1 Thursday, 11 January 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, good afternoon to you Madam Registrar, could you
7 kindly call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. IT-05-88-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. So everyone is present from the
11 accused. Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey. Defence team, same situation,
12 same situation as yesterday. I couldn't see you behind the pillar, behind
13 the column, Mr. Vanderpuye. My apologies to you.
14 Right. Let's finish with Mr. Haynes' cross-examination.
15 Mr. Haynes.
16 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-129 [Resumed]
17 [The witness answered through interpretation]
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes: [Continued]
19 MR. HAYNES: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
20 Q. Good afternoon, witness. Yesterday evening, just before we broke,
21 we were looking at a notebook or a note you had written of an intercept at
22 8.28 in the morning of the 15th of July of 1995; do you remember that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And do you remember that you were good enough to confirm for me
25 from the text of that intercept three or four details about it. The first
1 was that one of the collocutors, to use your word, was X or Jocic and that
2 man was looking to get in touch with somebody called Obrenovic?
3 A. I apologise, I don't have the intercept in front of me, but I
4 assume that it is as you put it.
5 Q. Well, it's perfectly simple. If you want to confirm it, it's
6 P1170A, and we can have it put up in front of you. And, Witness, you take
7 all the time you want to consider your note, but what I was asking you to
8 confirm was your note revealed that one of the speakers was X or Jocic,
9 and he was looking to get in touch with somebody called Obrenovic. Would
10 you confirm that that is something you wrote down?
11 A. I wrote this. As for the collocutor X, this may be Jocic, but at
12 the moment I was noting it down I wasn't sure of his identity.
13 Q. Thank you very much. And the second thing you told me about
14 yesterday was that X asked to speak to called to somebody called Travera
15 Peru after which a third speaker appeared to whom you assigned the initial
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And the person to whom you assigned the initial P, said that he
19 was in contact with Obrenovic, didn't he?
20 A. It is correct. It is what is stated here.
21 Q. Thank you very much. And the last thing which we dealt with
22 before we broke was that X or Jocic said that Vinko had been asked to go
23 over to his men.
24 A. I cannot see it too well on the screen, but it is more or less
1 Q. It needs to go down a line or two for you to be able to see
3 A. That is correct. It is what is written here.
4 Q. Thank you very much. And what you told me at the very close of
5 yesterday evening was that you couldn't remember whether you asked for
6 this particular radio conversation to be treated as urgent.
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Now, just one or two other things about that before we move on.
9 The channel that you were monitoring when you listened to this
10 conversation was channel 3, wasn't it? If you want, we can bring the
11 document down a bit so you can see the top.
12 A. That is correct. If it says channel 3, that was the channel.
13 Q. And channel 3 was generally found between 784.6 and 784.7
14 megahertz, wasn't it?
15 A. I no longer remember that. I don't remember the exact
16 frequencies, but I presume it can be verified.
17 Q. Thank you very much. Well, we won't go through a whole series of
18 them to show you that, I'm sure we can agree that.
19 At the time you recorded this conversation did the name Obrenovic
20 mean anything to you?
21 A. Generally speaking I knew very little about the individuals whose
22 conversations I was surveilling.
23 Q. But in particular, and I know it's a long time ago, do you recall
24 whether the name Obrenovic was of significance at that time?
25 A. Speaking about it today I can remember, or rather I cannot
1 remember anything to do with that last name at the time.
2 Q. What about the name Vinko?
3 A. It was better known, he was a brigade commander, so it was a
4 rather well-known first name.
5 Q. Thank you very much. I want to move on now to the next intercept
6 in the sequence, which is behind our tab 4.
7 MR. HAYNES: And for the witness, can we please have P1171B on the
8 screen, please.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: While that is being done, have you updated the --
10 where is it?
11 Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Haynes.
12 MR. HAYNES: Absolutely not, Mr. President, absolutely not.
13 Can we go to the bottom of the page, please, on this exhibit? A
14 bit further. Thank you.
15 Q. Now, the first thing we notice about this particular intercept is
16 it's not recorded on a pre-set channel, is it?
17 A. This conversation was picked up by another type of device.
18 Q. That's very helpful. And 255.850, that's the frequency on which
19 it was recorded, isn't it?
20 A. That is correct. I think it is an RR-1 device.
21 Q. And I suggested to you a little while ago that channel 3 was in
22 the region of 784 megahertz, 255 megahertz is quite a long way around the
23 dial from that, isn't it?
24 A. I am not absolutely certain as to the gist of your question, but
25 when we have a mention of channels it is one type of device, whereas when
1 we have frequencies mentioned it is a different type of device, and they
2 use different antenna -- antennas.
3 Q. In terms of the frequency, 255 megahertz, is that likely to be a
4 different sort of communication from something transmitted at 784
6 A. The communication principle is the same, but RR-1 uses one
7 channel, and the RR-800 has about 20 channels in total.
8 Q. Well, thank you, I'm not going to press this too far. But looking
9 at that entry below 255.850 at 8.34, all the writing there is your
10 writing, isn't it?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. And for the avoidance of doubt, this is six minutes after the last
13 intercept we were looking at that ended with the X saying that Vinko was
14 going to be sent to his men?
15 A. I don't have all of it in front of me, all I can see is the
16 message we discussed a bit ago.
17 Q. Well, what you see there to the bottom of the page is all that
18 there is to this message, and what you've written down is 10 to 12 words,
19 isn't it?
20 A. It is, that's the entire message.
21 Q. But I think you agree that's a summary of a very -- longer
22 conversation, isn't it?
23 A. There is a possibility of that, but I cannot recall the exact
24 duration of that conversation.
25 Q. Well, I'm going to try and help you remember it, to see if you can
1 help us as to how long that conversation was and what it contained.
2 You've written at the top of there that there were two collocutors, X and
3 Jevtovic. That's correct, isn't it?
4 A. X Jevdjevic.
5 Q. Sorry that's my pronunciation, but yes, X Jevdjevic. Is it the
6 case that the conversation was sufficiently long for you to identify
7 Jevdjevic as a speaker in the conversation?
8 A. Judging by what is written down, it is clear that Jevdjevic was
9 identified. As to how, I don't know. Whether he introduced himself or
10 whether the conversation was long, I can't tell you at this moment.
11 Q. Was Jevdjevic's voice one which you would have instantly
12 recognised or would you have needed the context to identify him as a
14 A. I do not remember who Mr. Jevdjevic was.
15 Q. So you would accept it is more likely that you identified him as a
16 speaker from the context of the conversation?
17 A. One possibility is to use the context, the entire conversation,
18 and another possibility is perhaps that someone on the switchboard asked
19 for a particular person. Several options are possible, and I don't know
20 which one was in place.
21 Q. That's very helpful of you. Do you recall whether this short 10
22 or 12-word summary was a summary of one conversation or a series of
24 A. I don't recall the details, I can only assume that this concerns
25 one conversation and that this was the gist of it.
1 Q. Well, I'm going to try and help you a little more. I'm going to
2 remind you of something you said when you made a witness statement in 1999
3 and I'm going to ask, please, that you are shown P02337 at page 3 of the
4 English and page 4 in the B/C/S. We need to go forward one page in the
5 B/C/S, please.
6 Now, can you look at the second paragraph down from the top in the
7 B/C/S version and read it over to yourself.
8 A. I can see it, I've already read it.
9 Q. Is what's written there correct?
10 A. It is.
11 Q. And you can see that the conversation you -- you showed to the
12 investigator was page 45 of book 1 which was the very conversation we've
13 been looking at. Is it right therefore that during the course of this
14 conversation some attempts were made to find Vinko Pandurevic but he
15 couldn't be found?
16 A. The conversation or the information conveyed is as it stands. I
17 don't know what else is behind it. I just conveyed what was said.
18 Q. Well, I'm just intrigued about what you said in May of 1999 when
19 you made a witness statement, because you said you remember a conversation
20 "when our commander Semso Muminovic was requesting a meeting to see Vinko
21 Pandurevic but he couldn't be contacted." Were attempts to contact Vinko
22 Pandurevic made during the conversation we're looking at?
23 A. Mr. Muminovic asked to speak with Mr. Pandurevic, and it was an
24 important piece of information.
