9 Q. Okay. What I'm trying to get at, sir, and perhaps I'm just not
10 phrasing my question very well, is: That word that we were looking at or
11 the last two words, the expletive you told us about before, "I'll see what
12 I can do," is in the typewritten version. And you've just now explained
13 to us that if there was a question, you would re-listen to the tape --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I object to coaching the witness as to what he
15 should say. She can pose the question. Because so far there has been no
16 foundation that this gentleman recalls having gone over with the typist on
17 this particular intercept, having played and replayed the tape, and thus
18 you have those two words, the expletive and the typed version versus the
19 one in the handwritten version. Generically he's told us. Now we're
20 talking about one specific intercept. So unless a foundation can be laid,
21 Your Honour, I think it would be highly improper for the Prosecution to be
22 suggesting the answers and to be coaching the witness.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Issa, the witness answered this question. I
24 found it here. It is not in the notebook and it is in the printed
25 version. So the only question you could ask is one word: Why?
1 MS. ISSA: Well, I appreciate that, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You don't have to give so many explanations so
3 as to confuse everybody.
4 MS. ISSA: All right. I take Your Honour's point. You're quite
6 Q. Can you answer that question, sir, why --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Why, with a question mark --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a question mark, just why with a little
11 inflection at the end. No further editorialising or coaching, that's all
12 I'm saying the end.
13 JUDGE LIU: I understand you. I quite understand you.
14 MS. ISSA: But I am not editorialising nor am I coaching. We've
15 just had some discussion about this. I just want to go back and refresh
16 the witness's memory, which I'm entitled to do.
17 JUDGE LIU: You may repeat the witness's answer and then ask why.
18 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour. If that's how you want me to
19 do it, I'll do it that way.
20 Q. Sir, you told us that those words are in the typed version and not
21 in the notebook. Can you tell us why.
22 A. I can't tell you why, really. Because in the written version this
23 word was not important to me, because it doesn't change the sense of the
24 sentence. It's been added here. Perhaps if it was on the tape and the
25 person who was typing it said: Should I add that or not? And I probably
1 told him, yes, add it. He probably heard the word and asked me: Should I
2 add it? And I was able to tell him to do that. Whereas, when I was
3 writing it out in the notebook, this word wasn't so important to me -- it
4 didn't add or take too much away from the meaning, so I didn't put it in.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, just looking at a couple of other things in the
6 content of the conversation, sir, I see there's a reference to the word
7 "Krle," K-r-l-e, and we can see that at the second-to-last sentence in
8 the translated copy. Is that a nickname in your country, sir?
9 A. Yes, it's a nickname.
10 Q. And which name does it refer to?
11 A. Strictly speaking, this Krle here refers to General Krstic's
13 Q. Okay. Now, sir, you indicated earlier that it was important to
14 write down the words that you heard and send it to the command. Can you
15 tell us why.
16 A. The words that we heard but didn't manage to record, if they were
17 names, if they were places, we would write them down. So we didn't manage
18 to record them, but we would write them down. So what was recorded we
19 would transcribe later, but if we didn't manage to record everything, we
20 would write down those quickly -- those words very quickly while our minds
21 were still fresh, if this was important. If it was not important, then we
22 wouldn't do that.
23 Q. Okay. Well, was there anything that you may not necessarily write
24 down when you're transcribing a conversation?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. Vague. Vague, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.
2 Ms. Issa, we don't know what's your point.
3 MS. ISSA: Well, perhaps I deal with that, Your Honour, in the
4 next segment. It may become clearer rather than asking it at this point.
5 Q. Sir, I'm going to show you the same conversation that was
6 intercepted at another location at Okresanica.
7 MS. ISSA: And for the record, Your Honour, I'm going to refer to
8 Exhibit 245/F as being the translated copy and 245/G. And I would ask
9 that the 245/F be placed on the ELMO and 245/G be placed in front of the
11 Q. Now, sir, do you see that conversation in front of you there?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you have an opportunity to look at this conversation in my
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you first of all tell us how many speakers are captured in
17 this conversation?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, now she's asking the individual to
19 decipher another intercept. Now, in light of the objections that she and
20 her colleague raised with the previous witness, I think unless there's
21 some foundation laid I would have -- I would raise the same objections
22 that they were raising during my presentation.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Issa, first of all I think you have to point
24 out what's the relationship between the 245/A, /C, and this document.
25 MS. ISSA: Okay. I thought I did that, Your Honour. It's the
1 same conversation intercepted at Okresanica, the same conversation that
2 was intercepted by the witness at Konjuh. And that is the difference
3 between the category of the previous witness versus this witness. This
4 witness did actually intercept one of the conversations, so he would be in
5 a position to look at the same conversation intercepted elsewhere and --
6 JUDGE LIU: But first you have to ask this witness some questions
7 about this intercept. Whether they are the same intercepts.
8 MS. ISSA: All right.
9 JUDGE LIU: It seems to me that they are quite different, but I
10 need your guidance in this aspect.
11 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour, I'll do that.
12 Q. Sir, you indicated you had an opportunity to review this intercept
13 in my office. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And after having reviewed the intercept in my office, is it the
16 same conversation that you intercepted in Konjuh?
17 A. It is. If you look at the time, I have 10.00, he has 3 minutes to
18 10.00, so probably he switched on his device 3 minutes before I did.
19 Colonel Beara, he can't hear it -- you only have Colonel Beara speaking
20 here and his speech is transcribed; where, as on the document itself he
21 can see what it says. We can't hear General Krstic. You can only see
22 Colonel Beara speaking; whereas, Krstic can't be heard. Whereas, it's the
23 same conversation. If I look at what specifically Beara said and then
24 compare it, it's the same meaning, the same sentences, which would lead me
25 to conclude that it's the same conversation.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, sir, based on your experience both at
2 Okresanica and Konjuh, do you have an explanation as to why you were
3 better able to hear the conversation at Konjuh?
