1 Wednesday, 27 April 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar, could you call the case,
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number
8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam, and good afternoon to you.
10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in a language that you
11 can understand?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, ladies
13 and gentlemen. Yes, I can.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, and good afternoon to you too. You may
15 sit down.
16 Appearances for the Prosecution.
17 MR. WUBBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,
18 lead counsel for the Prosecution. Also good afternoon to the Defence.
19 I'm here with co-counsel, Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio, and our case manager,
20 Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good afternoon to you
22 and your team.
23 Appearances for Naser Oric.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. My
25 name is Vasvija Vidovic. Together with Mr. John Jones, I represent
1 Mr. Naser Oric before this Tribunal. We have with us our legal assistant,
2 Ms. Adisa Mehic, and our case manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts. Good afternoon
3 to my colleagues from the OTP.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic. And good afternoon to
5 you and your team.
6 Let's deal with some preliminaries. Preliminary number one, the
7 sitting scheduled for Thursday, May 12th, which was scheduled for the
8 afternoon will now be in the morning. So please make note of it. All
10 The other thing is this: You were supposed to tell me yesterday,
11 come back -- report, Mr. Wubben, on the suggestion that we made the day
12 before as to whether you would entertain the idea of having those two or
13 three witnesses on the chain of custody testify by means of a written
14 statement rather than orally here -- or rather than viva voce. And you
15 were supposed to come back to me yesterday. I forgot to ask you and
16 probably you forgot to tell me.
17 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, I apologise. Indeed, Your Honours, I should
18 have triggered it myself. But in the line of that, I can update you
19 further of the outcome. A couple of days ago --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MR. WUBBEN: -- indeed I invited Defence counsel to learn from
22 their position in that respect. They requested me two days to -- to study
23 and to learn from the facts to give their position. And today I update
24 myself of the final outcome of it. The Defence requested me, at least
25 today, to study further and to get back to me by tomorrow.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. That's fair enough. We will wait. We
2 will wait. The idea, of course -- I want to make myself clear, that if
3 this procedure is adopted, then there will of course -- the
4 cross-examination will be reserved for the Defence. In other words, they
5 still have to come, but they will come for cross-examination and they
6 don't need to come for the examination-in-chief --
7 MR. WUBBEN: Unless -- unless it is not 89(F), Your Honour, but
8 92 bis, and that was my first aim --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. And I understand and I --
10 MR. WUBBEN: Please accept that we have an open discussion in this
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay.
13 Yes, Madam Vidovic, do you want to contribute any remarks on this?
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we need another day to
15 consider this motion and to see whether we can agree on these witnesses
16 not needing to appear.
17 But I want to say one thing, Your Honours, cooperation must be
18 mutual. I have asked Mr. Wubben to confirm that if we agree that we do
19 not need to cross-examine these witnesses, we have no resources left to
20 replace these witnesses with other witnesses. I asked for this
21 confirmation, but Mr. Wubben was not ready to provide a reply. That is
22 why we are still considering this and we need more time to keep
24 If this happens, we believe it would be entirely unfounded and
25 unreasonable. And our position would be -- would become very difficult.
1 Ever since we found out about the names of these people, our investigators
2 have been busy investigating. This would imply that your investigators
3 would need to under take further investigations for which we have neither
4 time nor resources. This is one confirmation I would like to have from
5 Mr. Wubben. As soon as this confirmation is provided, I believe we will
6 be able to give you our decision very soon.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We will await further, and when you are
8 in a position to report in a definitive manner, please let us know, tell
9 us. All right?
10 Any further preliminaries. Yes, Mr. Wubben.
11 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, to inform Your Honours, the coming
12 witness, C003, will not need protective measures. And in addition to
13 yesterday's request for further information, the Prosecution needs
14 definitely also tomorrow for the proofing of that witness. So we are
15 happy to start on Monday.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I understand that, and I think there is
17 nothing that we can do.
18 Yes, anything from your side, Madam Vidovic, any preliminaries?
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. Thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's bring the witness in. The witness --
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we -- could I just before that happens. Just
22 one very brief matter.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: As a matter of courtesy, I think, to inform you
25 about something regarding the next witness. I had the opportunity of
1 speaking with Defence counsel before you came in and raised the issue of
2 whether or not I need evidence from this witness regarding the methodology
3 of the taking of the cassettes that you've heard about in previous
4 evidence in this case and the transcripts and the creation of transcripts
5 from those cassettes and the operation of the machine with the lights and
6 so on, of which there has already been evidence in this case. I took the
7 view that if that evidence was not seriously contested by the Defence or a
8 matter of concern to them, then I could expedite things today by not
9 leading evidence again on that topic. And they very helpfully informed me
10 that is so, that that material is not in contention. So I don't intend to
11 lead that sort of evidence today, unless of course you, meaning the Trial
12 Chamber, has a particular need for me to do it again. In other words, the
13 Prosecution will reply on the testimony from the previous -- previous
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And coming from the jurisdiction you come from, you
16 know exactly what to expect from us. This is your case, not ours, Mr. --
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly, certainly. I am clear about what I want
18 to do and I intend to do that, but only -- unless the Trial Chamber has --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Listen, the position very simply put is that if
20 Defence has no problems to -- in living with that, why should we?
21 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, if Your Honours please, I think
22 all -- both the Defence and the Prosecution have made it clear that --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not a matter of --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: If, however, at any point in time -- I mean, please
1 don't consider yourself bound by this mutual agreement that as the
2 testimony --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Develops --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: -- develops, there might be the need to put some
5 questions and then you are free to put the questions, et cetera.
6 The only reservation I make is the following: That if you finish
7 your examination-in-chief without raising this matter and there is no
8 justification for the issue to be raised by the Defence and they do raise
9 it nonetheless, then of course you will have a right to visit -- but it's
10 the normal procedure that you are familiar with in any case.
11 So let's -- okay. Do you anticipate we could finish today?
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I am anticipating that if I follow this course of
13 action --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: In less than an hour.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I could be finished by the next break.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: I would only ask that the Defence merely put on the
18 record that what I've said accurately reflects their position.
19 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed, I was going to do that. Firstly it's not
20 in contention the system involving tapes and the rest of it. So as I did
21 indicate to my learned friend, there is no problem either leading on that
22 or passing over the subject all together. And as for the rest of the
23 testimony, most of it is not in contention, so again I indicated to my
24 learned friend that he can lead pretty much as much as he needs to. It
25 may purely be that in cross-examination I'll confirm that the witness
1 doesn't know about certain things, but I wouldn't go into it beyond that.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed. I want to make sure -- one
3 moment, usher, please.
4 I want to make sure that the technicians and the rest know about
5 the protective measures. We have a pseudonym, we have visual or facial
6 and voice distortion in place, but we will be proceeding in open session
7 except insofar as some questions may be put which, if answered, could
8 reveal the witness's identity. For those, we could go into private
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got about three that will require that.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, okay. All right. So I suppose -- let's bring
12 the witness in.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Witness.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is off.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness's microphone is off.
18 Yes. Good afternoon to you and welcome to this Tribunal. You are
19 soon going to be -- to start giving evidence in this case, which the
20 Prosecutor has -- Prosecution has instituted against Naser Oric. Before
21 you start giving evidence, our rules require that you make a solemn
22 declaration equivalent to an oath, in a sense that you undertake at --
23 throughout your testimony you will be speaking the truth, the whole truth,
24 and nothing but the truth. The text on this solemn undertaking -- solemn
25 declaration is contained on a piece of paper that is being passed on to
1 you by Madam Usher. Please read it out aloud and that will be your solemn
2 undertaking with us.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Please make yourself comfortable and
6 take a seat.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me explain to you a little bit -- a few matters
9 before you start giving evidence.
10 You asked for and we decided to grant you certain protective
11 measures. These protective measures we granted you because we felt that
12 in the circumstances they are necessary, they are justified. And the --
13 the purpose of -- or the raison d'etre of these protective measures is to
14 hide your identity from the public. As a result, you will not be referred
15 to by your name but by a number. And you will be referred to in the
16 records of this Tribunal and of this case as a Witness C009.
17 Also, anyone who will be following these proceedings from outside
18 this courtroom will not be able to see your face, or any part of your body
19 for that matter, and also will not be able to hear your voice. Your face
20 will appear as you are going to see on your monitor now. If you look at
21 your monitor, please focus the camera or -- yes. That's how others will
22 see you. And I can't -- I can't tell you how others will hear your voice,
23 but your voice will be distorted. Otherwise, the proceedings will be held
24 in open session; in other words, being outside of this courtroom will be
25 able to know what questions you are being asked and what answers you are
1 giving, but you will -- they will not be able to know who it is. For the
2 first few questions, which will deal with who you are and therefore which
3 could reveal your identity, we are not going to stay in open session, we
4 will go into closed session or private session, so that whatever is said
5 will remain inside these four walls. All right? Is that to your
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So I leave you in the hands of
9 Mr. Di Fazio, who will be leading you in cross -- examining you in-chief.
10 He will then be followed by Mr. Jones, who is co-counsel for Naser Oric.
11 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS C009
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
16 Q. Witness, could you please --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, are we going into private session?
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, my apologies. I thought we were already
20 JUDGE AGIUS: No, we are not in private session.
21 Let's go to private session, please.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 7752 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now, Mr. Di Fazio.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This document which has been shown to the
11 witness and confirmed by her is given Exhibit Number P?
12 THE REGISTRAR: 535.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: 535, and this will be entered and kept under
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
19 Q. Witness, it's not in dispute that your duties involved the
20 transcription of intercepted telephone calls during the period 1992 and
21 1993, and it's also not in dispute that you came to The Hague recently and
22 that you were shown a number of documents. And I want to simply expedite
23 matters now and take you through some of the documents that you were shown
24 in the course of proofing in the last few days.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P348.