25 Q. Did Mr. Muminovic ask to speak to anybody else during the course
1 of this conversation?
2 A. I do not remember.
3 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you now, please, to be shown 4D60 at page 2
4 in both the English and the B/C/S.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel repeat the number? 4D60?
6 MR. HAYNES: 4D60. Could the English version be pulled down a
7 little further, please?
8 Q. Can you read that, Witness? Or is it too small for you?
9 A. Yes, I can.
10 Q. I want you to look at the subparagraph 2, towards the bottom of
11 the page, please. I asked you some questions about this. This is an
12 occasion when you met with Stefanie Frease and some other people about 11
13 days after you made your witness statement. And again you recalled
14 conversations that you had heard and, at number 2, you said one was about
15 opening a corridor. "It was a call made by one of our commanders, Semso
16 Muminovic, in which he was looking for Furcula." Is that correct?
17 A. I cannot recall exactly. I cannot recall this particular detail
18 and who it was that Semso asked to speak to. This is the statement I
19 gave, and there is such a possibility.
20 Q. So there is a possibility, is there, that the 10 or 12 words you
21 wrote down reflect the whole series of conversations in which Semso
22 Muminovic was looking for Furcula and Vinko Pandurevic and attempts were
23 made to contact Vinko Pandurevic, which all came to nothing. That's what
24 these 10 or 12 words actually represent, a whole series of conversations
25 like that?
1 A. There is such a possibility, although I am uncertain.
2 Q. Very well. Can we go back briefly, please, to P1171B? Thank you
3 very much. Bottom of the page again.
4 Now, there's a word there in square brackets that's got lines
5 drawn around it. That means urgent, doesn't it?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. And you wrote the word "urgent" on that message, didn't you?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. What was it about the fact that Semso Muminovic wanted to talk to
10 Vinko Pandurevic that was urgent?
11 A. It was urgent because it concerned Srebrenica. People were trying
12 to break through the lines and it was an important piece of information.
13 Q. Well, forgive me, you can't tell all that from that message, but
14 that was what you knew it was about, was it? You knew it was about a
15 corridor and people getting through the lines?
16 A. I can say that I evaluated that there was a possibility of the
17 corridor being closed, but I wasn't really -- that it would be opened.
18 Q. Thank you very much. Now, the other detail about that message I
19 want to ask you a couple of questions about was, you managed to record the
20 frequency on which Semso Muminovic was going to contact Vinko Pandurevic,
21 didn't you?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And this was -- this was very important, wasn't it?
24 A. Very important, that's correct.
25 Q. Did you monitor that frequency?
1 A. I don't recall this particular type of frequency being
3 Q. Well, I want you to help me about this. Here you've got a very
4 important message where one of your commanders is trying to make contact
5 with a brigade commander from the Bosnian Serb army and you've got the
6 frequency on which they were going to talk to one another. What orders
7 were you given about monitoring any conversations on that frequency?
8 A. There was no order, simply it was -- this was an ultrahigh
9 frequency and we were also monitoring reserve connections.
10 Q. But as you told me at the very start of this cross-examination,
11 what conversations you monitored and recorded were substantially your --
12 in your discretion. Why didn't you monitor this frequency after that
14 A. The order was on the zones that would be monitored. This
15 frequency I don't think was supposed to be monitored by our sector. It
16 was to be monitored by the brigade sector.
17 Q. Are you aware whether the brigade sector was given an order to
18 monitor this frequency?
19 A. I don't know anything about that.
20 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. I have no further questions for
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Is there re-examination, Mr.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just want to clear up one point, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
1 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
2 Q. Witness, was -- the frequencies you were listening to, was that up
3 to your discretion or did you receive orders on which frequencies to
4 listen to?
5 A. We received the zones that we were supposed to monitor
6 conversations in.
7 Q. Down at the bottom of this, is that an FR before the number 144,
8 and so on, and so on?
9 A. I think it says F2.
10 Q. Do you know what that -- I mean you wrote that. Do you know what
11 that means, F2 or FR?
12 A. It should have been some sort of channel on the small radio
13 station device.
14 Q. So that number 144 -- what is that number, can you tell me that?
15 I won't try to guess.
16 A. Those are the frequencies used by people who have powerful radio
17 stations and these are not relay connections. These are direct
18 connections that don't need relay stations in order to work. These
19 stations are used by the police service, the fire service, and so on.
20 Q. Okay. Can you just -- just so the record is clear, can you tell
21 us what numbers and/or letters are written there, those six digits?
22 A. 144985.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 So witness, that brings us to the end of the questions. On behalf
2 of the Tribunal I like to thank you for your testimony. Our staff will
3 assist you for your return back home. On behalf of everyone, I wish you a
4 safe journey back home.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So, I think we can start with the tendering process.
8 Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I believe you may have this
10 sheet, and we have the -- the under seal pseudonym sheet PO2337, and then
11 we have the series of intercepts -- sorry, that's the 92 ter statement,
12 2337. The pseudonym sheet is 2338. And then all those intercepts you see
13 have their own numbers which I think we can hopefully count on the
14 document that you have, as well as there's notebooks noted at the end and
15 those are all the things I have made reference to and as we know the
16 process is, I would just have them marked for identification until we get
17 to the issues.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Am I to take it that the ones in bold are being
19 tendered to remain under seal.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. Ms. Stewart has just reminded me
21 of that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You have been given a copy of this, the
23 various Defence teams? I am, of course, safeguarding what we have agreed
24 upon in the past already in relation to your general objection on
25 intercepts and also on the notebooks. Are there any objections? Yes,
1 Madam Fauveau.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a problem with
3 P2341, because if this intercept was, in fact, written down by the witness
4 that we heard, it's the same conversation that was also in the
5 Prosecution's motion of the 15th of December and you rendered a decision
6 on that decision. In that decision of the 15th of December, the
7 Prosecutor was stating that this particular conversation was intercepted
8 by the witness PW-137. So I am not able to say who, in fact, intercepted
9 this conversation and this is why I would like the Prosecutor to state
10 clearly who was the operator who intercepted that particular conversation.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.
12 Mr. McCloskey, second page, bottom. PO2341.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm not sure what counsel's referring to, but I
14 can look into that. But I can tell you this -- this: As we've
15 established, this witness did review the handwritten notebook and did
16 identify his handwriting. And so I believe the foundation has been laid,
17 and if someone else did this intercept as well, that's possible, or if
18 we've got our intercepts mixed up, that's possible as well. I will check
19 into that.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
21 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] A point of clarification. This is
23 the conversation number 8 which was annexed to the motion of the
24 Prosecutor, and the Prosecutor himself identified the operator as being
25 PW-137. Now this conversation was identified by the witness during the
1 meeting that they had with the Prosecutor. It is possible that this
2 conversation, however, may have placed by mistake in -- in this bundle.
3 Maybe that's what happened.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, if you consider it necessary and if the
5 witness is still here, we could ask him in again. Show him the intercept
6 and he will confirm whether this is his handwriting or not.
7 Do you agree?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's simple.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's see if he's still in the
11 Madam usher, please.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we have that notebook, sometimes they are with
13 other witnesses, but we'll try to take a look.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: In relation to witness PW-137, it is the person we
15 have decided will be made available for cross-examination if any of the
16 Defence teams will notify us within seven days earlier of the need to
17 cross-examine him.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Before we bring him in, we might want to just find
20 the notebook. There are many of them. Or we can all wait.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We are still -- we can still operate under the same
22 conditions as before, namely with voice distortion. I just want a
23 confirmation on that.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And this is a notebook readily available
1 here, or do you have to bring it over from somewhere?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is a pretty good collection. Whenever I look
3 for notebooks, it's always the last one in the box, but I think Ms.