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, calls for speculation. Unless they can
5 identify at this particular time and place. Even though he was able to
6 work at both locations, now we're talking about a specific period. There
7 needs to be a foundation whether during that period the individual was
8 aware of both localities, the receiving aspects, and capabilities of both
9 localities on that particular day. I think that would be the first
10 foundational step that I would require.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
12 Ms. Issa, lead your witness step by step.
13 MS. ISSA: Okay, Your Honour. I didn't think that was going to be
14 an issue. As I understood my friend was going to refer to this particular
15 conversation, but I will do that.
16 Q. Sir, when you were at Okresanica, you indicated -- well, let me
17 start here. You indicated you left Okresanica in 1994. Is that correct,
18 in the spring?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And when you were at Okresanica, sir, can you explain to us what
21 you were doing there in relation to -- or just tell us very briefly what
22 you were doing there.
23 A. The same job as at Konjuh. We had similar equipment or even the
24 same equipment. It's just that Okresanica is not as high an elevation as
25 Konjuh and it was demonstrated that certain phone lines of Republika
1 Srpska could not be caught at Okresanica. There was a lot of interference
2 and it couldn't catch certain frequencies. So we were on the lookout for
3 a higher elevation to try to work with this higher elevation, and that's
4 how the squad at Konjuh was set up. It turned out that we were successful
5 and that the range of the conversations and frequencies received from
6 Konjuh was much wider.
7 Q. And given that explanation, sir, that you just gave us, with
8 respect to the difference in frequencies and the elevation, looking at the
9 conversation that you -- we just looked at where only Beara is caught --
10 is captured in the conversation, are you able to explain why it was better
11 heard at Konjuh versus Okresanica.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. If there's no foundation here, there's
13 no testimony that one place heard this better than the other. This is
14 testimony by the Prosecution. We should swear her in and then I can
15 cross-examine her as well. This is totally improper.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think the witness has answered
17 this question in a certain way. If you look at the transcript, you know,
18 the witness said clear the different positions of the two places. But on
19 the other hand, Ms. Issa, you really are giving the testimony. You should
20 ask a question.
21 MS. ISSA: Well, certainly, Your Honour, but I did think the
22 witness indicated that he was familiar with the equipment. He said it was
23 the same equipment. He said that it was a different elevation. He
24 indicated that they had a similar practice. I think with all of that that
25 is sufficient to lay the foundation. I could go on and ask more
1 questions, but we'll be here for quite some time if I have to, you know,
2 ask that many questions to lay the foundation.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, if there is no objections, I'll let you go, but
4 it seems there is quite an issue for the Defence. So I believe that you
5 need some patience.
6 MS. ISSA: Well, I do have patience, Your Honour, I have lots of
7 patience, perhaps more than Mr. Karnavas. I will ask a few more
8 questions. And hopefully that will be sufficient.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 MS. ISSA:
11 Q. Now, sir, you indicated earlier that you had similar equipment and
12 similar practice in Okresanica to Konjuh. Is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Okay. And when you were at Okresanica and then subsequently moved
15 to Konjuh, did you notice anything about the frequencies between the two
17 A. Well, we all noticed the difference. At Konjuh, the sound, the
18 received signal was much clearer. All signals -- all the frequencies. We
19 had all been ham radio operators for a long time, and we knew that the
20 altitude was very important for receiving this kind of signal, this kind
21 of frequency. The higher you are, the clearer the signal is. The lower
22 your position is, the less clear the signal. So this was the essential
23 difference between the two locations. That's why Konjuh was better than
24 Okresanica. And the direction the antenna was pointed, that was also
25 important. It has to be pointed in the direction of whoever you're
1 listening in to.
2 There's another difference in the clarity of signal which has to
3 do with the phones and the antenna of the people taking part in the
4 conversation. So those must also be facing each in order for you to see
5 which location is clearer. So whichever location is clearer is likely to
6 receive -- is nearer is likely to receive a much clearer signal. That's
7 another very important difference that affects the clarity of signal and
8 reception. It also depends on the antenna. Sometimes some -- certain
9 kinds of antenna work better at a higher altitude and some don't. This
10 depends on the make of your antenna. Then also there's the weather.
11 Sometimes it there's a storm, it's more difficult to hear and the weather
12 is much clearer in a different location where the reception is much
13 better. So this also determines the difference in the quality of signal
14 and reception in the various locations.
15 When I look at this document which is from Okresanica where one
16 participant is heard, this often happened that we heard the one and not
17 the other. This was nothing unusual. Sometimes there were two
18 participants and for one of the many reasons you couldn't hear the other
19 participant. This was quite often the case and it was nothing new to us.
20 MS. ISSA: I think that is the end of that, Your Honour. Now, I
21 know, Your Honour, we have about five minutes before the break and I'm
22 going to be asking a few more questions in relation to this particular
23 conversation. I don't know if Your Honour wishes to take the break now or
24 five more minutes. I'm in Your Honour's hands.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, we'll continue until you're finished.
1 MS. ISSA: Well, I don't believe I'll be finished my entire
2 examination before the break in five minutes. I'm just talking about this
3 particular area.
4 JUDGE LIU: So how long do you need to finish your entire
6 MS. ISSA: Perhaps around 20 minutes, maybe a little bit shorter,
7 Your Honour. I think I'm being liberal in my estimate depending on
8 whether there are objections or not, of course.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, then we'll have a break, a short break. Shall
10 we resume at quarter to 6.00?
11 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
13 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 5.46 p.m.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Issa. Please proceed.
16 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Now, sir, just --
18 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
19 MS. ISSA: Oh, sorry, Your Honour.
20 Q. Just looking lack at the conversation, the one we were just
21 dealing with from Okresanica versus the one you took, there's -- I -- we
22 can see there that there's an introduction, an introduction of the
23 parties, and a portion of the conversation at the beginning which you
24 don't have in your notebook. Do you have an explanation for why you don't
25 have that in your notebook?