1 And this document is also in Sanction, as are all of the exhibits
2 I will refer to this afternoon.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's easier.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
5 Q. Now, you have a photocopy of a document. The first question: Is
6 that your handwriting? Flick through the document and tell us.
7 A. Yes, this is my handwriting.
8 Q. Thank you. There are some notations or endorsements on the
9 document that I want to take you to. At the commencement of the document
10 you will see an endorsement saying "Telephone Z2." Can you explain to
11 Their Honours what "Telephone Z2" is, please.
12 A. Z2 is the second reel-to-reel recorder which was used to tape
13 conversations. There was a total of 12. Z2 is the second. This is the
14 code for that particular reel-to-reel recorder used for taping
16 Q. It does not refer to a particular telephone that was being
17 targeted for intercept purposes?
18 A. It does refer to a specific telephone, but we didn't know the
19 number of that telephone, only the technicians did. And all we would
20 receive was a code as a reference to a certain telephone.
21 Q. It's not in dispute that what follows throughout the document is a
22 transcript of recordings made by tape. Those recordings, were they
23 recordings of conversations held on a telephone known to you as
24 telephone Z2?
25 A. Yes, those are the conversations.
1 Q. All right. Now, where was telephone Z2 located, if you know? And
2 if you don't know, that's fine; but if you do know, tell us.
3 A. I'm not sure right now. There were three phones. There was a
4 group of three telephones sharing the same code. I'm not sure which one
5 was which, or rather I can't remember right now.
6 Q. Thank you. This group of telephones, were they located, to your
7 knowledge and always to your knowledge, were they located in a particular
9 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
10 Q. This group of telephones, do you know where they were physically
11 located, the ones that were being listened to?
12 A. As far as I remember, one was at the supreme staff; another was a
13 home telephone line; and there was a third one which I think belonged to
14 an office but I can't remember the name of the office.
15 Q. All right. Thank you very much. There's an endorsement in this
16 document saying: "Telephone used by Skup." Can you explain to the Trial
17 Chamber the meaning of "Skup." What or who is Skup?
18 A. Skup was a code, a code name for Sefer Halilovic's telephones.
19 Q. Thank you. The next endorsements that appear are these: It
20 says: "Conversation held on the 28th of October, 1992." And underneath
21 that: "Reported on the 28th of October, 1992."
22 Can you explain to Their Honours the significance of those two
23 endorsements. What does it mean the conversation was held on that date
24 and what does it mean it was reported on that date?
25 A. The conversation took place on the 28th of October, the same day a
1 report is submitted to the bosses, that's on the 28th of October. So
2 that's what these two references mean.
3 Q. Is the report that is mentioned there what follows in that
4 document, namely your handwritten notes? Are in fact your handwritten
5 notes the report?
6 A. Yes. This is my handwriting and I produced this.
7 Q. I know that. That's fine. But if you look at the document --
8 it's only a small matter and don't worry too much. But if you look at the
9 document it says the conversation happened on that date and it was
10 reported on that date. Now, the report, the report itself, when you
11 talk -- when this says -- refers to a report or it being reported, is that
12 in fact the handwritten notes that you've just spoken about?
13 A. These are not my notes. This is the exact conversation that was
14 taped, word to word.
15 Q. Thank you. Okay. Your transcript, shall we say then, is that the
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you very much. And that's an important clarification. I
19 appreciate it. Thank you.
20 Just continue through the document. It says -- there's a
21 reference there to: "001 counter number," and that appears throughout the
22 document with different numbers, but that endorsement counter number
23 continues to appear. Just briefly explain to the Trial Chamber what the
24 meaning of counter number is?
25 A. 001 revolutions. Is that what you mean?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Yes. Just tell the Trial Chamber what it means, what it's a
2 reference to, if it's got anything to do with cassette tapes and putting
3 them in the machine and running them and seeing at what point of the
4 cassette. You know it best, so you tell the Trial Chamber.
5 A. It's like this: The tape is placed in a tape recorder. There's a
6 counter that is set to 0. As soon as the conversation begins, the counter
7 starts to revolve. This is a way of marking conversation on a given tape.
8 We count the number of revolutions.
9 Q. Thank you. And if you look at the first what appears to be
10 portion of conversation in this document, you will see that there's a -- a
11 code for the speakers, the people who were speaking the words that are
12 contained in the transcript. So it starts off with the endorsement
13 Najetovic called a Skup location, and asked a woman who answered the phone
14 to leave the following message to Sakib or the commander and then follows
15 with what appears to be conversation with N and X. Who is N?
16 A. N is the person indicated at the beginning, Najetovic, and he was
17 the one who is called the object referred to as Skup.
18 Q. Thank you. There's also a person X, who is X?
19 A. X is a secretary who worked at the staff.
20 Q. All right. Do you -- when you created these notice, or rather
21 this transcript I should say, did you know the precise identity of the
22 person X?
23 A. No. And that's why she was marked as person X.
24 Q. Thank you, and that's what I was driving at. The use of X in this
25 transcript and in other transcripts, did that -- was that a method that
1 you used to identify that someone was speaking but you didn't know who
2 they were, their precise identity?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you use that basic system, using the X to designate a
5 speaker but an unknown identity throughout transcripts when you were
6 making notice of conversations in 1992 and 1993?
7 A. Yes. Unless person X accidentally happened to introduce
8 themselves during the conversation of course.
9 Q. And would you then change the designation from X to another
10 initial now that you knew the real identity of the speaker?
11 A. At that point, X would become the initial of the identified
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Let -- look at the next section in the
14 document. It's prefaced with the words "Asim from Visoko calling the
15 commander." And then the conversation is set out and you've got
16 apparently two speakers there, someone designated with A and someone
17 designated with a letter K. Who is A?
18 A. A in this case stands for Asim.
19 Q. And K?
20 A. K stands for commander. That's how Sefer was referred to.
21 Q. And the word "komandant" in B -- in your language, is it spelled
22 with the letter K -- does it start with the letter K, the word
23 "komandant," meaning commander?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. And if you look at the last portion of conversation in
1 that document following 134 counter number, you see another conversation
2 apparently with someone called Rasim. And again, is K the initial for the
3 commander and R the initial for Rasim?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Thanks. Did you use K to designate Sefer Halilovic in transcripts
6 that you created throughout 1992 and 1993?
7 A. Depending on how he was addressed. If he was addressed by his
8 name, then we would write down the first letter of his name; if not, if he
9 was addressed as commander, we would do it this way.
10 Q. And how would you know that the person speaking, when he was only
11 addressed as commander, was in fact Sefer Halilovic? How did you know
13 A. At the beginning, you have to get used to a voice. And later,
14 once you've heard the same voice several times, you do start recognising
15 it. You do start recognising voices once you're familiar with them.
16 Q. Certainly. And was that part of your duties, to become acquainted
17 with the voices of people who were being targeted, so to speak, by
18 these -- by these intercepts?
19 A. Yes. It did take some time for us to get used to the voices
21 Q. I'm sure it did, but what I'm asking is this: Were you tasked
22 with that? Was a part of your job to find out -- to become familiar with
23 the voices so you could carry out your duties? Did your bosses want you
24 to do that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P349.
3 Q. Firstly, I want you to just look at the -- the -- the notations at
4 the beginning of this document, and you will see that there's talk of a
5 department and a date, a telephone, reference to something called Skup,
6 conversation date, and so on. Is all the evidence that you've given --
7 just given in court this afternoon also apply to these notations? In
8 other words, did they have the same meaning? Is Skup here Sefer
9 Halilovic? Was the conversation in fact heard on the 28th of October,
10 1992? Was it in fact transcribed by you on the same day?
11 A. Yes to all.
12 Q. Thank you. And look at the body of the document and can you
13 please tell us if that is your handwriting? In fact, look at the entire
14 document, just skim through it, and tell us, is that your handwriting?
15 A. Yes. Throughout the document the handwriting is mine.
16 Q. Thank you. And I think we can finish up quickly with this
17 document. I just take you through the various conversations. Again,
18 first portion of the document deals with an apparent conversation between
19 someone called K and someone called R. Again, is that the commander --
20 sorry, does K stand for commander, namely Sefer Halilovic, and is R the
21 person called Rasim?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And if you continue flicking through the document you
24 come to one last portion of conversation between apparent -- between
25 different speakers, and it commences at counter number 242.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Page 8, if Your Honours please.
2 Q. Do you find that location?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. It's apparently a conversation between Dzemo Merdan
5 calling the commander and then follows the K and the DZ. Is the K Sefer
6 Halilovic and is the DZ a reference to the person Dzemo Merdan?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before the witness is shown the next
11 document. After the name of Dzemo Merdan, there is in brackets Zenica.
12 Is that his nickname?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. This is
14 Zenica in brackets. Zenica is the town from which he called.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Can the witness be shown the next exhibit, which is -- sorry --
18 I'm sorry, it wasn't P349. It's P350.
19 Your Honours, could I just inquire of you before I proceed with
20 this document. Do you have the English exhibit --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: 350?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I think if you look -- my document -- my English
25 equivalent translation finishes at the -- at the bottom it says page 7
1 of 7; do you see that?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I've been through it and I don't think that
4 the B/C/S goes as far as that and I think that the English -- that page is
5 extraneous, it's extra, so to speak. I think if you look at the B/C/S,
6 the B/C/S version will finish at 229 and it says Krai, K-r-a-i. And if
7 you look at page 6 of 7, do you see that in the English, page 6 of 7?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: That's where 229 ends.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: But in the original text and the handwritten text,
11 where are you seeing 229? I see 099, Krai.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got the B/C/S version and it finishes at
13 page 01752824. Do you see. And then halfway down, 229, Krai.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. All right. Okay. So page 7 --
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Of the English --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Of the English --
17 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not reflecting anything in the B/C/S.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: No, agreed. We need to identify where it has come
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I think the explanation was that it was put
21 in wrongly for translation. It's some sort of clerical oversight and it
22 was -- it was -- the result is it's extraneous and Your Honours can just
23 ignore it.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: It's nothing you have to worry about. The English
1 translation itself finishes at page 6. I just wanted to point that out to
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
4 MR. DI FAZIO:
5 Q. Witness, could you look at Exhibit P350 and flick through it and
6 tell us if it is your handwriting.