4 Stewart has it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put it on the ELMO so that the Defence has an
6 opportunity to -- no, but I want to see it myself, and I want to make sure
7 that we have the same -- he's being shown the same document. It's Madam
8 Fauveau in particular. I mean of course I'm not excluding any of the
9 other Defence teams, but ...
10 All right. The ERN number should be, Madam -- 667, 666. Okay.
11 All right.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe the ERN should be -- 0080-0666 is the
13 beginning of the intercept, and if we could place it on the ELMO, and I --
14 I guess I should just ask the witness.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Just put the question, Mr. McCloskey.
16 Further examination by Mr. McCloskey:
17 MR. McCLOSKEY:
18 Q. Witness, what we've asked you to come back in for is if you could
19 just take a look at this notebook and at this intercept that it's -- that
20 it's open to. Make sure I've got the right part. It begins -- it's 1802
21 hours. And please take a look at the original -- the original notebook,
22 if you could. Do you recognise that handwriting?
23 A. This is my handwriting.
24 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
1 Do you wish to put any question, Madam Fauveau?
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, I just wanted to
3 inform you that the Defence of General Miletic will not request that the
4 witness PW-137 be called back.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you.
6 Witness, I thank you once more. We needed to clear that up. You
7 will now be escorted by our usher. And have a safe journey back home.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So these documents will be admitted with
11 the -- or marked for identification with -- according to the usual
12 practice that we have been following, both as regards the intercepts and
13 as regards the notebook. The pseudonym sheet of course is admitted and
14 will remain under seal. The same as regards the witness statement of the
15 5th of May, 1999. And all those other documents tendered which appear in
16 bold in the list submitted by the Prosecution will, until we decide
17 finally and definitively on whether they are fully admitted or not, remain
18 under seal.
19 Defence exhibits. Mr. Zivanovic, I suppose, goes first.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have given our
21 list of exhibits that we used during the cross-examination. It's been
22 given, presented.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We will go through it for the record.
24 It's document 1D127, 1D128, 1D131, 1D140, 1D149, 1D154. These are better
25 described in a sheet of paper that has been submitted by Mr. Zivanovic.
1 However, since on this sheet of paper there is the name of the witness
2 written down, this sheet of paper will be made use of as necessary by the
3 registrar, but will remain under seal.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to mention that
5 we sent a corrected list and instead of Exhibit 1D131 the Exhibit D126 [as
6 interpreted] has been substituted. We made that correction this morning.
7 Because 1D126 was actually used during the cross-examination of the
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for that correction, Mr. Zivanovic. My
10 recollection also is that all -- yes, exactly. That out of these, 1D127
11 and 1D128 need to remain under seal.
12 Any objection from any of the Defence teams or from the
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And of course these, for the time being, will remain
17 marked for identification pending receipt and clearance of the translation
18 thereof. All right?
19 Automatically once the translation comes in and is not contested
20 by anyone, these temporarily admitted documents will become fully-fledged
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, document 1D122 is
24 already translated and exists already in the system, and the document
25 2D45, 2D47, 2D48 will become 5D, with all the other numbers that I
1 mentioned. For those documents I don't have the translation yet. All
2 these documents contain the name of the witness, so I would like to ask
3 that these documents be treated as confidential documents.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think we have covered them all. So
5 it's 5D 2D48, 5D122, 5D 2D45, and 5D 2D47, correct?
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And the first and the last two will be marked for
8 identification for the time being, pending translation. The other one,
9 not hearing any objections, is fully admitted. All right? And all these
10 four documents or exhibits will remain under seal.
11 Now, Mr. Haynes, you did make use of one or two documents. Do you
12 wish to tender them or not.
13 MR. HAYNES: The witness statement is already in evidence, and I
14 don't wish to tender the small section of the information report that I
15 put to him because it's read into the transcript.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Any other document that any of
17 the Defence teams would like to tender? None. So that closes the chapter
18 as regards this witness, Witness number 69.
19 We are going to raise an issue with you. Which is the result
20 of -- a sense of frustration and also a lot of thought, and in-depth
21 discussion that is we've had amongst ourselves before and after the
22 recess. For quite some time now we have been hearing, receiving the
23 evidence of several intercept operator witnesses. Despite growing
24 concerns on our part, we believe we have been extremely patient and we've
25 shown much judicial restraint up until now and have not intervened in the
1 examination of any of these witnesses. However, as a result, we have had
2 very lengthy evidence, resulting in a considerable amount of time
3 consumed, dealing with repetitive evidence, and evidence which in some
4 instances appears to be of marginal relevance at best.
5 You are, as much as we are, fully aware that there are several
6 other witnesses currently scheduled to appear in this case dealing again
7 with intercepts, about 14 or 16 left. And the Trial Chamber is very
8 concerned that continuing with the current approach will add unduly to
9 the length of this trial with the presentation of evidence that is
10 unnecessarily commutative and of minimal relevance. We have given this a
11 hell of a lot of thought and we have come to the conclusion that the
12 situation is no longer tenable. We are fully aware of our duty to ensure
13 the fair and expeditious conduct of this trial, and we have fully
14 considered what might or could be done with a view to avoiding the
15 continuation of such problems.
16 Before issuing any orders, however, we thought it fit to give you
17 an opportunity to air your views on this, and in fact we are going to give
18 you an opportunity now to make submissions on what you think can be done
19 to expedite this process when dealing with these intercept operator
21 We will start with you, Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. As you might imagine,
23 well, we share the same concern because these are very difficult
24 witnesses, with all the material and minutia. We have -- in each of the
25 three trials I've done we have tried to sculpt the intercepts as
1 appropriate to the trial. This based on the judges, based on the case.
2 We have early on received your views about -- about intercepts, especially
3 intercepts relating to acts or conduct of the accused. We have seven
4 accused here. Unlike the other trials intercepts were important but they
5 weren't of this vast number. The -- Krstic had a few very important
6 intercepts. Blagojevic and Jokic had a few, but not many. This case has
7 many, many intercepts that go to the acts or conducts of the accused,
8 which as you know, the Bench has shown have a particular importance.
9 We have chosen our witnesses basically with two criteria, one,
10 supervisor witnesses that can give you the idea of how this programme
11 worked. And that is done not only so you can understand the programme at
12 the two sides and -- with the MUP and with the headquarters, but also
13 the -- all the intercept operators whose intercepts may be important but
14 don't go to acts or conduct, we believe they go to foundation as a
15 quasi-business records. So that's why the supervisors have been chosen,
16 the very few supervisors you have seen. All the other witnesses have been
17 chosen only because we have identified one or more intercept that go to an
18 act or conduct of the accused that we feel is something that is worth you
20 There are acts or conduct evidence out there that don't amount to
21 the kind of evidence that we think you need to hear. So we have made a
22 judgement on each and every one of these witnesses that there is an
23 important intercept in there that you should see. And I can pick those --
24 I know you don't want this, but any intercept operator that we choose I
25 will show you why we -- the intercept was important, how we believed it
1 went to acts or conduct, and why we chose it. For example my last
2 witness, I didn't have him go over any intercepts in a sort of an
3 offensive manner, I mean that in a sport sense, to show you a Popovic or a
4 Beara intercept. I just -- he just authenticated his 27, and there are
5 several in there, and that will be dealt with by analysis in a later
6 period. But each witness has an important intercept to the -- that go to
7 the acts or conduct of the accused and we felt we needed that intercept
8 into evidence for your analysis, and I think as you have seen our motions
9 based on your decision that in order for an intercept to be relevant, if
10 it went to acts or conduct you needed to hear from that witness and they
11 needed to cross-examine him. And I think that has been -- borne out to be
12 not a bad decision, because I think we're gaining information from the
13 cross-examination and from the direct that goes to important evidence. I
14 think that was, in retrospect and at the time an important decision
15 according to the law and a decision that I think should stand, as should
16 that -- those future intercepts that go to act or conduct.