1 A. I can't remember the specific reason. I can only give you my
3 Q. Okay. Well, based on your experience, sir, can you give us a
4 possible explanation.
5 A. Yes. It's quite possible, because I see that his time is three
6 minutes earlier. So he started listening to the conversation before my
7 scanner caught the frequency. That's one of the possibilities. So he
8 recorded something that I didn't. The second possibility is we both
9 recorded the same thing, except I failed to write down the beginning of
10 the conversation. Can I speak to him? Thank you. Hello. Hello.
11 That's another possibility. I told you before, we used a lot of
12 abbreviations, and it was too many things at a time for me to take down,
13 but they perhaps did. So that's another possibility for you.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. And just dealing with one more matter in
15 relation to this conversation, sir, if you look at the conversation, there
16 are references such as "who, what," in the conversation. And by way of an
17 example for Your Honours' reference, it's about five or six lines from the
18 bottom of the translation which is at 245/F. We see a "what, who." That
19 is indicated that Colonel Beara spoke. Do you see that there? I would be
20 referring to P245/G in the B/C/S version.
21 Do you see that there, sir, in the notes?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Okay. Did you include references to who or what or words of that
24 nature in your notebook?
25 A. I tried to avoid this as often as I could, because this told me
1 nothing and it just took up space in the notebook. It took up tape on the
2 tape, if you like, and it took up a lot of time. So there were often
3 things that I didn't write down. If I had enough time, sometimes I would.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. And just referring, then, to Prosecution
5 Exhibit 245/J. I don't know if Madam Usher has that, 245/J. J, yes. If
6 we can just put that on the ELMO very briefly, please. If we can actually
7 put down the second page as well. Okay. Why don't we -- actually, if I
8 can ask Madam Usher to remove the first page very briefly, please -- sorry
9 to remove the top page very briefly and return the first page on to the
11 Now, just to save time, sir, you had an opportunity to review this
12 document in my office and compare it to the notes of the Okresanica
13 notebook. Is that correct? It's the one that's sitting on the ELMO, sir.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And you looked at the second page and the heading of the
16 document. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I don't know if that was audible
17 what you said. Could you repeat what you just said, sir.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And the -- can you just briefly tell us the location of
20 this conversation from the document.
21 A. This was taken down at Okresanica.
22 Q. And it's dated July 15, 1995. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes. The 15th of July, 1995.
24 Q. And specifically, sir, you had an opportunity to review the
25 conversation on the second page of that document. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you compared it to the notes or the -- the notes of this
3 conversation. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And was it the same conversation?
6 A. It was the same conversation.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MS. ISSA: And that's how we know it came from Okresanica, Your
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, see there's testimony there. Now, this is
11 improper. And if we were in an Anglo-Saxon court, she could be sanctioned
12 for that. I understand we're not there, but she comes from that tradition
13 and perhaps that's the way they practice where she comes from. But this
14 is highly improper to be suggesting and testifying.
15 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I wasn't testifying nor was I suggesting.
16 I was simply indicating something for the record. There is no jury here.
17 I think Your Honours are perfectly capable of making decisions based on
18 the evidence that you hear --
19 JUDGE LIU: So that's why I believe that your remarks are not
21 MS. ISSA: Well, I -- Your Honours, I was simply trying -- I
22 wasn't trying to make a remark in any way to offend the Court. I was
23 simply trying to clarify something.
24 JUDGE LIU: No, no. We could arrive at the same conclusions from
25 the testimony of this witness by ourselves.
1 MS. ISSA: A point well taken, Your Honour. But I don't really
2 want to comment about Mr. Karnavas's behaviour in the courtroom. Perhaps
3 we can just move on to the next conversation.
4 Q. Now, sir, very briefly I'd like to show you a copy of another
5 conversation that is marked --
6 MS. ISSA: Sorry, Your Honours.
7 Q. Just very briefly, I'm referring to 245/K, the English
8 translation, and 245/L, which is a notebook. And this is yet another
9 location. Now, sir, can you -- you've had an opportunity to look at this
10 conversation or this intercept in my office. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And after having reviewed it and compared with the conversation
13 that you took down at Konjuh, is it substantially the same as the one you
14 took down?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. Thank you. I won't be asking any specific questions
17 in relation to this conversation.
18 Moving then on to the last conversation I'd like to refer to.
19 MS. ISSA: And I'll be referring Your Honours to the second binder
20 under the August 2nd date, to Exhibit P304. And I also would like to
21 refer to notebook which is at Exhibit Number 341.
22 Q. Now, sir, can you take a look at that notebook, please, that's in
23 front of you and turn to page 00804430 to 431. Is this your
24 handwriting -- do you recognise the handwriting, sir?
25 A. Yes, this is my handwriting.
1 Q. Did you intercept this conversation?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell us what the frequency number is in relation to this
5 A. 245.950.
6 Q. In this conversation, sir, it appears that the participants you
7 have noted down as Krstic and Obrenovic. Can you tell us how you found
8 out that those are the participants or how did you determine that those
9 are the participants.
10 A. They introduced themselves, and you can see from the text that
11 they introduced themselves and called each other by name. And then also
12 it was not difficult to recognise Krstic's voice. We didn't have any
13 problem with doing that at that time.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. Turning then to Prosecution Exhibit 304/D. And
15 the translation that accompanies it which is 304/C. If we can just
16 briefly place the translation on the ELMO and the document, the original,
17 304/D, before the witness, please.
18 Can you identify this document, sir.
19 A. This typed document contains the same conversation as the one that
20 I took down here. It's the same conversation.
21 Q. Okay. And can you just indicate the date for the record, please,
22 and the location.
23 A. Yes. I noted down the time and the day. I didn't note the date
24 here in my book.
25 Q. Okay. But the date and the -- is there a date in the typewritten
2 A. Yes. There is a date in the typewritten version, and it's the 2nd
3 of August, 1995, Konjuh.