7 A. Yes, this is my handwriting.
8 Q. Thank you. We'll move straight, I think, to the people who are
9 speaking. Again -- it may seem obvious but we want to hear it in the
10 evidence. From 314 onwards, counter 314, Redzep Mesanovic from Travnik is
11 looking for the commander and Emina answers the call. Is E Emina and is R
12 Redzep Mesanovic?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Thank you. And is Travnik a place, a location?
15 A. Yes. Travnik is a town in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 Q. Thank you. And to save time, if you just like at the extra
17 excerpts of conversation that appear in that transcript, after 416 is E
18 also Emina and K is the commander Sefer Halilovic?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. Thank you. And again, just tell us if R in the remainder of the
21 conversation transcribed is Redzep and K is the commander Sefer
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P351.
1 Q. Again, please look at the document and tell us if it is -- if it
2 is your handwriting.
3 A. Yes, the handwriting is mine.
4 Q. Thank you. The key to the identities of the conversants or people
5 speaking we need to look at very -- just a little more closely in this
6 case. The transcript is all -- apparently the transcript of the one
7 conversation, and the code is at the -- at the beginning. You see S1 is
8 apparently Sloboda and then brackets Sefer. And So is apparently Soca. Do
9 you see that? Who apparently was S1 as far as you are aware?
10 A. I don't know who the person is.
11 Q. Just look at the handwriting above that. And it says there "radio
12 centre called Sefer Halilovic through Skup and then they connected him to
13 Soca." Does that provide any insight as to who Sloboda or Sefer is?
14 A. Sl, Sloboda, is the designation for Sefer and you have that in
15 brackets. I believe this is the code for radio connection. And Soca, I
16 can't remember who that was. I suppose that this was somebody who talked
17 to him.
18 Q. To whom? Talked to whom? Who did Soca talk to? Who is he
19 talking to in this transcript?
20 A. Sefer Halilovic.
21 Q. Thank you. If you go through the transcript, you eventually get
22 to a point where a new conversant appearing marked with the letter X. Is
23 this an example of what you testified as to earlier, namely another person
24 coming into the conversation whose identity is not known to you?
25 A. Yes. If the person did not introduce themselves, then they would
1 be designated by X.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, can the witness be shown
4 Exhibit P351 -- sorry, which one did I have -- which one was that?
5 Sorry, Your Honours, I'm going faster than I thought. P352.
6 Q. Again, could you just go through that and tell us if that's your
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. All right. And again if you could just confirm what may be
10 obvious to many. The conversants are designated by letters S, is that
11 Sefer Halilovic, and is A Andjelko Makar?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. And while we're on this document, I'd like to take you to one
14 other common feature that I haven't fully asked you to explain. If you go
15 to the top of the document, you will see that there's -- there's a
16 department. There's a reference to employee. There's a reference to
17 number. Do you see number 239-6887?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That appears to be a common feature that's coming in and out of --
20 that appears at the top of these transcripts that I've taken you through
21 so far.
22 Could you just briefly explain to the Trial Chamber what that
23 number is and why it's -- why it's often -- why it's usually made up of
24 two components separated by a hyphen?
25 A. The first number, 239, is the number that is entered in the
1 protocol in the book once the transcript is finished. Without that
2 number, the transcript cannot be forwarded. The second number preceded by
3 a hyphen is the number of the taped -- tape on to which the conversation
4 was recorded. All the tapes bear numbers.
5 Q. And what you've just described, this formula that -- or method
6 that was adopted, was that consistent throughout 1992 and 1993?
7 A. No paper could be forwarded without a protocol number.
8 Q. Thank you very much. I've finished with that document.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown P353.
10 Q. Very simple questions again. I can put the one question and save
11 time. Can you look at this document, tell us if your handwriting appears,
12 and tell us if the Z is a reference to Zeljko Knez and the S is a
13 reference to Sefer Halilovic speaking.
14 A. Yes, everything is correct.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown 357. All right.
17 Q. Again, tell us if this is your handwriting throughout this
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. The -- I just want to look at the identity of the conversants,
21 people speaking, in a little more detail. The first part of the
22 conversation that is recorded following counter number 120. It says that
23 there was a man called Senad calling Sefer Halilovic, and Se is a
24 reference to Senad. Am I correct that capital S is a reference to Sefer
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. As the conversation develops, a third person seems to come into
3 the conversation. And if you look down just a few lines there's part of
4 the transcript that says "Sefer, who is there with you?"
5 Senad replies: "Vehbija is here and he asked to talk with you."
6 And there after appears a "V." I ask the obvious. Is V a
7 reference to Vehbija?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Let's quickly move through this one. Go to the section of the
10 transcript that deals with counter number 93, preceded by 3 -- the
11 number -- triple X. Again, in that part of the conversation is S a
12 reference to Sefer Halilovic and R a reference to Ramiz Suvalic?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. I'm sorry. Just one other thing. Go back to the beginning of the
15 transcript. It's a reference to someone called Senad calling Sefer
16 Halilovic. Do you happen to know, only tell us if you know, do you happen
17 to know who Senad is, his full name?
18 A. I don't know. We recorded in the transcript only the words that
19 they used when they introduced themselves.
20 Q. Thank you?
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P359.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you skipping 358?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: My case manager just pointed it out to me. Would
24 Your Honours just give me a moment to look at that.
25 Yes, I am. Well -- yes, I am, yes.
1 359. There was some problems with the English translation; in
2 fact, I think it was incomplete. I now have full translations to provide
3 to you. Could they be added or substituted with the -- I'm not sure how
4 the Court wants to deal with it. And Your Honours should use those to
5 follow this brief portion of the evidence.
6 Can I proceed, Your Honours?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
9 Q. All right. Have a look at this exhibit and please tell us if
10 it -- it's your handwriting and whether you created it.
11 A. Yes, this is my handwriting.
12 Q. Thank you. On the exhibits that we've seen so far, the
13 transcripts that you provided have an endorsement for telephone that has
14 telephone Z2. This one has written on it telephone Z4. Can you explain
15 to Their Honours what -- why a different designation for the telephone.
16 Is it a conversation that was intercepted on a different telephone, and if
17 so, whose telephone and where was it located?
18 A. I said at the beginning that three of Sefer's lines were
19 intercepted and this is one of them. One of them was in the staff, one
20 was his telephone at home, and the third one was in some office but I
21 can't remember where that office was.
22 Q. And is it the case that telephone Z4 was one of those three that
23 you've just talked about, either the one at the staff or at his home or in
24 some office?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. Okay. And do you have any idea where this office might be?
2 A. I don't even know where the staff was, the supreme staff.
3 Q. Okay. That's fine. No problem. But can you tell us this: Do
4 you know if the Z4 telephone was in an office at the staff or if you don't
5 know that at all, you can't say for sure, please make it clear?
6 A. I'm not sure after such a long time. I don't know where each of
7 these telephones were physically. I can't be sure of that.
8 Q. Fair enough. Now, let's go through the conversation. It will
9 take us a little while, but I think we can deal with it reasonably
11 First part -- first excerpt of conversation apparently is one
12 between Kemal Muftic and Sefer Halilovic. Is S a reference to Sefer
13 Halilovic and K in this particular case a reference to Kemal Muftic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you wary about using the designation K, since you used it so
16 often or since you used it on several occasions with respect -- for
17 Mr. Halilovic?
18 A. Yes. We were already very familiar with the voices. So we could
19 designate him by letter K. Generally everybody referred to him as
20 commander, those who knew him well.
21 Q. Okay. Fine. I understand that. Thank you for explaining that.
22 In this particular case -- in this particular case, the commander,
23 Sefer Halilovic, is in fact speaking. Any reason why you didn't use the
24 letter K for him? And --
25 A. I don't know. I can't remember.
1 Q. All right.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry. Would Your Honours just give me a moment.
3 Thank you.
4 Q. Continue on to the next part of the conversation, counter number
5 084. You see your endorsement there, Sefer H. Is that Sefer Halilovic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And someone called Ibrahim. Do you know the full name of the
8 person Ibrahim or you've got no idea?
9 A. If he had introduced himself by his full name, I'm sure that this
10 would have been recorded. But obviously he didn't, and that's why we
11 recorded only his first name.
12 Q. All right. Then appears next to it at this endorsement in
13 brackets, "Srebrenica - radio-communication." What's that mean? What
14 does that mean?
15 A. This means that the conversation took place using Sefer's
16 telephone. Probably the only way was from Srebrenica by radio link, but
17 this phone here is Sefer's phone in the office.
18 Q. Okay. But that's your handwriting, the words "Srebrenica -
19 radio-communication," is it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the tape you were listening to was, as far as you were aware,
22 a conversation recorded on one of Sefer Halilovic's telephones or
23 telephones that he had access to. Correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But we also have the words there "radio-communication." Do you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 know how it came to be that you made that note or endorsement
2 there "Srebrenica - radio-communication"?