17 My instructions to myself and to my counsel are that -- is that
18 the rest of these people are 92 ter, if at all possible, with maybe the
19 exception of the MUP supervisor who -- you have heard there are challenges
20 about the MUP. And we are, if we haven't, we mean to be trying to get
21 every one of these folks as 92 ter, with -- and I have, in looking at
22 their statements, I have he been reading these long transcripts of
23 previous trials that much of it is spent reading in intercepts because
24 that was the process we chose. I have instead, in my last witnesses,
25 chose to take the two or three-page report, which had the guts of what we
1 wanted and their background, and left any examination about intercepts to
2 the direct examination. And that's -- that's -- are my instructions to
3 mitre. Everybody 92 ter, try to keep your summary as -- you know, as
4 short and to the point as possible. I'll leave it to the lawyers if they
5 want to use the trial transcripts, they may. Mr. Thayer is going to be
6 using the trial transcript on another witness. I like to use, if we have
7 a good statement, the statement.
8 And regarding questions on direct under 92 ter, my -- my practice
9 and my instructions reflect what you saw with this last witness. There
10 wasn't a very good record about his -- his previous education and he had
11 no -- he wasn't the HAM radio guy and didn't have much -- didn't have any
12 radio experience, that's why I went into a bit on his engineering
13 background, very, very short. And then pretty much after that I
14 concentrated on individual intercepts and only in situations where I
15 thought that an individual intercept that was important had a bit of
16 information that needed to be clarified, like 01. 01 is code for the
17 commander of a unit, and it can be read either 01 or -- the letters ON,
18 which means "he." So I needed just to bring out through this witness that
19 he couldn't tell whether it was 01 or he, so that if Mr. Butler or someone
20 else is interpreting that he will take that into account and you will
21 understand why he is.
22 The same thing with Jocic. The -- Jocic, I just wanted to clarify
23 that you were aware that that was a three-party intercept and that Jocic
24 meant X, so I took a brief time to do that. That is the kind of thing I
25 wanted to do so we are not left with intercepts that may have importance
1 or do have importance with question marks around it. It is my burden to
2 prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, this is important evidence, so
3 I chose a few to do that. Certainly that -- this guy had, what, 29
4 intercepts? I kept a pretty limited group, and I kept my -- the mistakes
5 between the two fairly limited so you could get an example of some of the
6 differentials. But those are my instructions, those are our practices, to
7 92 ter these folks, do a brief summary, and only ask questions about
8 individual intercepts or particular areas that we think might help the
9 court and we're trying to keep it within a half an hour, whenever we can.
10 That may depend on the particular intercept. As you remember, our
11 first intercept operator had an intercept with several changes he made, so
12 we spent a fair amount of time, as did the Defence. There is one coming
13 up like that that may also take some time. But that's my practice, that's
14 what -- we're trying to keep this as minimum, as short as possible, and we
15 look really forward to the time when we're through with these folks.
16 Now, I also occasionally object when I think something is more
17 time consuming than relevant. We haven't objected much. We think that
18 many times objections can cause more time, and the Court's been handling
19 this very well in my view, so you have noticed we're not taking very many
20 objections, and that is also our strategy. If we can -- if we cannot
21 object, we won't object. And that -- that's our strategy: Get through
22 these witnesses as -- as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Incidentally, although
24 you -- or rather we have noted of course what you have said that you have
25 given instructions to your staff that all these witnesses will be 92 ter
1 witnesses, however we still have at least in our records, four of these
2 that have not yet been indicated as such. Three of them had been
3 indicated initially as 92 bis witnesses, and we had denied your request
4 for two of them, namely 78 and 80, because their statements and the
5 intercepts went to the acts and conduct of one or more of the accused.
6 And in relation to another, number 79, we had denied outright as
7 you had not submitted the full transcript of his evidence. So you are
8 being requested to attend to these apart from -- apart from the matters
9 that we -- we are discussing -- we are discussing now.
10 Defence. Who would like to address the Chamber on this?
11 Mr. Zivanovic.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
13 Your Honour. First of all, I'd like to say that with a few to the nature
14 of our Defence case and the fact that we are questioning the authenticity
15 of the intercepts and especially when they are put in a wider context, all
16 I can say is that I try and do my best to shorten my cross-examination and
17 to take as little time as possible to the Chamber. However, one needs to
18 bear in mind that a large number of documents corroborating our assertions
19 is something that we are still finding in the database. Therefore, it is
20 necessary for us to put some of those intercepts before the Prosecution
21 witnesses so as to corroborate the thesis we have, the basis for our case.
22 This is all I needed to say.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
24 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask Mr. Zivanovic one question for
25 clarification. You said you are questioning the authenticity of the
1 intercepts. So take the example of the previous one. The previous
2 witness said when he was called again, he confirmed his handwriting. Are
3 you saying that he was lying?
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I am merely
5 asserting that he didn't write it down at the time marked. It is our
6 thesis that the handwriting discussed here was not made at the time marked
7 on the page. Otherwise we do not dispute the authenticity of the
8 handwriting itself.
9 JUDGE KWON: I think I now understand your submission. Thank
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek?
12 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour. I would agree with what my
13 colleague, Mr. Zivanovic just said and also on our cross-examinations, it
14 is not the authenticity that is in issue, but the accuracy and the
15 reliability, and what weight, if these intercepts some are all are
16 admitted you should give to each separate intercept is an issue. For
17 example, you may not know that, but the upcoming witness, like
18 Mr. McCloskey stated earlier, there had been an intercept with several
19 changes. The upcoming witness has a page and a half on one intercept that
20 is crossed out and then it's rewritten in, handwritten. I've just been
21 told at 2.15 or 2.14, by my colleague from the Prosecution, Mr.
22 Vanderpuye, that that is being translated into English, it never has been,
23 and he's supposed to have those before -- hopefully before the witness
24 testifies. I think he probably has them now. I think I saw somebody
25 bring Janet in. You may not know, he has also handed all of us documents,
1 four separate ones, which are amendments. For example, amendment to tab
2 1, amendment to tab 3, which are different English translations of the
3 same alleged intercept. And these are placed in front of us literally
4 minutes before this trial commenced today. So frankly I would agree with
5 Your Honours that I think we would all like to see a less -- less time
6 taken in the cross-examination and/or direct examination. However, our
7 clients have a right to a fair trial, and we always talk about the right
8 to a speedy trial, or a right to a fair trial.
9 In my opinion, I respectfully suggest, Your Honours, that the
10 right to a speedy trial, that issue is no longer in front of this Court.
11 Once this trial commenced, the right to a speedy trial has stopped. Now
12 we want the right to a fair trial. If it takes a little longer then the
13 Prosecutor might envision cross-examination or Your Honours, I would ask
14 you to bear with us. I, for one, and our team, will certainly try to
15 streamline the cross-examination as much as possible. There are problems
16 that crop up and Mr. Vanderpuye will verify what I am saying that there
17 are placed in front of us today, four new translations now, and we're
18 getting a fifth one and I, frankly, wouldn't be prepared to cross-examine
19 him until I am able to look at that.
20 These are just minor details, problems that crop up in this trial,
21 in any trial, I'm not putting any aspersions on anybody. We'll try to do
22 the best that we can.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek don't you think that, for example, your
24 cross-examination of yesterday could have been much shorter?
25 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I do. I would agree that could be much
1 shorter. The issue yesterday with -- was more of the training because he
2 had no prior training whatsoever. He just had a 30-day course, and I
3 wanted to find out what exactly he did and that sort of thing. And
4 frankly, Judge, yes. And I would also, I don't want to be rhetorical, but
5 I imagine that there's a lot of witnesses in my mind that the Prosecution
6 could have got through a lot shorter than they did also.
7 So, sure, I will take blame that I took a little longer on cross
8 yesterday than I should have. I would like to take a lot less time today
9 but, you see, I won't be able, I don't think, until I see these
10 translations and have time to read them.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: What applies to you, of course, applies to almost
12 everyone else, and also to the Prosecution. We've had additional
13 questions following the summaries which went on to one hour or even more
14 and that shouldn't be the case any longer. We've had very exemplary
15 cross-examinations to the point focusing on the intercepts as well. But
16 what I'm suggesting is the following, and I'm inviting you actually to
17 make submissions on this. Do you think it's the case of hearing more on
18 how many people were at the special -- this facility or in that facility?