4 Q. Now, sir, can you indicate what does the date signify?
5 A. This date was entered by our encryption officer while he was
6 typing it, so that means he typed it that day, encrypted it, and sent it
7 on to our centre. So based on that, I would conclude that that's the day
8 the conversation took place.
9 Q. Okay. Do you draw the same conclusions or different conclusions
10 with respect to the previous conversation we were dealing with?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. Can you just explain that briefly.
13 A. I can. The conversation which is transcribed at a certain time
14 and a certain date into the book, if it's important and if important
15 information appear which we considered to be important, when we finish we
16 type it out, encrypt it, and send it out. There would be a date put in
17 that report, and that's how we would know. I didn't put it down in my
18 book, because I had the habit of thinking that perhaps somebody had
19 already put in the date for that day before me. So I didn't always have
20 to do it, but I think that it was a Wednesday on that day. I can tell.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. Just a few final questions by way of
22 clarification. Can you explain your practice when intercepting
23 conversations about using the pause button. You mentioned using the pause
24 button before. Can you explain that to us, please.
25 A. Yes, I can. Since the tape recorders and the equipment were
1 turned on all the time, the pause button on the tape recorder was always
2 active, so it was always on pause. Nothing was recorded until the
3 conversation was found by the scanner, then we would depress the pause
4 button and the tape recorder would begin to record until the end of the
5 conversation. Later we would activate the pause button again. We would
6 rewind the tape up to a certain counter number on the tape recorder, this
7 is how we would tell how far to rewind. Then we would transcribe the
8 recorded conversation, send it on. It would be typed and so on.
9 Q. Okay. And why would you use the pause button in this manner, sir?
10 A. First of all, we were able to activate the recording device much
11 slower. It would take much longer for us to press two or three buttons,
12 then it would take a little bit to get the equipment fully working. So in
13 those few moments, we would perhaps miss on some important information.
14 So it was in order to speed things up. Sometimes there would be another
15 conversation appearing at the same time. We would just depress the pause
16 button and then we would move to this other conversation to begin to
17 record that conversation. So that was the reason we did it like that.
18 Q. Okay thank you.
19 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You are exactly within the time limit you
22 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination? Mr. Karnavas?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
1 Q. Good evening, sir.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. I just have a few questions for clarification. Perhaps we can get
4 out of here quickly. As I understand it, part of your function was to
5 listen, lock in to a particular conversation, and then faithfully record
6 it, and then transcribe it thereafter. That was part of the process that
7 you specifically were involved in. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. And you as the operator, because of that pause button, would be
10 able to discriminate between what was nonessential conversation and what
11 was relevant conversation. And so you would use the pause button to
12 occasionally not record, listen in but not record uninteresting
13 conversations and then take the pause button off and only record what was
14 relevant, in your opinion. Is that correct?
15 A. We would do that sometimes.
16 Q. All right. And I take it that once you locked into a conversation
17 that you deemed important, you would listen to it and make sure that it
18 was tape recorded properly before you would then go off to transcribe --
19 write it out into the notebook. Is that correct?
20 A. I don't understand. The tape recorder records the way it does. I
21 don't understand what you mean, recorded properly or not. I don't know
22 what you mean by that. It records when you press and then it begins to
23 record, and then it finishes when you stop recording.
24 Q. All right. After you stop recording, was it not part of your
25 function to then rewind and then write out into the notebook what you had
2 A. If the conversation was not important but it was recorded, we
3 didn't even put it down in the book. But if in our opinion we felt it was
4 important for us because of some data, then we would play back the tape.
5 We would listen to it and note it down in the notebook, according to the
6 procedure that I described before.
7 Q. Now, would you do that immediately or would you search for another
8 conversation and then perhaps after the tape was at a certain limit, would
9 you then go back and try to transcribe the various conversations that you
10 had recorded?
11 A. It all depended on our priorities, on the priority of the
12 telegram. If it was important for us, we would transcribe it right away,
13 because we wanted to send it on to our centre immediately. But if it
14 wasn't so important in our opinion, we could also pass it along throughout
15 the day, perhaps a couple of hours later or so.
16 Q. And I take it some -- as I understand your testimony, somebody
17 else would have to do the typing and the encrypting before it went -- it
18 was sent off. You were not the one doing that if you were the one
19 operating the recording system?
20 A. There was an encryption officer who would encrypt it and send it
21 out. Sometimes we would type also if he didn't have time or if he went
22 somewhere or if something wasn't clear to him while he was typing, he
23 would call us to help him, how he should put something down, what he
24 should put down, if he couldn't read something or if he found a mistake or
25 something, then we would tell him what it should be.
1 Q. Now, was he located in the same room or was he in a separate room
2 where you were located?
3 A. He was in the same room. He had his own work station.
4 Q. And was it necessary for you to hand over your notebook for him to
5 type out what you had written out based on what you had heard from the
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't understand whether it was
8 a yes or no.
9 MR. KARNAVAS:
10 Q. You may need to repeat your answer to that because they didn't get
11 your answer to that, the interpreters.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I take it, as you've indicated, there were
14 times when he would not be able to -- he would need your assistance in
15 order to type out what was in the notebook.
16 A. Yes. We wrote fast generally, so our handwriting was perhaps in
17 places not so nice. So he often needed our help.
18 Q. So in general, if I could use that term, when he would need your
19 help is because he's trying to read someone's handwriting and not trying
20 to interpret what was on the recording device?
21 A. What wasn't clear to him, he would ask us. He asked us about
22 everything that was unclear to him while he was typing, what was legible,
23 what was clear to him. If he didn't find any mistakes or discrepancies,
24 he would be the one to type it out and send it out by himself.
25 Q. Now, am I to understand, and help me out here, that on occasions
1 he would also ask you to play back the tape for him to listen, or was
2 it -- were his questions merely directed to what was written down on the
4 A. He would tell us to listen to it again. He didn't really
5 interfere much in that. He would be typing out something and then he
6 would say, I didn't quite understand what you wrote here. Perhaps you
7 could help me. So if he didn't understand something, then he would ask
8 us, sometimes several of us, to help him.