3 A. Probably this radio communication had been announced or you could
4 tell by the sound of it that a radio was being used, but that's all I can
5 remember. It has been a long time after all. Two possibilities: Either
6 someone had announced that there would be radio communication or you could
7 hear the phone lines clicking and being switched.
8 Q. Were you -- thinking back to the period 1992/1993, were you able
9 to recognise when a conversation over one of the target telephones was
10 employing -- was being facilitated by radio communications? Were you
11 trained to be able to detect that or know that, or was there something
12 that would occur during phone conversations that would immediately make
13 clear to you that radio communications were somehow facilitating this
15 A. We weren't trained to recognise that kind of thing. You either
16 hear the switch being made or there is an announcement of radio
17 communication usually at the beginning of any conversation that takes
19 Q. And can you comment on the -- your level of certainty or
20 satisfaction that radio communications were being used -- let me rephrase
21 that question perhaps.
22 How sure did you have to be that radio communications were being
23 used before you would make such an endorsement that you see here?
24 A. I had to be positive, absolutely positive that radio
25 communications were being used.
1 Q. And if I've understood your evidence correctly, your certainty,
2 your degree of satisfaction came from two sources, either what the
3 speakers themselves said or clicks and other noises that you heard when
4 listening to the tape of the conversation. Is that correct or not?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Thanks. And the conversation that follows, S, is that a reference
7 to Sefer Halilovic, and I, is that a reference to the man Ibrahim?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Thank you. Go to the next portion of the document and it starts
10 at 134 counter number. Could you find that, please. Have you got it? Do
11 you have it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you just read out the first endorsement under there. Just
14 read it out carefully, read your own handwriting. Read it out into the
15 transcript so that we can see, the first two lines that appear under 134
16 counter number.
17 A. "Nasuf (? Or something like that) from the operations centre
18 calling Mirsad aka Brada on 'Skup.'"
19 Q. Thank you, okay. And the endorsements, or rather the letters that
20 appear, does N stand for the person you thought was Nasuf and does M stand
21 for the person Mirsad also known as Brada?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thanks. Skim through the rest of the conversation until you get
24 to counter number 210. Do you have that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. We can all read. It says that Kemal Muftic and
2 Sefer H. Is K Kemal Muftic and is S Sefer Halilovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thanks. Continue on to the next counter number from 440 onwards,
5 and again there's a conversation between apparently Arif Pasalic and Sefer
6 Halilovic. Is A Arif and is S Sefer Halilovic?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Continue through to counter number 049. Same question: Is S
9 with -- I don't know the word for this. Is -- pardon me if I say. Is the
10 S with the full banana on top also pronounced "Sh," does that stand for a
11 person Siber, and does the simple S stand for Sefer Halilovic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Continue now to the next counter number 080, and
14 that's a conversation between someone called Naser and Sefer Halilovic
15 apparently. Does the N refer to the person called Naser and does the S
16 refer to the person Sefer Halilovic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber who Naser is?
19 A. Naser Oric from Srebrenica.
20 Q. Thank you. Continue to the 185 counter number. And -- again it's
21 self-explanatory. Someone called Sliskovic from the Ministry of Defence
22 calling Sefer H. Is Sl Sliskovic and is the simple S Sefer Halilovic?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness now be shown P361.
1 Q. Again, look at the document and tell us if that's your
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. From counter 057, Hazim Sadic is apparently speaking to Sefer
5 Halilovic. And, again, is S Sefer Halilovic and is the H Hazim Sadic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Continue until you get to counter number 260. And again the
8 conversation -- does the S represent Sefer Halilovic and is the N
9 Mr. Oric, Naser Oric?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Again, there's an endorsement there in brackets "radio line."
12 What does that mean?
13 A. This was radio communications, again.
14 Q. All right. Thank you. Continue to counter 329, Rasim Delic and
15 Sefer Halilovic. Does the R stand for Rasim Delic and does the S stand
16 for Sefer Halilovic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And following on from counter 359, again does the V refer to the
19 apparent speaker Vehbija Karic and the S Sefer Halilovic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 362, please, Exhibit P362. Is that your handwriting?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And there's a -- it's pretty obvious what this one's about. It's
24 obviously a conversation between Mr. Halilovic and Mr. Oric. I take it
25 the N refers to Naser Oric and the S refers to Sefer Halilovic?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And it says there -- it says: "Sefer Halilovic talked by radio
3 communications to Srebrenica with Naser Oric."
4 The way this document has been translated into English, it's not
5 clear who's using the radio to talk. Your evidence thus far has been that
6 you were listening to conversations intercepted on certain telephones. Is
7 this a conversation from one of those targeted telephones?
8 A. Yes. This is a conversation launched from the Z4 phone, the one
9 referred to as Skup.
10 Q. All right. Do I take it then -- is it a reasonable conclusion
11 that the radio communications, if indeed radio communications were used to
12 facilitate this conversation, they weren't done from -- it wasn't used
13 from Sefer Halilovic's end, it was used from the other end, apparently
14 from where Mr. Oric was, wherever that might be?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, this would be an
18 appropriate time. I've got one more exhibit and two or three more
19 questions and I'll be finished.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Unless you prefer, I mean, subject to Mr. Jones
21 agreeing to this of course, to go on for the next few minutes that you
22 require, finish your examination-in-chief, then we'll have a break, and
23 we'll start with the examination afterwards.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: All right.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: After you -- it's up to you, provided we are not
1 talking of more than ten minutes.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: I wouldn't have thought so, no. I think I can
3 finish in ten minutes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, okay. Can I have the okay from -- yes.
5 And the technical staff. I can't see behind Mr. Di Fazio. Yeah,
6 okay. So let's proceed for the next ten minutes or so and then have a
7 break, and you can start the `ination, knowing that Mr. Di Fazio
8 has finished. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P363.
10 Q. Can you identify this as document as being created by your hand?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And again, S means Sefer Halilovic I believe and N means Naser
13 Oric. Correct?
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. All right. I might finish even sooner than I thought.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours -- sorry.
17 Q. Witness --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: I've finished with that exhibit. Thanks.
19 And could the witness be shown Exhibit P359. And can the witness
20 be shown Exhibit P359 again.
21 Q. And, Witness, turn please to counter 080. It's apparently a
22 conversation between Naser and Sefer Halilovic. Do you have that?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours will find it at page 6 of 9 it says.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Your microphone.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 084 -- what I have is Sefer and
1 Ibrahim. There's something wrong, I suppose.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: It's behind -- usher, it's behind counter
3 number 080.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: I think I'll probably find it on the B/C/S and be
5 able to take them straight to the page.
6 MR. JONES: It's on page 13 of the B/C/S.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 13.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. All right. Do you have it? Now, Witness, in three exhibits that
10 I've just -- only just shown to you, being exhibits P362, 361, and 363,
11 you wrote endorsements when speaking of Naser Oric -- sorry, when
12 transcribing a conversation that you say it was a conversation in which he
13 participated. At the beginning of the transcript as a conversation
14 between Sefer H., "Sefer," and Naser Oric and you wrote in his full name.
15 But here in this example, 359, you've only written "Naser." Now, you've
16 already testified 20 minutes ago that, well, that's Naser Oric. But why
17 didn't you write in his full name, like you did in the others?
18 A. It very much depended on how he introduced himself. If he
19 introduced himself by his first and last name, that's what I would write
20 down; if he only would use his first name, I would only write down his
21 first name.
22 Q. Do you have any memory of recording conversations between Sefer
23 Halilovic and any other person called Naser in the years 1992 and 1993?
24 A. No. For the most part, those were contacts between Sefer
25 Halilovic and Naser Oric.
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have no further
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Di Fazio. We'll have a break now.
5 Mr. Jones, you are in a position now to more or less give us a
6 clue as to how long you will be cross-examining the witness.
7 MR. JONES: Yes. I certainly won't exceed the next break. I can
8 only certainly give that indication. Probably an hour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's have a 30-minute break. Thank you.
10 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
13 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:
15 Q. Now, Witness, I'm going to be asking you a few questions, and I'm
16 going to start by asking some questions just to establish really the
17 limits of what you can testify about.
18 It's right, isn't it, firstly that in your work you weren't
19 involved in the selection of objects?
20 A. It is correct.
21 Q. So you don't know why objects were chosen?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And is it right that the technology which allowed you to listen in
24 on conversations, that's not something which you know particularly how
25 that worked technically?
1 A. We were involved in the final part of the job only.
2 Q. Right. So, for example, you don't know how it came to be that
3 cables or phone lines came into the SDB office. You simply know that you
4 were able to listen in on conversations. Would that be right?
5 A. Yes, correct.
6 Q. And is it also right that you don't know whether the interception
7 which you carried out was authorised at the high levels; it's something
8 which you took for granted that any interception work you were doing had
9 been authorised by the appropriate person?
10 A. Yes, correct.
11 Q. And then, as far as any technical expertise in radio or telephone
12 equipment, that's not something which you have, is it, you're not a
13 specialist in how those systems work?
14 A. No. I did not have any expertise of that kind.
15 Q. So in other words, if I were to ask you about how it was actually
16 possible to have a telephone conversation being relayed between Sarajevo,
17 Tuzla, and Srebrenica, and whether that involved transmitters or radio,
18 that is not something which is within your field of competence?
19 A. No. That was not part of my job.
20 Q. All right. So in essence, your testimony is limited to this,
21 isn't it, there are telephone conversations which you intercepted and
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. All right. So in light of that, I'm going to have very few
25 questions for you about some of the intercepts. But first I do want to
1 ask you some questions about someone who lived through the siege of
3 Now, is it right that you were in Sarajevo throughout the siege?
4 A. Yes. Correct.
5 Q. And I don't think it's contested that there was a terrible siege
6 of Sarajevo in which many civilians were sniped at and shelled. Would you
7 be able to, just in a few phrases, explain how that was from your point of
8 view, what you experienced.