19 What machines were used, the system of passing on the handwritten
20 transcript to the encrypting clerk, the number of antennas, the quality of
21 antennas? Do we really need to continue asking questions on this?
22 Haven't we heard enough?
23 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, may it please the Court, I'm just looking
24 at what you just said, and I think if you look at my cross-examinations
25 I've never asked any of these intercept witnesses what machines they used,
1 any of those -- quality of the antennas, how many antennas. I don't ask,
2 personally, any of those, but --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I am not addressing you at the moment, I am
4 addressing all of you.
5 MR. MEEK: May I sit down then?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course. What I said is I am inviting you to
7 address this issue because it is on our minds, of course.
8 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted
10 to go back to what you pointed out the importance of the equipment and
11 the antenna and this is something I kept insisting on during some of my
12 cross-examination. In consultation with some experts I learned that
13 these are very important issues so as to be able to confirm whether there
14 was a technical possibility to intercept such conversations, having in
15 mind the location of the equipment and where the collocutors were, as well
16 as the radio relay technology and features used in the terrain which was
17 at that time in the hands of the army of Republika Srpska. I insisted on
18 it to some extent, and, by your leave, I intend to continue with that
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic, what I said was never meant to
21 diminish the importance of the antenna. What I am suggesting is that
22 isn't it time to realise that the witnesses who could give the information
23 and who actually gave the information have come and gone and that the rest
24 of the witnesses that remain should focus on the various intercepts they
25 are supposed to have, or according to the Prosecution, to have recorded?
1 And this is the whole process, haven't we heard enough about the whole
2 process? Does each and every intercept witness that comes over have to be
3 asked the same questions over and over again, only to have a repetition of
4 how many rooms there were, where the encryption -- encrypting room was,
5 whether the Security Services were in the same building, whether there was
6 interaction? We've been going through the same exercise, the same
7 questions dealing with the same thing, and I don't know.
8 Yes, Mr. -- Are you finished, Mr. Zivanovic?
9 Mr. Bourgon.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I for sure understand the
11 concerns of the Trial Chamber with respect to these intercepts and
12 especially what you just mentioned about repetitive questions during
13 cross-examination. Indeed we have been repetitive in asking the same
14 questions over and over to a number of witnesses. But, Mr. President,
15 there is a reason for this. And the reason is that on one hand the
16 Prosecution has been asked to call each and every witness where an
17 intercept goes to the acts and conducts of the accused and once there is a
18 witness here on the stand, I cannot do anything else but to ask those
19 questions that go to the reliability. I don't want to be left at the end
20 of this case arguing, saying that there were 10 intercept operators that
21 came, five said that there were problems, but five didn't say anything as
22 to whether there were problems with the reliability.
23 Looking at the reliability, we and maybe this is something that
24 the Prosecution can stipulate to because we don't know what is the
25 position that the Trial Chamber will take with regards to the reliability.
1 Our point of view is that they are unreliable, that it was a difficult
2 exercise, that they had to be listened to many times, that there was no
3 supervision, that there were problems with voice recognition, that there
4 were problems going from the notebook to the typed version, that there
5 were problems with methodology, about the three dots, about the brackets,
6 about the spaces, about the signatures, about the date. Multiple versions
7 of the same. So all this, Mr. President, I have no choice, but if there
8 is a witness there that can testify on this reliability aspect, we feel
9 that it is our duty to ask those questions to ensure that the record is
10 complete so that at the end when I make my argument I will argue that we
11 believe that these intercepts is an unreliability exercise that cannot be
12 given any weight, should not be even admitted in evidence in the first
14 Now, that being said, Mr. President, there are two things I want
15 to address. First is the issue of the -- how important these intercepts
16 are. We have some difficulty because, as stated by the Prosecution,
17 Prosecution --
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I'm going to object at this point.
19 We're getting argument on the intercepts.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear what he has to say first. Let's hear
21 what he has to say first, because it could be related ultimately to the
22 position that we will take eventually.
23 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. All I'm saying is that we
25 are told every time we have an intercept operator is that all the
1 intercepts are relevant to all charges and all accused in the indictment.
2 That leaves us no choice. As far as the client that I represent in this
3 case, there are very few intercepts; however, I cannot do anything else
4 with what is said, that all intercepts are all relevant to all accused and
5 all counts, I have no choice but to do the best job I can in order to get
6 this unreliable exercise under way.
7 One of the ways we can shorten this thing is to be more focused on
8 the choice of intercept. Granted this is the choice of the Prosecution,
9 but there is maybe a place where we can do an exercise together and say
10 are all of these intercepts really necessary? And then with respect to --
11 and that's, of course, I put aside the fact that we have new intercepts
12 being added in the course of the exercise, but that, I have different
13 arguments for this later on.
14 And finally, Mr. President, with regards to the procedure, I
15 suggest two things: First of all is when there is a 92 ter witness that
16 the Prosecution keeps it at introducing the statement without anything
17 else than a summary, and as far as cross-examination is, please,
18 Mr. President, just keep us to not asking at least that we don't have any
19 repetitive questions amongst each other here. If my colleague has asked
20 something about an intercept had to be listened to many times, well, I
21 should not ask that question a second time again. That is an effort we
22 can work on, and we will -- we will absolutely say nothing if you stop us
23 from doing something like that, and we will do the best we can to shorten.
24 But at the same time, the Prosecution can keep it to, this is the
25 statement, this is the summary, let's get on with it. Thank you,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, I don't know if I understood you well,
3 but you seem to have entertained the idea at some point in time, that we
4 were hinting that if a witness comes over dealing with intercepts that do
5 not mention your client or make reference to your client, you would not
6 have a right to cross-examine. We never said that.
7 MR. BOURGON: All I'm saying is that if I knew better what the
8 case of the Prosecution was, it would be much better for me to just sit
9 down and not ask any questions. But the fact is, the way things are, I
10 have to consider this as being whatever the Prosecution wants it against
11 my client.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I'll give you the floor later.
13 Again --
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm always available to tell him my case, as you
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I will try to make myself a little bit more clear in
17 case I haven't been clear enough.
18 Mr. Bourgon is suggesting: Trial Chamber, you can always stop us
19 as we go along and bring us to order, and we will comply. Well, that
20 should be and is always second best. First option, first preference is
21 that you exercise self-discipline, and well I wouldn't like to draw
22 comparisons, but we have had extremely exemplary cross-examinations and we
23 have had cross-examinations that, to say -- to say the least, have been
24 of -- have been frustrating. So this is where we are trying to bring the
25 house to order. We are trying to -- we are asking you to address us, make
1 submissions on how you, yourselves, think - and that includes Prosecution,
2 not just the Defence - think that more self-control and self-discipline
3 can be exercised, particularly in the way of not asking or dealing with
4 areas that have been thoroughly and exhaustively already been covered by
5 previous witness and focus on what is really essential in each and every
6 case of -- each and every witness, and each and every intercept that will
7 be tendered by the Prosecution.
8 This is what we are trying to make you address.
9 Mr. Lazarevic.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, and good afternoon. In
11 our view the issue of intercept witnesses at this stage is primarily an
12 issue that should be dealt by the Prosecution. It's their case, these are
13 their witnesses. A number of witnesses they intend to bring here is
14 solely in the discretion of the OTP, so there is very little we can do as
15 a defence about it. Its up to the Trial Chamber whether they will allow
16 all these witnesses to come to give their testimony here.
17 On the other hand, and now I am speaking only on behalf of
18 Mr. Borovcanin's defence, we tried very, very hard to avoid any repetitive
19 questions and, if I am not terribly wrong, we -- all our -- all our
20 cross-examination lasted less than 30 minutes. I believe we can do a
21 little bit more of it. In particular, that this issue is not of primary
22 interest of Mr. Borovcanin, since, according to what the Prosecution said,
23 there is only one particular intercept that is -- well, in their view,
24 important for Mr. Borovcanin, and we will stick to this. And we will
25 continue to do -- to make all the efforts to reduce our cross-examination
1 and not to make any repetitive questioning.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
3 Madam Fauveau would you like to address the Chamber?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because we are not receiving
6 interpretation. Can I ask you to start again, Madam Fauveau, again with
7 my apologies.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you receiving?