9 Q. And was it the practice to go back and re-listen to the tape, even
10 after you had listened to it and had determined what was on the tape and
11 had written it out for him to type?
12 A. Yes. If we ourselves later found that something was not quite
13 right and if he found something, we would rewind the tape and transcribe
14 it again. Because sometimes there would be some kind of distortion.
15 There would be thunder, so some word wouldn't be quite clear. What was
16 important -- then sometimes we would play that back again and take it down
18 Q. And I take it when this would be happening, you would have your
19 notebook in front of you so you could follow along what you or your
20 colleagues had written out as the tape was being replayed at the request
21 of the person who had some questions encrypting it or typing it out?
22 A. No. The book was in front of him. He was the one who was typing
23 it out, and if something was not clear to him, he would call us, he would
24 ask us about it and say, well, could you rewind it and listen to it again,
25 and so on. So while he was typing it he would find some things that were
1 not quite right, and then he would ask us. Because I was not able to take
2 the book again and look at it, because it would just take too long.
3 Q. So you had to go back to your machine --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. So you had to go back to your machine and try to re-listen to the
7 conversation, as opposed to bringing it over to where the typist was?
8 A. I will repeat what I said. When the operator, the encryption
9 operator started to type the text out, he would type until he came up to
10 something that was unclear. If something like that happened, then he
11 would inform me or the person who took down this telegram to listen to it
12 again. This is unclear, there is a discrepancy here between the
13 information or in the names. Could you please check the information.
14 Then I would sit at the machine, replay the tape, and listen, sometimes
15 with the help of others. And then if I found the mistake, I would tell
16 him, I would say, that's it. And that's the way we did it.
17 Q. Okay. I understand the process --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. KARNAVAS:
20 Q. I understand the process. Now my next question is: What was the
21 distance between you and the typist? In other words, did you have to take
22 a few steps to get back to the device so you can re-listen to the tape or
23 was it right next to the typist? That's all I'm asking.
24 A. Yes. As far as I can recall now the way the devices were placed,
25 he was sitting at the side so the first device was next to him, and then
1 the next one and the third one and then the fourth one. This is how I
2 recall it. It depends which device received the information. If it was
3 the device right next to him, I would just pass it on to him. If it was
4 at some other device, I would -- I had already handed him over the
5 notebook, so there was no need for me to go up to him. I would just play
6 back the tape and then tell him. That was the procedure.
7 Q. Well, thank you. Now, we don't have the tapes here; they're no
8 longer available, as I understand it. So we don't have the raw material
9 for us to listen back. Is that your understanding as well?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. So -- and this may be sort of one of those chicken or the
12 egg questions, which came first. But it would seem to me that the
13 handwritten version comes before the typed version. Is that correct?
14 A. The version that is written down in the notebook is the first
15 version. Based on which we know that there is also a telegram that needs
16 to be sent out. So we used the notebook so that the person who is sending
17 it out could say, "I have this telegram and I have this telegram," so that
18 he has a record of things that need to be sent out. If it's an important
19 conversation, if it's not an important conversation -- well, we would tell
20 him, there is something that needs to be sent out. As far as the typing
21 and precision is concerned, it was important because we needed to send
22 information that was as correct as possible on to the centre.
23 Q. Did you as -- when you were working there, did you go back to
24 check to ensure that whatever was typed out was accurate in comparison to
25 what was written out? In other words, that they matched word for word,
1 comma for comma, period for period, what had been taken down by hand and
2 what was then typed out by somebody who had not even heard the
3 tape-recorded conversation?
4 A. That person who did the encryption, he was part of the team. He
5 was a member of the team, just as I was. So everything that he wanted to,
6 he could resolve that with us. If he wanted me to go over everything for
7 him, whether it was correct or not, and if I found that perhaps the words
8 were missing, okay, very well, and so on, it's something that I didn't
9 really pay much attention to. What was important to me was the general
10 meaning of the sentence, of the order. That was the most important thing
11 to me. All the other things that were not so important to me were just
12 greetings and different expressions, saying hello to the child or the
13 wife. All these things were something that we didn't really pay that much
14 attention to.
15 Q. I understand. Now, we looked at what was marked as P245, that one
16 document that we looked at that apparently is in your handwriting. And
17 then you were shown a transcription -- the one that was typed out later on
18 by someone else. Do you recall that document? If we may provide you with
19 it, P245/A -- well, it would be /B would be the handwritten version and
20 then /D would be the typewritten version. And then /A and /C are the
21 respective translations.
22 So if you could look at /B and /D.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, as I understand it, /B is your handwriting. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And we've already established that on the very last line of this
2 conversation, an expletive, a couple of words, were added to the typed
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when I look at your version, there seems to be no dilemma as
6 to the sentence itself: "I'll see what I can do." It's pretty clear. No
7 need for interpretation. Would you agree with me on that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And as you sit here today and before coming here today, you did
10 not have access to the tape so we could go back and replay it and see
11 whether the expletive was on the tape or was then added by the typist.
12 A. Could you please repeat the question again.
13 Q. Okay. All right. We don't have the tape here, and before coming
14 here today you did not listen to the tape to see whether the language that
15 was included by the typist was in fact on the tape itself.
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to this particular document, I'd
18 like you to -- the Prosecutor showed a variety of differences between the
19 handwritten version and the typed version, but I want to point out one
20 particular one. If you can locate where it says "Krle," that line,
21 it's -- I believe it's, you know -- towards the top of the page it says:
22 "Krle, you have to understand. I can't explain it to you."
23 Can you find that line? Have you found it?
24 A. Yes, I found the sentence that goes like that, but it's not the
25 same. Yes, I found both the written -- the handwritten and the
1 typewritten version.