9 A. Very difficult. There was no water, there was no food. There was
10 fire from all sides. I had to walk to work for over 10 kilometres. There
11 was no public transportation, and I don't know what else to say. We are
12 all trying very hard to put all that behind as soon as possible.
13 Q. All right. Thank you. It was simply that.
14 As far as telephone lines in Sarajevo were concerned, is it right
15 that there were telephone lines in Sarajevo which went -- which would go
16 through a central or a telephone switchboard?
17 A. I wouldn't know. This is not something I was involved in.
18 Q. It's just really this: Are you aware that the Serbs in amongst
19 the targets that they were shelling, that the telephone exchange was also
20 a target which was being attacked in order to disrupt communications. Is
21 that something you're aware of?
22 A. Yes, I'm aware of that. The main post office building in Sarajevo
23 was destroyed and completely torched.
24 Q. So it would be right to say, wouldn't it, that it would be
25 completely wrong in fact to have the impression that anyone in Sarajevo
1 had easy, uninterrupted communications with the outside world?
2 A. It was very difficult to communicate. Many telephone lines in the
3 city of Sarajevo were not working, and as for our communication with the
4 outside world this was really difficult.
5 Q. All right. Now just a question or two about Tuzla firstly.
6 As far as you're aware, Tuzla was physically cut off from Sarajevo
7 by the Serb forces. Would that be correct?
8 A. Probably, but I don't know. I don't know.
9 Q. You know that Srebrenica was completely encircled and cut off from
10 the rest of the world?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So when we're talking about Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Srebrenica, in
13 fact we're talking about three islands of government-held territory, cut
14 off from each other by hostile Serb forces. Would that be a correct
16 A. I suppose so.
17 Q. And were you aware at the time in 1992 and 1993 that conditions in
18 Srebrenica were in fact far worse even than they were in Sarajevo?
19 A. I knew that because of my job. That's how I became aware of that.
20 MR. JONES: In that regard, if the witness could be shown P350,
21 Prosecution Exhibit P350. And in the --
22 Q. This is one of your intercepts. And in English it's page 3 of 7,
23 and in the B/C/S it's page 4, which is 01752820, in fact it's 15 lines the
24 top. This is Redzep Musanovic in Travnik apparently speaking. I just
25 want to read this one passage. In English it says: "We are talking about
1 reliable combatants who are not even afraid of death, but now they only
2 want to go to Posavina in the direction of Brcko or towards Doboj or to go
3 and liberate that corridor up there towards Bratunac, Zvornik, Vlasenica,
4 Srebrenica. You know that men up there have been asking for help since
5 April. They are surrounded. They have not received any aid in troops,
6 weapons, medical supplies, or food."
7 And this is dated 30 October 1992. It's really just to ask you
8 this: Seeing that, does that reflect what your understanding was of the
9 situation in Srebrenica, namely that since April 1992 they had been cut
10 off and had been asking for troops, weapons, medical supplies, and the
11 like, and had not received it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And isn't it right that in Sarajevo Srebrenica was infamous even
14 in the harsh conditions of the siege of Sarajevo, but as being a place
15 completely cut off and in a desperate situation?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. Now, would you agree that in these circumstances and at this time,
18 dealing with late 1992/early 1993, that communication between Sarajevo and
19 Srebrenica was only ever very primitive? Would you agree with that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In that regard you were referring to how when you heard a relay
23 from Srebrenica that you could sometimes tell that it was radio because
24 you said, quote, you "could hear the switch being made." Now, could you
25 just explain what you meant by that?
1 A. I was talking about standard procedures for switching on to the
2 radio line. There is a certain kind of noise. It's very difficult for me
3 to explain after such a long time. You can hear that click, the point
4 when the communication becomes radio communication. You know that you can
5 hear communication via a radio.
6 Q. Isn't one of the features of radio communication that it was of
7 much poorer quality than what you were hearing on the telephones?
8 A. If the line was poor, then the transcript shows a number of dots.
9 However, if the lines were good, then you could hear the entire
10 conversation without any problems.
11 Q. Wasn't it quite common for the connection to even be lost in the
12 middle of the conversation, and that's something which you would also mark
13 in the intercepts?
14 A. Yes. If the connection was lost, then we would note that by
15 saying "connection lost."
16 Q. And were you also aware at the time that the Serbs had receivers
17 with which they could listen in to different frequencies and intercept
18 phone calls between Sarajevo and Tuzla and between the radio
19 communications with Srebrenica?
20 A. No, I was not aware of that.
21 Q. Did you have any conversations with your superiors about the fact
22 that these were open lines which were not secure and which could be
23 listened to by the enemy?
24 A. I did not have much contact with my superiors. We had our bosses
25 in our department, and those were the people that we talked to.
1 Q. Let me put it this way: In some of the conversations you
2 intercepted, you would hear people saying, would you not, this line is not
3 secure, people can listen in, and they would accordingly modify their
4 conversation in light of the fact that it wasn't secure?
5 A. There were such cases. There were people who didn't want to say
6 things on the telephone, and they just did not want to continue talking
7 about those things.
8 Q. Wasn't one of the reasons given in at least one of the
9 conversations which you monitored that things could be overheard by the
10 Serbs and could boost their morale or be used by the Serbs as propaganda.
11 Is that something you recall?
12 A. I don't remember. If you were to jog my memory by showing me a
13 piece of paper, then maybe I would be able to remember.
14 Q. Yes, I might do that in a moment. We'll come back to that.
15 Now, a couple of questions about voice identification. You told
16 us how you became familiar with the voice of Sefer Halilovic because he
17 was an object. Correct?
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. And in the intercepts which we saw where it was noted it was a
20 conversation with Naser, that was noted because he had introduced himself
21 as Naser?
22 A. Yes, that's how it was.
23 MR. JONES: With the usher's assistance, I would like to show the
24 witness P364. I believe in fact that probably wasn't in fact used by the
25 Prosecution today, but it's a Prosecution exhibit.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Now, firstly I would just like you to have a look at that. And
2 it's correct, isn't it, that that in fact is not -- doesn't look like one
3 of your intercepts?
4 A. This is not my handwriting and this is not my document, not one of
5 my transcripts.
6 Q. Right. But you see, do you not, that it is of the same sector and
7 department that you worked in?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Now, just -- in fact, I might just ask you a question in private
11 MR. JONES: Could we move into private session for a moment?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's move into private session for a moment,
14 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back in open session.
2 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Now, Witness, if you'll look at this transcript or this intercept
4 you'll notice it's purportedly a conversation between Sefer Halilovic --
5 it says: "Sefer Halilovic received a call from the centre. They have
6 Srebrenica and Naser on the line."
7 And then do you see that throughout this conversation S is
8 referring to the person as 147, and in fact the person's -- the person is
9 indicated by 147. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In none of the conversations which you intercepted was a Naser
12 referred to as 147 by Sefer Halilovic, was he?
13 A. You're right.
14 Q. Now, this intercept is dated the 16th of April, 1993. Isn't it
15 right that you yourself in fact intercepted a conversation allegedly
16 between Naser and Sefer Halilovic on that very day? And it's P359.
17 MR. JONES: Perhaps the witness could be shown P359. And I'm
18 going to be working from the full English translation which we just
19 received today.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MR. JONES:
22 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that this is first of all a conversation
23 which you transcribed?
24 A. Yes, this is my handwriting.
25 Q. And it's dated the 16th of April, 1993. Correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, if you look through this carefully, and we'll do the same, in
3 all of the exchanges between Naser and Sefer Halilovic, which starts on
4 page 6 of 9 in the English. In the B/C/S it starts on page 13. That in
5 none of those exchanges, and I've counted 12, does Sefer Halilovic refer
6 to Naser as 147?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, does it strike you as odd from your experience that on the
9 same day Sefer Halilovic has two conversations with Naser, and in one of
10 them he calls him 147 in practically every line and in the other one he
11 doesn't call him 147 even once?
12 A. I don't know why this is so. I can't explain that. I really
13 don't know.
14 Q. All right. That's fine. We'll come back to 364 subsequently,
15 although in fact there's one correction on P364 which I'd like to just
16 deal with while we have it.
17 MR. JONES: If Your Honours give me a moment.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Keep 364 available because I think we might
19 still need it.
20 MR. JONES: Yes, it's simply this in fact. On the English version
21 on the last page, page 8 of 8, in the second paragraph where one sees 147
22 and you have "I understand, chief. So God willing, we will talk at
23 11.00." And then it goes on to Salam, et cetera, in fact that should be
24 attributed to S, and I think that's clear from the B/C/S version, page 14.
25 Perhaps the witness can confirm that. It's page 14.
1 Q. And if you see four lines down just where you see Salam, isn't it
2 correct that in fact there's an S to the left there and in fact that's a
3 different speaker speaking at that point?
4 A. I know nothing of this document. This is not my document,
5 therefore I can't say anything about it. I'm not familiar with the
6 handwriting and I can't even read some of the words in this document.
7 Q. Right. That's fine.
8 MR. JONES: It was simply if the witness could assist, and I think
9 it is something we can probably see for ourselves --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: It is obvious in fact that it couldn't be the same
11 person speaking, all what we see in those five lines.
12 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, there's reference to Seba being there. I
13 thought it was important to correct that.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 MR. JONES: Now, if we could stick with P359 for a moment. I
16 don't know if the witness still has P359.
17 Q. I'm going to draw your attention to some passages there which I
18 want to ask you about.
19 I'm going to read out some passages from the English and hopefully
20 you'll be able to follow in the original.