10 What's wrong? If I could ask the French --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear us now? We've changed over to
12 another console, excuse me. I will repeat what Ms. Fauveau said, with my
13 apologies from the English booth: "Mr. President and judges I would like
14 to support what my colleagues said, Mr. Lazarevic and Mr. Meek in that."
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead, Madam Fauveau.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to add to the list of
17 my colleagues, Mr. Bourgon because I would like to support his arguments
18 in particular. I would also like to say that I fully agree with the
19 Chamber in that you have said that this is a presentation of elements of
20 proof which is lengthy and time consuming. Now, as for the Defence, as
21 long as the Prosecutor, as long as the Prosecutor will, as
22 cross-examination, we are forced to do our cross-examination so I agree
23 the questions might be repetitive but the answers are not. Since we get
24 different answers we will carry on asking the same questions about -- in
25 trying to get the truth in all this or out of all this.
1 Should we carry on this way, I do not know, it is not up to the
2 Defence team to say so, it is up to the Prosecutor, as far as I'm
3 concerned. The Defence of General Miletic would be much happier if more
4 of the witnesses knew more about the procedure that applies to how they
5 intercepted on the conversations rather than the intercepts themselves,
6 which are not that important, especially since the Prosecutor has not
7 identified them. So I don't really see how useful it can be to bring in
8 two operators who intercepted a particular conversation, since these
9 persons in general did not identify all intercepts. They have only done a
10 few of them, and the others are in the file. Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.
12 Mr. Josse.
13 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour has mentioned the possibility of
14 self-regulation by those of us at the bar.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And you have shown quite a lot of it.
16 MR. JOSSE: But, Your Honour, the point I am a little curious
17 about, with respect, is at line 19 -- I beg your pardon, at page 19 of the
18 transcript today, Your Honour said, I quote, "We have fully considered
19 what might or could be done with a view to avoiding the continuation of
20 such problems."
21 It would help me certainly and perhaps others if the Trial Chamber
22 were prepared to tell the parties what sort of enforced regulation the
23 Chamber has in mind, as against self-regulation. Because otherwise, with
24 respect, we are slightly making submissions in a vacuum; we don't know
25 what you have in mind.
1 Before I sit down, could I make one other remark? And that's
2 this: Notwithstanding everything that's been said in relation to the army
3 intercept operators we've heard from, we haven't heard from any MUP
4 intercept operators, and certainly we on behalf of General Gvero, wish to
5 ask them some questions and they of course may have rather different
6 answers in relation to techniques as well as everything else.
7 Those are my submissions.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
9 Mr. Haynes.
10 MR. HAYNES: Just quickly before we break, I imagine. I've
11 probably just concluded my only substantial cross-examination of any
12 intercept operator, so I feel a little bit a stranger at this party.
13 Having observed the evidence unfold, I can guess what you've got
14 in mind, but looking around me there is probably something upwards of
15 three or 400 years experience of criminal trial process in front of you,
16 and if we can't sort it out then it is a very sad state of affairs.
17 I would invite you to hold back from imposing regulations upon the
18 examination of any of these witnesses, whether by the Prosecution or the
19 Defence at this stage. It is likely that we are entering, as it were, a
20 pool of witnesses whose relevance to each of the accused is more
21 pin-pointed and you will see things move on a little closer. And there
22 are ways which we do try to employ, on both sides of the chamber, to
23 ensure that we are economical with the Court's time. You've put down a
24 marker, I can guess where you will go next. I would invite you not to do
25 so at this stage, though not out of any interest on my part, because,
1 despite some time to cross-examining the next witnesses, it's highly
2 unlikely that I will.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: How long do you think it will take you?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Given the subject matter, maybe a minute, since --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Go ahead, then.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: It may be helpful -- it certainly would be helpful
7 for the Prosecution to know a bit more about what the Defence are
8 challenging. We have heard from the beginning that they are challenging
9 the reliability, the accuracy, the processes. This is what I've worked on
10 for many years. We heard from Mr. Ostojic right before the break that he
11 suggested they were a fabrication, I believe, that there was an
12 authenticity issue here, which is a fairly -- it's new and very radical
13 defence. I believe that's what Mr. Zivanovic just said, these are a
15 Now, the evidence of proving they are not a fabrication is similar
16 to evidence of showing what they are, but I -- and I don't intend to -- to
17 reintroduce a lot of new evidence on that, but that -- that's helpful to
18 know that, it's a bit late, the law here should provide them to tell us
19 that earlier. But in any event, as we see Mr. Haynes, he's taking a
20 different approach. If I had an idea of what each Defence was saying, as
21 I think the law requires, we would be able to sculpt our case better,
22 because I don't think we're getting any objections from Mr. Haynes, he
23 seems to be going to the substance of that and I don't see -- and I can
24 get from the other cross-examinations some of the same and I can see the
25 people that are challenging the authenticity, but if I could hear that
1 from the others, we may be able to sculpt our case more.
2 We are struggling right now with how much of the MUP evidence to
3 put on. Clearly we want to put on, based on your rulings, the supervisor,
4 full. I would just as soon not have to put on anybody else fully. But we
5 may want to put -- you may want to hear at least one regular operator to
6 see if it is much difference from their perspective, but that is -- my
7 plan with the MUP is to have here the top guy and maybe one operator and
8 then perhaps go the other two 92 ter, if we can, to try to save time.
9 In any event, I don't have a lot to add to this, but if I could
10 get a better view of where the Defence is coming from, we may be able to
11 sculpt ours. I really do not like the idea of us not being able to ask
12 any questions but I can promise you we try to keep it within a half an
13 hour and even shorter on 92 ter. A lot of these you never ask for 92 bis;
14 where we were fine, they just came in. I don't want to go back into time,
15 but if we have to put them on, I would like to at least to be able to ask
16 a few questions since, when you see the witness, so I can point out
17 problems in their testimony. I would prefer to point out issues and
18 mistakes in the testimony as opposed to sit back and have the
19 cross-examination do that. That's -- but I don't want to spend much of
20 your time doing it because I obviously -- we all feel the same
21 frustrations. So that's just my viewpoint on the no comments, no
22 questions. But otherwise --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. We will have a 25-minute break.
24 And we will come back to you on this either later on today or tomorrow.
25 Thank you.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President. One thing. You had
2 mentioned yesterday you wanted us to be able to argue about the -- the
3 other intercept.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we put that off until tomorrow?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I got --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I apologise to you. I got the impression before we
9 started the sitting that you sent over a message that you would like this
10 to be discussed later on in the day today rather than first thing before
11 we started or something like that. I mean, that's why I didn't raise the
12 matter, that's why I didn't raise the matter in the beginning of the
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Bourgon --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I got the message. Mr. Bourgon is in the position
16 to make submissions.
17 MR. BOURGON: At any time, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: There was some kind of agreement that it will not be
19 not before, not in the first part of today's sitting, but later.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: If it at all possible, we could do it tomorrow.
21 Mr. Thayer was the one that was dealing with the subject. I can, of
22 course, deal with it, but I think Mr. Bourgon and I agree it should just
23 happen before the witness.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And there is no problem with the next witness
25 because I, at least, think that you are not going -- or you do not intend
1 to use the intercept with Witness number 81, but only with Witness number
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
5 inform you that I have submitted a motion on yesterday's allegations.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. So we'll meet again in 25
7 minutes, 25 minutes' time.
8 --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.24 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So on the subject that we were discussing
11 prior to the break, contrary to what some of you may have -- at least
12 that's the impression you gave us, contrary to what you may have thought,
13 we have not yet reached a conclusion on how best to deal with this
14 problem. We are still discussing, and we'll come back to you, as I
15 indicated earlier on, probably tomorrow -- tomorrow morning. If we
16 conclude our deliberations on it.