2 Q. And in the typewritten version it has a couple of words extra. It
3 says: "I can't explain it to you like this." Correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Now, my real interest is for you to go down a couple
6 of lines to where it says in the handwritten version, please. And I'm
7 referring to 245/B, where the gentleman would be looking. And for us it
8 would be 245/A. The line where it says: "I need 15 to 30 men with Boban
9 Indjic. I can't do anything."
10 Do you see that line?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Okay. Now, if you could be so kind as to --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Karnavas, please.
14 MR. KARNAVAS:
15 Q. If you could be so kind as to look as the typewritten version that
16 corresponds to that line. Again, it should be two lines down or slightly
17 one sentence after the Krle --
18 A. Yes. Yes, I found it.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, if I can read it to you -- if I can read
20 it back to you it would appear from the translation that we have that the
21 typewritten version says: "I can't do anything without 15 to 30 men with
22 Boban Indjic."
23 A. "I can't do anything without 15 to 30 men with Boban Indjic."
24 Yes, indeed.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, it would appear here, sir, would it not,
1 that at least this sentence - and I'm going to use a -- I will say a
2 radical difference, if I could characterise that, between what you wrote
3 down and what is written down. If we just look at it word for word. And
4 maybe radical is too strong. Bold may be a better one, liberal. What do
5 you think?
6 A. Well, I think the meaning of this sentence and the meaning of the
7 other sentence is exactly the same with the exception that here in the
8 handwritten text added at the end you have "There's nothing I can do." At
9 the end. And in the other text it's at the beginning. But I can't see an
10 essential difference as far as the meanings of these two respective
11 sentences are concerned.
12 Q. Okay. Well, perhaps you cannot, but then again I did not hear
13 where you were actually an analyst as well as --
14 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm going to object to that. Mr. Karnavas
15 asked the witness a particular question and when he didn't like the answer
16 he's now decided to argue with the witness and that's totally improper.
17 JUDGE LIU: No, I didn't see that Mr. Karnavas is arguing with the
18 witness. We just want to know, you know, what Mr. Karnavas's
19 interpretation is for those bold differences.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me rephrase my question.
21 Q. Sir, are you suggesting that the typewritten version is actually
22 what was on the tape and not the handwritten version that you had put
23 down. If you know. If you don't know, that's okay.
24 A. I know that. I've explained earlier that this is a handwritten
25 text and the other is a typewritten text. And we gave the lad a hand to
1 get it right to type correctly. It's the same meaning. So he probably
2 wrote down what he told him to write, to type. There's really nothing
3 that I can do about this. If I look at this particular case, I don't see
4 any difference there. Perhaps what you want me to say is that these are
5 two different sentences or two different meanings or that the order of the
6 words is not the same. All I can confirm is that the order of the words
7 is not the same. But as for the other two, I don't agree because
8 everything else is identical.
9 Q. All right. And my follow-up --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. My follow-up question to you is: You were not an analyst. You
13 were not trained as an analyst at the time? In other words, to analyse
14 these messages that you were writing down. You were merely to record
15 messages that you deemed important and then faithfully pass them on,
16 right, as they were heard and as they were written out?
17 A. We did analyse internally among us. We had to. On our kind of
18 job we had to consult one another. We had to analyse, do some analysis,
19 at least, but the main analysis was carried out by the centre based on our
21 Q. Do you recall being at your -- working on this particular day,
22 taking this particular message, and writing down this particular message?
23 Do you recall that day?
24 A. I don't recall the specific day. I don't even remember what the
25 weather was like or who was in the room at the moment. I really can't
1 remember. I do know, however, that I recorded this and that I was the one
2 who copied this into the notebook. That's all I know.
3 Q. And you know that because you recognise your own handwriting?
4 A. Yes. I know, because at that time I was at Konjuh. I was at the
5 location, but I can't say for sure what the day was or the date.
6 Q. Well, I guess what I'm trying to get at, other than -- the only
7 way you know, the only reason you know that this is -- that you wrote this
8 down, that you listened to this conversation and you wrote it down is
9 because you can recognise your own handwriting in that particular
10 notebook. Correct?
11 A. That's not the only reason. The reason is I know I was there at
12 that time. I spent this period of time right there. I wrote this down.
13 I recognise my handwriting. Even if this document bore a different date,
14 I would perhaps say, "Well, it's not 100 per cent certain I wrote down
15 this date." But this way I really can say.
16 Q. And I stand corrected. That is the other reason. But my question
17 to you is: As you sit here today, can you tell us whether you did, in
18 fact, have a conversation with the typist who was having a dilemma in
19 trying to figure out what you had written out in this particular
21 A. I can't remember. It was the usual procedure.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, just very briefly, if we
23 could -- if I could take you to those other documents that were shown to
24 you and that you had an opportunity to look at prior to coming here today,
25 and I'm going to refer to again the same documents that you have, which
1 would be /B, 245/B, and the other handwritten transcript, the other
2 handwritten intercept that was from Okresanica, and that would be P245/G.
3 And the respective English versions would be /A and /F.
4 Now, as you've told us before coming here today, you had an
5 opportunity to sit down with the Prosecutor, I assume yesterday or today,
6 to look over these two handwritten intercepts.
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And the Prosecutor asked you specifically to see whether you could
9 compare and contrast to see, one, whether they were basically the same
10 conversation, and two, whether there were any differences. Correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And it would appear that with the exception of the first part,
13 that is, the initial part of the conversation that is not included in your
14 handwritten version for which you have given us an explanation, it would
15 appear that your handwritten version contains more information or
16 different information than the one contained in the other handwritten
17 intercept that was taken down by your colleagues in Okresanica?
18 A. I wouldn't agree that one contains more information than the
19 other. What I would say is that here I heard both participants, whereas
20 on the other one I can't see the second participant being received. Now,
21 as to more or less information, that's really not something that I have
23 Q. Well, you were asked to look at them and to see whether they area
24 verbatim, for instance. Whether one matches word for word with the other.