21 Now firstly, on page 1, we have S saying, and this is a
22 conversation between Kemal Muftic calling Sefer Halilovic S. "My
23 information is the situation in Srebrenica is very bad. Call him. Let's
24 see what can be done to protect those people there."
25 That's also on page 1 of the B/C/S.
1 The next page, and it's page 3 of the B/C/S, S, and this is in a
2 conversation of Ibrahim. "Are Srebrenica and lines of defence being
4 "I: Yes, both the town and the lines of defence incessantly."
5 And then we go on to page 3 of 9 in the English, and it's page 7
6 of the B/C/S. We see S there at the top there saying: "Srebrenica is
7 being shelled. The town and the lines of defence are being shelled very
8 ferociously, and there are very ferocious infantry attacks. You can call
9 him again and tell him that very ferocious attacks are being launched from
10 Zeleni Jadar and Casi [phoen]. We're asking from him that the UNPROFOR is
11 to protect people there. He has to deem that operation very urgent, that
12 they have to go in there as soon as possible to protect people, as the
13 ammunition of our people is depleting."
14 Do you see that in the original?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then two more passages on page 6 of 9 in the English a few
17 pages over, and it's the bit we saw earlier below 080 counter number. And
18 it's page 13 in the B/C/S where it says Naser and Sefer Halilovic: "N:
19 As regards the situation, it is very dramatic in the area of Srebrenica.
20 So, we are about to fall, we are about to fall. People are
21 panic-stricken. There is still some morale among the troops. We are
22 trying to do something. However, everything is going in the Chetniks'
23 favour so all that you have heard is unfortunately the truth."
24 And then turning the next page in the English, it's page 15 in the
25 B/C/S. We see N saying: "We are stopping now" -- this is halfway down in
1 the English.
2 "We are stopping now because we have to observe the cease-fire.
3 That is the condition now. We have observe it because if it's physically
4 challenged without legs, without arms. There are about a thousand of them
5 whom I'm not going to leave and several commanders here have their troops
6 who are not going to leave these people. And the civilians, you know,
7 everybody is fighting to save their own head. As regards the troops, that
8 is still on a required level."
9 And in fact finally I would just like to draw attention to the
10 next page in English, which is page 17 in the B/C/S where N refers
11 to: "To consult with The Presidency and to do that to send it." And
12 that's a reference to sending communications.
13 Now, in relation to those quotes, and have you seen all of those,
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. This is one of the conversations which you transcribed. Do you
17 actually recall -- recall the conversation?
18 A. I can't remember. It was 12 years ago.
19 Q. Of course. Would you agree that the content is fairly dramatic
20 regarding the imminent fall of Srebrenica in April 1993, so it's really a
21 question of whether that was something which you recalled?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 Q. Do you recall that at the time that Srebrenica was expected to
24 fall in April 1993 and that there were these fears that a massacre would
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I want to ask you some questions about the appearance of the name
3 Naser on some of these intercepts. And as we saw on some of the
4 intercepts we see the name Naser, in others we have Naser Oric. For
5 example, in P361 and P363. It's right, isn't it, that Sefer Halilovic
6 only ever referred to the person as Naser. In fact, he never used the
7 full name Naser Oric. Would that be correct?
8 A. They usually used first names, but whenever someone introduced
9 themselves using their full name, both first and last, this would be
10 recorded in the transcript.
11 Q. Right. So typically Sefer Halilovic would just say Naser, and I'm
12 looking at, for example, P361 we see that Naser is the hero of BiH state,
13 Naser is our hero, et cetera. So it's right you never actually heard him
14 saying Naser Oric?
15 A. No. They always used names.
16 Q. And was your service aware back in 1992 and 1993 that there was a
17 radio operator in Srebrenica who was also called Naser?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Isn't it right that in a conversation intercepted in late March
20 1993, that Halilovic appeared not to know basic details of who Naser was,
21 including his surname?
22 MR. JONES: And if it would assist to show the witness P358.
23 Q. Now, this is dated the 24th of March, 1993, and the employee, the
24 operator, is 50144. And I'm taking it from your earlier answer that you
25 don't actually know what the operator was for this intercept?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Well, the part I want to draw your attention to is from part 3,
3 which is page 5 of 6 in the English, and in the B/C/S it's pages 9 to 10
4 with the ERN 01754009 to 01754010. And I'll just read that into the
5 record: "Sefer called Hazim, illegible, because he forgot to tell him
7 "S: Listen, please, I forgot. Do you have any information on
9 "The other S: Personal data, et cetera.
10 "S: Uh-huh.
11 I'll pronounce it "Sh" to distinguish the two S's.
12 "Sh: I do not have.
13 "S: What is his last name?
14 "Sh: Oric.
15 "S: Are you sure?
16 "Sh: Sure, Naser Oric.
17 "S: He is probably the commander of the municipal staff there.
18 Other person: Yep.
19 "S: Did he establish some kind of a brigade there or a unit?
20 "Sh: No, not officially. As far as I know, not.
21 "S: All right.
22 "Sh: Well, let me tell you, his wife came here with kids
24 "S: Naser's wife?
25 "Sh: Yes. We have accommodated them in a new two-room
1 apartment, food was provided for a month, they were accepted and so on.
2 "S: Excellent. How many of them?
3 The other person replies: Two children.
4 "S: He seems to be a younger man.
5 The other person: Yes. He's about 32, 33 years old.
6 "S: What is his occupation anyway?
7 The other person replies: I think that he was a policeman."
8 I'll stop there. Now, do you agree from this that it appeared
9 that Sefer Halilovic appeared not to know what Oric's last name was, what
10 Naser's last name was, at least in late March 1993?
11 A. I don't know. You're asking me about other people's transcripts.
12 I'm afraid this is not something that I can comment on. I know about what
13 I wrote. I know about the names I wrote. I know about the last names I
14 wrote. That much was clear. But I'm afraid I can't comment on anyone
15 else's transcripts.
16 This is the first time I have seen this handwriting, whereas I am,
17 goes without saying, familiar with my own. But I can't talk about this
19 Q. Okay. That's fine. And there's no criticism whatsoever or any
20 reproach intended. It was merely if you could assist. So that's fine.
21 Now, a couple of more questions on another subject. Apart from
22 voice identification of objects whose voices are familiar to you, you said
23 that you would rely on how people announced themselves in order to say who
24 was on the line. Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And isn't it right that in fact that way of identifying someone
2 was much more common than voice identification, in that there were very
3 few voices which you would actually recognise; it would be much more
4 common that you would hear someone introduce themselves and use that as
5 the basis of who they were?
6 A. Yes. People introduced themselves. We write down their initials.
7 If they don't introduce themselves, we put them down as X.
8 MR. JONES: If the witness could be shown an intercept which isn't
9 an exhibit yet. The ERN number is 01757471 to 01757473. We have copies
10 for everyone.
11 Q. Now, firstly would you agree that this is one of the conversations
12 which you transcribed?
13 A. Yes. This is my handwriting and this is my code.
14 Q. And this is dated 4th of February, 1993?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I think it's right to say as well, isn't it, that you were
17 shown this document when you were interviewed by the Prosecution and that
18 you signed the back of it? Not on that copy but when you were interviewed
19 in August last year you were shown this document?
20 A. Probably, but I can't remember.
21 Q. Now, here it says, and I'm looking at the very first conversation.
22 Zeljko Knez calls the Skup feature and talks to Emina. And if we look at
23 the conversation, the person who's then noted with the Z, for Zeljko,
24 claims that he can be called directly by Sefer Halilovic, in other words,
25 from Sarajevo to Tuzla. And the woman Emina seems surprised by that and
1 says, "That's fantastic." Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if we carry on we see the next conversation, we see, don't we,
4 that in fact this was all highly suspicious, because X, the man who calls
5 Emina, says: "That phone's suspicious, don't use it." Then he says: "Do
6 you know who called?" She says: "He introduced himself to me as Knez."
7 And then he says: X: "You know Knez has just informed me that he didn't
8 call anybody." And then he goes on to advise that a bit of caution is
10 Now my question about that is that despite what appears in the
11 second half of this conversation, in other words, the doubt that's thrown
12 on the fact that it really was Zeljko Knez, it's right, isn't it, that
13 it's still -- the transcript still states that Zeljko Knez was the person
14 who called the Skup feature and spoke to Emina?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So when suspicions or uncertainties came about which would throw
17 doubt on whether in fact the interlocutor was who he claimed, that's not
18 something which would cause you to rectify the transcript. It would still
19 say that this was Zeljko Knez. Is that correct?
20 A. There's no way I could know if it was Zeljko Knez or not. That's
21 how he introduced himself and that's what got written down. And then
22 everything else continued. This was all transcribed from the same tape,
23 one conversation after another, and that's what you see recorded.
24 Q. Right. And again, it's not a criticism, it's simply to make this
25 point: That sometimes -- let me put it this way. That in the transcripts
1 a name would appear because simply had said "I'm Zeljko" or "I'm Knez,"
2 whereas in fact it might not be that person. They simply introduced
3 themselves that way?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would it be also right, as we seem -- as we might gather from this
6 document, that there's a great deal of fear, suspicion, and mistrust at
7 the time in Sarajevo and among the SDB service?
8 A. I'm not sure I understand.
9 Q. I'm sorry. I put that badly.
10 Let me put it this way: The Ministry of the Interior at the time
11 was intercepting the phone calls of their own army commander, the army
12 commander of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Well, I'll leave it at that.
15 MR. JONES: I would ask for an exhibit number to be given to this
16 document, please.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This will be Defence Exhibit 2?