17 Now, next -- are we agreed that the matter of the intercept, as it
18 relates to 81, we will hear submissions towards the end of this sitting or
19 do you want to make submissions now?
20 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, there are some difficulties
21 associated with this. My colleague, Mr. Zivanovic referred to a motion
22 they filed this morning. This motion is requesting a 14-day delay in
23 order to respond to this issue of the additional intercept. I did have a
24 conversation with my colleague, Mr. McCloskey from the Prosecution. The
25 only where we do agree is this should -- this has to do with whether or
1 not the witness will testify, and we'd like to do those arguments in any
2 event before the witness comes. Whatever the Trial Chamber decides as to
3 when we can argue, I am ready to argue at any time, but with deference to
4 my colleague, maybe another time would be appropriate. Thank you,
5 Mr. President.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Mr. President, now, that we have
8 Mr. Zivanovic involved, I -- this witness can be called and can be put on,
9 it will be 92 ter, it will be a summary, he will identify his intercepts
10 and, in fact, he only has two and the one goes to the acts or conduct. He
11 doesn't need to talk about it much, if at all, if that's some --
12 prejudicial in some way. And the decision can be made after that or sorry
13 the argument can be made after that. I don't see that as crucial. I
14 think it's ideal to have it beforehand, but with the other -- the other
15 position, it's -- it's hard to see how we do that unless we send him home
16 and bring him back.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
18 MR. BOURGON: I must disagree with my colleague, Mr. President.
19 The witness that we are referring to was initially put and called as a
20 witness on the basis of 21 different intercepts, or 22. We have been
21 informed this morning that out of the 22 intercepts, 20 of those are not
22 his, and therefore they will not be introduced with this witness.
23 So what we are dealing with is one witness with two intercepts
24 left. One of which does not go to the acts and conduct of the accused. I
25 think my colleague will agree to that. And the second one is the disputed
1 intercept. Our point of view, Mr. President, is the this the perfect --
2 the ideal opportunity simply to say this witness does not need to come
3 because this intercept was added in addition to all the problems that I
4 can relate to as to why this intercept should not be going into evidence,
5 there is no need for this witness to come in the first place. That's why
6 for us, it is important to have this argument before the witness is called
7 and not after, as my colleague suggests. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any further submissions on this?
9 All right. We'll come back to you on this later.
10 Anything you wish to state before we bring in witness number 81,
11 isn't he?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, just to let you know, we have -- yes,
13 this next witness, and -- and the subject witness, and that's all we have
14 for this week, based on the timing. So just to let you know for planning
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps, Mr. Zivanovic, one question to you which
17 would possibly help us see better your -- understand better your request
18 or your motion. In one part of your motion you do accept or at least you
19 don't deny that this intercept has been available for a long time.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I am not denying
21 that. I am aware of that when -- I was aware of that when I acquainted
22 myself with the intercept.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Then you say that the defence of Vujadin Popovic had
24 no time to read and study the OTP submission before the trial? What do
25 you mean by that?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] To clarify, I didn't have the
2 opportunity to read the submission or to really study it. Not the
3 intercept itself, just the submission. The submission itself, besides
4 indicated the reasons of not placing the intercept on the list, the
5 Prosecution embarks on an analysis of some other matters. I mentioned
6 that in my submission. These are alleged ethnic prejudices indicated on
7 the part of my client, according to the intercept, then some evidence
8 which, through this intercept approves the authenticity of all the other
9 intercepts, and I think because of this we require some time in order to
10 be able to respond. Because this is used as an argument to accept or as
11 a good reason to place this intercept on the 65 ter list of the
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Looking at the rest of your motion, particularly the
14 last two pages, don't you really address the -- the question that was
15 raised by ourselves in the first place, because we only requested the
16 Prosecution to show on a prima facie basis, good cause, why this intercept
17 should be included in the 65 ter, and you are, although you say you
18 haven't had time to familiarise yourself with -- with the submissions of
19 the Prosecution, you address them all, and try to convince the Trial
20 Chamber that they haven't shown good cause for -- for -- so I -- seems to
21 be conflicting statements in -- in the same -- in the same motion.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps I wasn't clear, I will try
23 to go over it again. The submission itself, yesterday, when you put that
24 question at the beginning of the session, at that time I was not familiar
25 with the submission. But the intercept from the 20th of April, 1995, I
1 was familiar with that. I was not familiar with the contents of the
2 submission, especially the reasons which are presented as good reasons,
3 valid reasons, why the Prosecution did not place the intercept earlier on
4 the 65 ter list. The reasons I already mentioned are that in the analysis
5 of the intercept itself, it is stated that my client demonstrates ethnic
6 intolerance and that the intercept allegedly confirms the veracity of all
7 the other intercepts. These are the reasons. I was not aware of these
8 allegations yesterday when it was discussed. Not with the intercept
10 JUDGE AGIUS: But you address these issues in your motion.
11 Anyway, let's leave it and we will come to it tomorrow.
12 This next witness, number 81, could someone remind me the
13 protective measures that we have put in place? I know it's pseudonym for
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon, Your Honour. My understanding
16 is that he has protective measures in the form of facial distortion only.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Facial distortion only and not voice distortion.
18 All right. There is still the unfinished symphony as far as he is
19 concerned. Namely we are still not yet decided on the Prosecution's
20 request to have him testify as a 92 ter witness. That still has not yet
21 been decided. To my knowledge, as I pointed out yesterday, none of the
22 defence teams have objected to having this witness testify under rule 92
23 ter. Do I have a confirmation of that? Yeah, I see -- I hear no
24 comments, which I take to be a confirmation of what I said earlier, that
25 there are no objections.
1 So your motion, insofar as this witness is concerned, and namely
2 to present him as a 92 ter witness is hereby being granted orally.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And your motion will then be decided limitedly to
5 the other witness, namely number 77. All right?
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: You are welcome to start giving evidence. Our rules
12 require that before you do so, you make a solemn declaration, equivalent
13 to an oath. In some jurisdictions that in the course of your testimony,
14 that you will be speaking the truth. The text is being handed to you now
15 by Madam Usher. Please read that out and that will be your solemn
16 undertaking with us that you will testify the truth.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
18 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, sir. Make yourself comfortable, please.
20 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-124
21 [The witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We have put in place for you some protective
23 measures, namely the use of a pseudonym instead of your name, and also
24 face distortion. In other words no one will be able to see your face
25 outside the four walls of this courtroom. We have a distorted image. I
1 think this has already been explained to you in full. All I want to know
2 is whether it is to your satisfaction.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Vanderpuye will go first, and he will
5 then be followed by various cross-examinations from the Defence teams.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours, ladies
8 and gentlemen.
9 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: May I have P 02346 shown to the witness.
11 Q. Sir, please have a look at that document and without telling us
12 what is on it, can you confirm whether or not you were the person named on
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. I'm going to ask you some questions in relation to
16 your testimony today, and I would ask that you allow a pause for the
17 purposes of translation before you give your answer. And try to keep your
18 voice up so that the interpreters can hear you.
19 Witness, do you recall having given a statement to the Office of
20 the Prosecutor dated 17th November 1999?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was the statement that you gave truthful?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Have you had an opportunity to read your statement before having
25 come here to testify today?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you read your statement in your native language?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And was that the language in which you originally gave the
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you just say what language that is?
8 A. Bosnian.
9 Q. And after having read the statement, are you satisfied that the
10 statement was correct and accurate?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does the statement, as you read it, fairly and accurately
13 reflect what you said at the time?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And does it fairly and accurately reflect what you would say, were
16 you to be examined here today?
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. If I may, I would like to read 92 ter summary into the record.
19 The witness completed electro- -- well, may I go into private
20 session for at least the first two paragraphs?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Indeed we will do that. Private session, please.
22 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Upon his arrival to the PEB, the witness received
11 instructions concerning the frequencies to be monitored as well as
12 training on the equipment to be used, which included Kenwood receivers,
13 UHER reel to reel tape recorders and other radio-relay equipment.
14 Non-verbally the witness was assigned to monitor the communications of
15 international organizations, a practice that was discontinued. The
16 witness was then assigned to monitor enemy communications.