1 A. Word for word, no, not word for word.
2 Q. They didn't ask you to actually critically look at these two
3 intercepts to see whether there were portions that were missed, either by
4 you or by the other party that were listening in to the same conversation
5 from two different locations?
6 A. Yes. I may have misunderstood your question. I apologise for
7 that. I thought you were asking me whether it was my opinion that my
8 telegram and his were identical word for word. That's why I said what I
9 said. I did, however, process both these telegrams word for word to check
10 out the discrepancies and the rest.
11 Q. Okay. Well, I have as well. And correct me if I'm wrong, there
12 are certain passages that are included in your handwritten version that
13 are not included in the other handwritten version. Would you agree with
14 me on that or would you prefer that we go step by step?
15 A. I would agree with you, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it from your explanation that one
17 reason may be because from your location you were able on that particular
18 day to receive that message -- to tap into that conversation better than
19 your colleagues in Okresanica. Is that correct?
20 A. I don't quite understand what you mean by better. Do you mean
21 more accurately? What do you mean by better? A clearer signal or what?
22 Q. A clearer signal.
23 A. At Konjuh, the signal, as a rule, was clearer. You must bear in
24 mind the altitude, the difference, that was certainly the case.
25 Q. And so -- now, I take it even where you were located, there were
1 times when you would pick up a signal, you would begin hearing a
2 conversation, but there were parts that you could not hear or were
3 indiscernible, you couldn't make out exactly what was being said.
5 A. Correct. There were many reasons for that.
6 Q. And I take it, part of the procedure was, at least the way I
7 understand it and the way it has been explained by your colleagues who
8 have come here to testify, that on those occasions the practice would be
9 for the person who is writing out what had been tape recorded to put dots
10 in areas where they were unable to hear what was being said or unable to
11 understand what was being said.
12 A. Normally there was a word that you couldn't make out, he would put
13 dots there. So there was a part of the sentence that was missing. We
14 used a question mark whenever we weren't quite certain what it was. You
15 would put something in the brackets if there was a piece of information
16 that was ambiguous. This was not a strict rule, but each of us had our
17 own systems and if something was unclear we would just go back to that
18 person for clarification.
19 Q. What if there was a pause, for instance, a fairly lengthy pause,
20 because it would appear if you were able to hear certain portions and they
21 were not able to hear, perhaps there was just a pause, they didn't hear
22 anything, what would you do on those occasions? How would you mark that
24 A. This depends on the situation. I can tell you the following: If
25 we were busy with another piece of equipment and there was a conversation
1 that was underway on the previous piece of equipment, whatever the pause
2 was, the break in the recording, we had to be busy elsewhere and we
3 couldn't operate the first machine. Sometimes it was difficult to go back
4 to the first machine and press the pause button. It was only when we were
5 standing by a particular piece of equipment that we could react quickly
6 enough to press the pause button and react in a timely manner, depending
7 on the situation, but this was not, strictly speaking, a rule that we
9 Q. I wasn't clear on my question, so I'm going to ask it slightly
10 differently. What if in the conversation you were hearing, in the
11 conversation you were hearing for a second or two seconds you didn't hear
12 anything? In other words, there would be a pause in the conversation, not
13 that you would press the pause button. On those occasions, would you mark
14 down on your notebook, would you make some kind of mark, three dots,
15 something, that would reflect that there was a period of time where there
16 was silence?
17 A. Personally, I didn't use anything, but I can't talk about what the
18 others did. Personally, I didn't.
19 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 Mr. Stojanovic.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that I
24 can finish my cross-examination before the end of this session. Just for
25 the first couple of questions, may we go into private session, because
1 they concern the witness's personal data.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, it is our intention to send this witness back,
3 because this is the weekend.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand that, Your Honour.
5 That's exactly as I intended to do. And I believe I can finish before the
6 end of today's session.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to private session, please.
8 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in open session. You may proceed.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
1 Q. I'll proceed now, Witness. All the witnesses we had this week,
2 most of them were actually ham radio operators. Am I right in claiming
3 that experienced and qualified people were the ones usually doing this
5 A. At the outset, yes. But later on, you had all kinds of jobs being
6 done and some people were trying to join, some people were reluctant to
7 join, sometimes some people were free to join and wanted to join. Not all
8 of them were ham radio operators. At the very outset, though, as a rule,
9 the people were amateur radio operators.
10 Q. Will you then agree with me that in order to do this job, you
11 needed experience in ham radio operating and you needed to have good ears,
12 a good pair of ears on you?
13 A. I put this differently. Not all the people who were there were
14 radio amateurs, ham radio operators. It would usually take a day or two
15 for them to familiarise themselves with the equipment. The equipment was
16 comparatively simple to use. All you needed was a good pair of ears and
17 then everything else was easy. You needed to be able to hear distinctly.
18 Everything else was simple as far as the equipment was concerned. Anyone
19 could get the grip of it in a day or two. The ham radio operators had to
20 set up the whole thing at the very beginning. They had to be familiar
21 with the frequencies and everything. They had to know exactly where the
22 signals of the Army of Republika Srpska could be captured. So they
23 facilitated the whole process, but only at the very beginning.
24 Q. Thank you very much. Can you help me with this, please. Can you
25 explain, if you know, what the term operativno maskiranje means in the
1 context of anti-electronic warfare?
2 A. I really can't say. I'm sorry. I can't say that.
3 Q. Were you trained in this line of work during anti-electronic
4 warfare? Did they tell you that often misinformation is deliberately
5 spread to deceive the enemy, false trails being laid out concerning
6 places, events, directions of attack, people using false names?
7 A. In our line of work, this was not very important. Our work was to
8 listen and to convey. That was all.
9 Q. That's precisely what I wanted to ask you. The way I understand
10 your statement, your primary task was to take down those intercepted
11 conversations as accurately as possible, transcribe them, and send them on
12 to your superior command. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, by all means.