18 THE REGISTRAR: 269.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: D269.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
22 MR. JONES: And if the witness could now be shown Exhibit P351,
24 Q. And again, this is a conversation which was transcribed by you and
25 it's dated the 15th of November, 1992.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And we see there in the conversation. I'll just draw your
3 attention to certain parts -- in fact, firstly if I could, before getting
4 into that, ask you this. You told us how Sefer Halilovic was sometimes
5 referred to with the letter K, sometimes by the letter S. Here we see him
6 referred to by Sl, and in fact the code Sloboda. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, what in fact makes you think that Sloboda there referred to
9 Sefer Halilovic? Did you in fact know that code name already?
10 A. I did not know the code name. This was the radio centre; that's
11 what the transcript says, a call from the radio centre. And then probably
12 it was said by radio that the code name referred to Sefer. I can't
13 remember specifically, but if that's what you see here as something that
14 was written down, then it must have been the case.
15 Q. Wasn't it somewhat confusing for your service to have three
16 different initials which could stand for Sefer Halilovic, S, K, and now Sl
17 as well? Is that really how it worked?
18 A. It could have worked that way for the simple reason that you would
19 have a pair of brackets with the initials of all those who took part in a
20 conversation. And whenever there were changes that were added to the
21 transcript, you would always have explanations in the brackets. Sk, for
22 example, Sefer, we always had to add these explanations in order to be
23 able to make sense of who was who.
24 Q. Okay. Well, assuming -- assuming that it is indeed Sefer
25 Halilovic who is speaking. We see there that he says: "Whom am I talking
1 to? Is it AP or is it the colleague?"
2 And So replies: "Here is the guest from the south, as ordered."
3 Sefer then says: "Come on, say that again.
4 And So replies: "Ptica speaking, the guest from the south."
5 Then it goes on. There's a lengthy conversation.
6 I would like to direct your attention to a couple of pages over,
7 it's in English, it's page 3 or 4. And there at the end of all of it
8 Sefer Halilovic speaks to man from the radio centre and says: "Who the
9 hell was that?"
10 The next reply is: "Ptica, he says. I don't know."
11 Firstly, "Ptica" in your language means a small bird, doesn't it?
12 A. "Ptica" means a bird. I'm not sure if it can mean anything else
13 at all.
14 Q. My apologies. So it's correct, isn't it, in this conversation
15 that Sefer Halilovic speaks to someone at great length and pretends to
16 know who's calling apparently, but in fact he doesn't have a clue who's
17 been at the other end. Would you agree with that characterisation?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And does that chime with your recollection of the climate of the
20 times, the very difficult environment of not knowing who is who and who is
21 friend or foe?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in staying with this exhibit, further on Sefer Halilovic asks
24 if it's possible to establish the connection with Srebrenica. And I'm
25 looking at page 3 of the English, and it's pages 3 to 4 of the Bosnian.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 And he asks if it's possible to establish the connection with Srebrenica.
2 And says: "I have not talked to them in a while."
3 And then X then says: "Whom should we ask for there?"
4 And he says, Halilovic: "I do not know. Ask for the chief."
5 "The chief in Srebrenica?"
6 "Yes. There is one who is in Srebrenica and one who is in the
8 Do you see that?
9 A. There is one in Srebrenica and there is one in the field, yes.
10 Q. All right. So would you agree that in essence there Halilovic is
11 simply saying, Take me or put me in contact with the chief, whoever that
12 is, he doesn't appear to know who the chief is in Srebrenica at that time?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please, that's something that
14 this -- Mr. Jones is asking this witness to read into. There's absolutely
15 nothing that this witness can utilise to ascribe that particular meaning
16 to this --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, point taken. Yeah, yeah, it's okay.
18 It's -- you're drawing a conclusion which the witness -- which
19 isn't fair to ask the witness to conclude.
20 MR. JONES: That's fair enough, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 Q. Just one final question on this conversation. We see X is the
22 interlocutor. So firstly -- that means that's an unknown person.
23 Correct? Unknown to you, to your service?
24 A. Unknown because they failed to introduce themselves at the start
25 of conversation.
1 Q. And doesn't it also mean that that person wasn't intercepted very
2 much, otherwise you would have recognised their voice?
3 A. Probably, yes. If I had a chance to listen to it frequently.
4 Q. Okay. Now, finally I just want to go back to P364 again briefly.
5 And I take the point again that this is not one of your intercepts but
6 it's simply to see if you can help us with something which appears there.
7 I'm looking at page 6 of 8 in the English; in the B/C/S it's on page 10,
8 starting six lines from the bottom from the B/C/S.
9 And it's the line which in B/C/S -- it says: [B/C/S spoken],
10 which in English is: "Naser, the people who remained in Srebrenica is a
11 green people. And it goes on: "America does not want a green people.
12 However, we are not a green people. We are Bosnia and Herzegovina. That
13 is all nations, nationalities."
14 And it's simply to ask you this on the basis of your experience.
15 Would you agree that green people is a reference to Muslim people and that
16 green is the symbolic colour of Islam?
17 A. Again, you're asking me about someone else's documents. There is
18 no way I can know what went on. I'm not familiar with this document. All
19 I know about is the quote you just read out.
20 Q. It was simply to get at this point. You worked for the government
21 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 and 1993. Correct?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. And you are a Croat?
24 A. Yes. A Croat from Bosnia.
25 Q. And you worked alongside Serbs and Bosnian Muslims in your
1 service. Correct?
2 A. Yes, of course.
3 Q. All right. Would you agree that the Republic of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina was not a Muslim government and the ABiH was not a Muslim
5 army, was it?
6 A. As far as I know, all the different ethnic groups were in the
7 armed forces, not just Muslims.
8 MR. JONES: Now, there are a couple of final matters, Your Honour.
9 One is I put to a prior witness questions about the non-preservation of
10 audio tapes. I don't feel it particularly necessary to put it to this
11 witness, but if Your Honours deem it appropriate or necessary, I'll do so.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: We feel nothing necessary, Mr. Jones. It's up to
14 MR. JONES: Probably for good measure I should do. With the usher
15 assistance if the witness can be shown D204.
16 Q. And in the meantime, Witness, I can just ask you this: As far as
17 you are aware, tapes, tape-recordings, would be preserved by being
18 recorded on to reel-to-reel tapes. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes. They would be preserved, sometimes copied on to other tapes,
20 longer tapes. And then they would be preserved in the archive, but I have
21 no idea how long they would be preserved for.
22 Q. Simply to show you the second page of this exhibit, D204. And
23 you'll see there that your name is listed in relation to intercepted
24 material. And you'll see that alongside most, if not all of the entries
25 where your name appears it says nema audio, in other words, there is no
1 audio available.
2 And my question is this: It appears from this that there were no
3 longer audio records for any of the intercepts listed in this document.
4 And it's right, isn't it, that that would not fit with the practice of
5 your service?
6 A. I don't know that.
7 Q. Would it strike you as odd, based upon the practices which you
8 observed when you worked for the SDB, if the tapes which you transcribed
9 were not -- were no longer preserved?
10 A. Usually after a while everything that was no longer required would
11 be erased. I'm not sure how long things were kept for. It wasn't down to
12 us to make that call, it was down to other people.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. JONES: And we have one or two final exhibits, if Your Honours
15 would just give me a moment.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher, you did not put it on the ELMO that time, did
17 you? Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. JONES: We have copies of the new exhibit, and the ERN is
19 01758244 to 01758254.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for a while, please.
21 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back in open session.
15 Yes, Mr. Jones.
16 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Yes, Witness, if you could just have a look at this document, and
18 again as you'll notice straight away, I'm sure, it's not one of the
19 conversations which you transcribed so you don't have to have any worries
20 on that score.
21 It would simply to ask you this: Whether firstly looking at the
22 heading the SDB, the sector, and the department, whether from all the
23 indications this is an intercept of the same service which you worked in?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And isn't it right, even from the operator number, that that is
1 one which is pretty close to your operator number; in fact, the next in
2 sequence, I believe.
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. JONES: Now, Your Honours, I would seek to tender this into
5 evidence for other purposes which don't concern this witness, but it seems
6 this witness is the most appropriate one to introduce this exhibit. So I
7 would simply ask for an exhibit number.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly, Mr. Jones. This will be 270, D270.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will become Defence Exhibit D270.
11 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. In fact, I have no further
13 I would simply request that, if possible, we be provided with the
14 audio original P362, which we've noted today. There is something which we
15 need to check. So that is something which I simply raise.
16 And I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there re-examination, Mr. Di Fazio?
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one question.
19 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
20 Q. You said that radio communications between Sarajevo and Srebrenica
21 were primitive. In the years 1992 or 1993, did you actually study or
22 receive any information as to what the radio communications, if any,
23 actually were as between the enclave of Srebrenica and Sarajevo itself?
24 A. No. We had no information on that. All I could do was write down
25 what I heard on the tape. If I heard that radio communications had been
1 established, then that was what I wrote down. I had no other information
2 on that, nor did we.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No further re-examination.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.
6 I don't have any questions either, which means that your testimony
7 comes to an end here. We're finished with you. You will now be escorted
8 by Madam Usher out of the courtroom, and the other officers of this
9 Tribunal will extend to you all the assistance that you need to facilitate
10 your return back home at the earliest opportunity.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: On behalf of the Trial Chamber, on behalf of Judge
13 Brydensholt from Denmark and Judge Eser from Germany and on my own behalf,
14 I should like to thank you for having come over to give testimony, give
15 evidence, in this case against Naser Oric. And before you leave the
16 courtroom, on behalf of everyone present here I would like to extend to
17 you our best wishes for a safe journey back home. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So that's it. I take it that tomorrow you need the
21 entire day for -- to continue proofing of the next witness?
22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we need to adjourn here basically.
24 MR. JONES: Yes, there was one matter which I thought I should
25 perhaps remind Your Honour that you wanted to hear from us about which was
1 Rule 98 bis.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, we can postpone that for the time being
3 because we still haven't really discussed it amongst ourselves.
4 MR. JONES: That's fine.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are pretty much there already I mean, but I would
6 rather not open the discussion before I have formalised it between
7 ourselves, as it should be.
8 MR. JONES: That's fine, Your Honour, I just thought --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We've already done what we needed to do. It's just
10 a short meeting that we need to have to make sure that we are fine-tuned,
11 the three of us, that's all. Then of course you will have an opportunity.
12 Unless of course since you both come from a practical common law
13 jurisdiction, you opt to -- for what was opted in the Limaj case and just
14 keep moving.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: That suits the Prosecution I would think.
16 MR. JONES: That's -- we shan't be adopting that course. We
17 are -- I might just mention that we are nonetheless in favour of an
18 expedited procedure --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, definitely. It's going to be expedited
20 in any case.
21 MR. JONES: One matter I might just mention is that in the course
22 of that discussion there's -- there will be a general discussion about
23 what sort of procedure, but more concretely we may be getting into
24 questions of dates. And in that regard it would be helpful if we could
25 have clarification from the Chamber of when the Prosecution case closes,
1 is it the moment the last witness leaves the room or some other event?
2 And that's something which --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put it like this, Mr. Jones, there are these
4 options. Let's start with the picture as it is projected now. Things
5 remaining as they are, basically we're talking, according to Mr. Wubben,
6 of Prosecution resting its case first or second day of June, which we can
7 live with. I mean, it's not a problem. If we can advance it, then
8 obviously we prefer it.
9 The only way of advancing it or -- there are two ways of advancing
10 it. One way is if those three witnesses that will be coming over to
11 testify or are scheduled to come over to testify on the chain of custody
12 of documents testify in-chief by means of a written statement, to be
13 followed, if necessary at all, by cross-examination viva voce, yeah, which
14 would shorten the trial by a few days, but it will definitely shorten the
15 trial by a few days.
16 The other thing is the following: Given that for the time being,
17 we would need to decide whether we would take advantage of the few days
18 gained or whether we would be liberal and make those couple of days
19 available for the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses
20 in excess of what is indicated in the document that the Prosecution has
21 made available. In other words, we told you earlier on this week that we
22 are pretty much unhappy - and when I say "pretty much" I really mean it -
23 with the situation obtaining when we are told or we are told to expect
24 witness testifying in-chief for three hours, and then we end up with that
25 witness testifying for almost nine hours. That is simply unacceptable,
1 unacceptable because of normal court management, exigencies, and
2 unacceptable also because the moment we allow that witness to continue
3 testifying for nine hours, or eight hours, then automatically we are
4 generating a longer cross-examination.
5 So we will be curtailing on that. We made it clear earlier on
6 this week that if there is an indication that Monday's witness, for
7 example, is needed in-chief for five hours, that's how long he is going to
9 MR. JONES: Yes, may -- I had less in mind the specific date on
10 which the Prosecution case will close but --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: It's according to what the -- what Mr. Wubben tells
12 us, and I have no reason to doubt Mr. Wubben's word. He is extremely
13 reliable. We will be finishing 1st of June.
14 MR. JONES: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: With Witness number 53.
16 MR. JONES: But the point really is really this, Your Honour, it's
17 a different point which is that, does the Prosecution case -- is it closed
18 at that moment when the last witness leaves, or are there other events or
19 event -- and I don't wish to enter into it because it concerns
20 confidential matter of which we are aware, but whether it be following
21 that event or those events that the Prosecution case would close because
22 that has a bearing, obviously, on when --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: That's not part of the Prosecution case. That's
24 something which has been triggered by us, not by the Prosecution.
25 MR. JONES: I see.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: To me at least, and I stand to be corrected by my
2 two colleagues, because of course you're catching me on the wrong foot
3 here or -- to me, the Prosecution has got to do nothing with that. When
4 the Prosecution finishes with the last witness, witness 53 or whoever that
5 may be, basically I expect Mr. Wubben to stand up and to tell the Trial
6 Chamber, this is where the Prosecution rests its case, or the Prosecution
7 rests its case. That's what I expect.
8 MR. JONES: No. Thank you for that indication, because that
9 obviously has a bearing on when 98 bis will take place.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. Then obviously -- anyway, let's not
11 discuss any further.
12 MR. JONES: Okay.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: But I think I've made myself clear that that
14 particular procedure does not form part of the case for the Prosecution.
15 MR. JONES: Okay.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: In my opinion. If the other two colleagues disagree
17 with me, obviously I take that back and we come back to you on it. But I
18 don't see it as forming part of the Prosecution's case.
19 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: It's something completely different.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Yeah, Your Honours, regarding that decision you
24 mentioned that's up to the Trial Chamber, and we will of course abide by
25 the fact when our last witness will be -- will have finalised his or her
1 testimony. Then we will confirm that to the Trial Chamber.
2 What might be needed, and my learned friend also being of
3 supportive information, is some kind of scheduling, some kind of overall
4 addressing by this Trial Chamber when it comes to 98 bis submission. And
5 as it will be the first or the second time done --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: It's the first time, I think, yeah.
7 MR. WUBBEN: Well, it might be the second time because there's
8 another case. After this change of December 2004, then it might be good
9 to have some observations, some opinions, by the parties to advise Your
10 Honours what we think of as a kind of forum, as a kind of scheduling, to
11 track the steps in which Trial Chamber might be able to give a decision.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Basically I can tell you straight and plain
13 that it will be as expedited as possible. I mean, forget about the months
14 that used to be -- that were taken before for the motion and then for the
15 response and then for the response to the response and the further
16 response to the response to the response, forget all that. This is going
17 to be expedited in this period of the amendment that was promulgated. And
18 also, if I may say so, Rule 6 itself makes it clear when amendments to the
19 rules come into effect. Of course, they must not prejudice the rights of
20 the accused. And the rights of the accused are obviously not prejudiced
21 if the Rule 98 procedure is followed according to the new regime rather
22 than the old. I mean, rules -- the submissions for acquittal need not be
23 in writing, in other words, for the rights of the accused to be protected.
24 MR. JONES: Yes. Our position on that is we're in complete
25 agreement. We even thought maybe even a five-day schedule where we have
1 two days for our motion and the Prosecution respond and we reply all in
2 one week, and the reason why we say that is simply because this is our
3 application. It is something which is the right of the accused, and it
4 won't come as any surprise to the Prosecution, the submissions we make,
5 because of course as the trial proceeds they know which evidence they
6 think show any elements, and so there shouldn't be any -- you know,
7 certainly any lengthy period or indeed any period, we would submit, that
8 the Prosecution have to go away and consider our arguments because they
9 should already know at the end of their case what they think they've
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Basically, I mean, as I said, we haven't
12 finalised the discussions amongst ourselves, although we have all the
13 material ready there.
14 The thing is this: It boils down to you will have -- although the
15 three of us probably come from a system where the moment the Prosecution
16 rests its case, this is disposed of almost immediately, this question of
17 Rule 98. In my jurisdiction, I mean, it's done there and then. I mean,
18 it's -- and you make your submissions, they make their submissions, and if
19 I am presiding alone, I will just hand out an oral decision there and
21 MR. JONES: And it succeeds sometimes as well.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And it succeeds. But the reason is -- because you
23 will have lived the case, I will have lived the case, and the Prosecution
24 will have lived the case; so that's the whole reason.
25 Here, I definitely will not be suggesting to my two colleagues
1 that everything be done on the same day as the Prosecution rests its case.
2 I don't think we should adopt that system. So we will come back to you
3 anyway. So -- but you can rest assured that you will have ample
4 opportunity to prepare and present your case for acquittal under Rule 98.
5 And same applies to the Prosecution when it comes to responding.
6 Yes, Mr. Wubben.
7 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. And if I give that a thought so
8 there might also be time available, not only for preparing for the reply
9 towards the submission of Defence counsel, but also we might think -- and
10 to expedite this trial in the spirit of the change of the rule, for a kind
11 of --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Only in spirit. I mean, the probability or almost
13 the certainty is that we come back to you and tell you it's the new rule
14 that applies. I mean, in my mind there's no question about it.
15 MR. WUBBEN: And to serve that purpose, it might also be
16 supportive if Defence will give some notice, let's say two weeks in
17 advance, to update the Prosecution what kind of issues will be addressed
18 in their 98 bis submission. I mean, only the issues, not submission or
19 clarification. Let's say when there are 300 issues to address by Defence
20 counsel, then it is very important for Trial Chamber, both as Prosecution,
21 to know that in order to fit in a schedule and to be decided upon by this
22 Trial Chamber. That's an additional thought, apart from the fact that the
23 scheduling needs really some guideline by this Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, I don't know how much Mr. Jones agrees with
25 you, and I don't know how much we will agree with you --
1 MR. JONES: No --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: But anyway, let's postpone this discussion until we
3 have discussed. It's a good thing that we have at least heard some of
4 your opinions, but please do restrict and base your submissions on what we
5 have in the rules. I know that we don't have much, but stick to the
6 rules. Stick to the rules. All right?
7 MR. JONES: One observation, we simply couldn't possibly notify
8 what your argument is going to be until the case is closed. That's why
9 the submission comes at the close of the Prosecution case. In any
10 event --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's postpone the whole matter, yeah.
12 I thank you. So we will reconvene on Monday.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, with the next witness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Monday -- morning? Morning. In this courtroom?
15 Monday morning in this courtroom. Thank you.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.46 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of
18 May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.