14 Q. So you never verified information concerning the speakers. Your
15 task was only to transcribe the information as accurately as possible?
16 A. Yes, but on the other hand there was always something important
17 being discussed, you would be there for seven or ten days in a row. If
18 there was something we didn't understand, we needed to discuss things and
19 we often did, what could this be or what could that be. That was an
20 internal matter.
21 Q. Whose task was it then to verify the authenticity of information
22 contained in the intercepts?
23 A. That was down to the centre, that they would do that once they
24 processed the information. They had different methods of verifying
25 information, but we were not familiar with that. That's in as for as
1 there were any verifications at all. We just didn't know.
2 Q. To all practical intents and purposes, this means that the
3 verification of authenticity of these intercepts of false information
4 provided by speakers would be faithfully transcribed and forwarded for
5 further processing to your superior command?
6 A. We did as we saw fit. We were people on the ground and they were
7 back there sitting in their offices. It did very much depend on us. We
8 were the ones who determined the meaning of the sentences. We were the
9 ones trying to make sense of it and to convey the meaning as faithfully as
10 possible. Because if we got something wrong, then inaccurate information
11 was being passed on. The main thing was to get the gist, the general
12 meaning of a given conversation.
13 Q. May I just clarify this. If you heard, for example, that a man
14 named General Vilotic was a speaker, you will try to transcribe this as
15 faithfully as possible, to take it down into the notebook, copy it, and
16 transcribe this. Without going further into probing whether such a person
17 really existed, this General Vilotic, you would not analyse this
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Thank you very much. I will just ask you to make a short pause
21 after my question for the benefit of the interpreters, since we speak the
22 same language.
23 A. Very well.
24 Q. I had to be told, too, don't worry. Thank you.
25 During your cross-examination today, you said that at Konjuh you
1 had no where, no particular place, to spend your spare time and you were
2 spending all your time in the room where you worked.
3 A. No, not all the time. I apologise for this inconsistency. You
4 can't spend all your time in one room. We were only inside if it was too
5 cold to be outside. If we couldn't go out to get some fresh air because
6 it was too cold, the temperature was too low. But since the wind was
7 strong up there, it was a strong, biting wind, the weather was different
8 up there. On account of this, we spent most of our time in the same room
9 where we worked. Some people would watch TV and some people would just
10 toy around with the equipment, even if they weren't on duty. It's an
11 interesting life you might say.
12 Q. Does this also mean that while you were socialising, you sometimes
13 tried to join forces and make some sense out of certain conversations that
14 you had recorded, take it up collectively, in a manner of speaking, raise
15 an issue and try to get to the bottom of it?
16 A. We did not try to decipher anything. There were other people who
17 were in charge of that. We were in charge of tapping, listening. We were
18 eavesdropping. What we talked about among ourselves was, for example,
19 about Krle, what he said about his wife as he spoke on the frequency and
20 could he be now, what could his location be. We would try to guess these
21 things; that's how it was in those days, because people spoke very often
22 on those frequencies. Very often the conversations were of a private
23 nature and we only recorded what we deemed relevant.
24 Q. Just let me try to get this right again, when I said "decipher," I
25 did not mean in the technical sense of the word. Did you sort of talk to
1 each other and try to help each other out to hear more clearly what had
2 been recorded in the process of transcribing an intercept?
3 A. That was when we typed it. That's when we did it. When the
4 conversation was actually being received, there was just one person taking
5 it down in order to register the fact that it was received and recorded.
6 That's what it was like.
7 Q. What about this? Could it happen, for example, that the person
8 typing it up or transcribing a conversation added words, words which may
9 have been synonyms and yet changed the meaning of the sentence all
11 A. Well, what can I say? This person was also a ham radio operator
12 and he knew about encryption and coding. It was up to that person what he
13 did, but I'm sure they all did their best.
14 Q. Generally speaking, this may have been the case, but you couldn't
15 know that, could you?
16 A. Of course.
17 Q. This may have been the case?
18 A. Yes, I believe that would have been perfectly possible.
19 Q. Thank you very much. Just several questions left. You said that
20 you had at one point begun to recognise some of the voices appearing on
21 the frequencies. You referred to General Krstic, to Jevdjevic, to
22 Pandurevic. What I want to know is the following: Were you ever in a
23 situation where you recognised the voice of an officer named Jokic?
24 A. Believe me, I don't remember. I don't remember his voice. Now I
25 can't recall his voice; back then, maybe, but I really can't say.
1 Q. Thank you very much. Just one question. In view of the newly
2 arisen differences or discrepancies between the interceptions made at
3 Okresanica and Konjuh respectively, in relation to the same conversation,
4 was it ever the case that you were trying to improve the quality of your
5 work, Okresanica and Konjuh, and that you would meet to listen to
6 intercepts together?
7 A. Not for as long as I was there, this never happened.
8 Q. What about platoon commanders, sometimes they would try to improve
9 the quality and they would meet up perhaps to see if there was any errors
10 being committed?
11 A. I really don't know about that.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
13 this witness, Your Honour. I would like to use this opportunity to thank
14 the witness, too.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
16 Any redirect?
17 MS. ISSA: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, are there any documents to tender at this
19 stage? Ms. Issa?
20 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this stage, we're tendering P352, which
21 is the pseudonym sheet. And I just again echo what I indicated earlier,
22 we will be tendering the intercepts and notebooks after the last witness
23 testifies, which I believe will be Monday.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
25 I guess there's no objections from the Defence?
1 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections, Your Honour, and I have nothing to
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
4 Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any objections?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, no objections.
6 It was for these very reasons that we wanted to verify that particular
7 piece of information, because the way we speak, we always throw the letter
8 J in, but I think that's settled now.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 This document is admitted into the evidence.
11 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
12 your evidence, and all of us will wish you a pleasant journey back home
13 tomorrow. And when we withdraw, the usher will show out of the room.
14 Yes, the hearing is adjourned until Monday morning.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
17 the 10th day of November, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.