17 In this capacity, during shift changes or upon reporting for duty,
18 the witness was provided with information by his commanders that included
19 information about which frequencies and channels had been monitored thus
20 far and which frequencies and specific locations were to be monitored
22 Additionally, in performing his duties, the witness observed
23 certain established procedures, including but not limited to: Monitoring
24 assigned frequencies for a particular area; recording intercepted
25 conversations on tape; noting on a separate piece of paper the time,
1 frequency, channel, and participants, if they identified themselves; and
2 transcribing the recorded communications in its entirety into a notebook
3 supplied by the command.
4 In transcribing intercepted conversations into these notebooks,
5 the terms "X "or "Y" denoted unidentified participants; ellipses indicated
6 inaudible sections of the conversation. And where the witness recognised
7 a participant who had not identified himself, the name was placed in
8 parentheses next to the X or Y designation. At the end of each shift, the
9 witness would submit the notebook transcriptions for typing and to be sent
10 as package to the 2nd Corps headquarters.
11 Once a notebook was complete, it was given by the intercept
12 operators to their commanders as were fill tapes, which were then sent on
13 to headquarters.
14 That completes my 92 ter summary.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, we haven't indicated so far the
16 witness number, the pseudonym for this witness. And that's going to be
17 PW-124. In case the same mistake with regard to the previous witness, the
18 previous witness was witness PW-129. That's his pseudonym. That's for
19 the record. I think the previous one we did have down, but I wanted to
20 make sure that we have it here. And I thank Judge Kwon for drawing my
21 attention to that.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like -- I may
23 have overlooked this, but I would like to offer the 92 ter statement,
24 PO2345 into evidence before proceeding.
25 Q. All right, thank you, Mr. Witness. I would like to ask you a few
1 questions about your background. For that may I proceed to private
2 session? I don't think it will be very long at all.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go to private session.
4 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. In July 1995 could you tell us what your position in the army
17 A. I worked as an operator (redacted)
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we will have to redact that, I think.
19 I suppose you haven't been cautioned not to mention names of
20 colleagues of yours and also the location where you worked. If you
21 haven't, I'm cautioning you now. So please prepare a redaction and let's
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Prior to that -- well, prior to that did you hold any other
25 position in the army?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And prior to that had you had any experience or training in the
3 use or operation of radio relay equipment or radio equipment generally?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to review a set of 10 intercepts
6 in a packet prior to testifying here today?
7 A. Of course.
8 Q. And in particular, did you have an opportunity to review the
9 handwritten material that was contained in the packet?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in reviewing the handwritten material did you determine
12 whether or not that material -- that material were -- was transcribed or
13 transcriptions of intercepted communications?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you recognise the handwriting as your own?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. With respect to the material that reflects the transcribed radio
18 communications, were those transcriptions that you prepared while you were
19 in the army and assigned to the northern site?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you transcribe that material pursuant to your responsibilities
22 and duties as an intercept operator?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can we go to private session for one moment,
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session, please.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the original notebook
15 entries in addition to the handwritten material you reviewed in the
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. And you did that prior to testifying here today?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And are you satisfied that the copies of the handwritten material
21 that is contained in the packet conform to the originals that are
22 contained in the notebooks?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, in going through your handwritten material, did you have
25 occasion to notice certain cross-outs or X-outs or markings on that
2 A. Only the markings we entered.
3 Q. And did those markings consist of cross-outs and corrections and
4 X-outs and things of that nature?
5 A. We crossed some things out, yes.
6 Q. And were those -- well, was that something that you were permitted
7 to do?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in the particular circumstance of the handwritten material you
10 reviewed, were those things done upon review of the intercepted material,
11 either through the tape or rereading your material?
12 A. It took place immediately after we've listened to the tape.
13 Q. Now, can you recall, or were you permitted to make any such
14 changes after the material had already been submitted to the typist in
15 crypto-protection unit?
16 A. No. We were not allowed to do that.
17 Q. It's my fault for the way I phrased the question, but it's clear
18 according to your answer that you are not allowed to do that. But let me
19 ask, did you do it, despite the fact that you weren't allowed to do it?
20 A. Of course not.
21 Q. In reviewing the packet, did you determine whether or not there
22 were handwritten notebook transcriptions for each of the 10 intercepts?
23 A. Could you repeat your question, please?
24 Q. Yes, maybe I can rephrase it. Were there -- when you reviewed the
25 packet, were there handwritten transcriptions for each of the 10
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, were you able to -- okay. I'm sorry, just bear with me for
4 one moment.
5 I would like to have, if possible, the original notebook shown
6 to the witness. And that's notebook number 26. The ERN number is
7 0078-15 -- wait a minute. I'm sorry. 0080- -- have I got it right?
8 Okay. 0078-1563 through 1672. That's PO2349. Just bear with me for
9 one moment.
10 I would just like to refer the Chamber to tab number 7, and also
11 Defence counsel to tab number 7 in the packet. I would also like to have
12 in e-court 65 ter number 1324D.
13 Could we just go down a little bit on this? Okay. Okay. I'm
14 just going to ask you a few questions about this particular intercept.
15 There is an indication at the bottom of -- I'm sorry, does the Court have
16 that in front of the screen? I just wanted to make sure that everybody
17 can see that.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: We do have it in English on the screen, yes.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
20 Q. There is an indication at least in the translated version that's
21 before the Court that there is a reference in particular to a
22 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic. Can you find that in your original
23 handwritten material? And when you are done could you let us know and
24 hold the page because I would like to have that displayed on the ELMO.
25 A. Of course.
1 Q. Okay. I don't know if he's able to indicate just by pointing to
2 it. I don't want him to write on it, just to point with a pen or
3 something. Okay. The record should reflect that you -- could you just
4 point one more time? Okay. The record reflects what appears to be
5 P. P-u-k, and then what appears to be the name Popovica, with an "a" at
6 the end.
7 Can you tell us, is that an abbreviation for the term
8 Lieutenant-Colonel that precedes Popovic?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Okay. And is the use of abbreviations an acceptable practice,
11 given the work that you were doing at that time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, is this an abbreviation that you used or is this an -- or
14 were the words that were actually spoken that you wrote down, were those
15 the actual words used?
16 A. Could you please repeat that?
17 Q. Yes. The term "P. P-u-k" you indicated was an abbreviation. Is
18 that what the person who spoke these words said, or is that an
19 abbreviation that was used by you?
20 A. I wrote down the abbreviation.
21 Q. In the following line, and the preceding line is attributed to
22 somebody that is designated by an X. In the following line there is also
23 an indication that also appeared to read, "Pot. P-u-k" is that something
24 the person said or is that an abbreviation that you wrote?
25 A. What I heard was Lieutenant-Colonel, but in order to save time, I
1 used the abbreviation.
2 Q. Okay. Now, you will notice that immediately after the first
3 reference, "P. P-u-k" that is on the preceding line, the line that starts
4 with the word, "H-i-m-z-o," there is a cross-out, and a word that is
5 crossed out apparently. Can you tell us what that word is and tell us why
6 it was crossed out, if you can recall?
7 A. That word was probably crossed out because it did not figure in
8 the conversation.
9 Q. Well, when you say it didn't figure in the conversation, do you
10 mean that it wasn't part of the conversation, or it was something that you
11 didn't consider important? Could you just explain to us what you mean by
13 A. It wasn't a part of the conversation.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Madam usher, I would like to move what's on the
15 display to the preceding page, the page on the left.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you can do so, perhaps you can ask him why
17 would he jot down words that are not used during the conversation only to
18 cross them out immediately after. Is there a reason for that?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Do you want me to ask the question? I
20 think it's pretty well phrased, frankly, and I would invite the witness to
21 answer it, if he can.
22 Q. Did you understand the Court's question?
23 A. When we were writing down the conversation listening to the tape,
24 you can see just below there is a word "znaci," which in English would be
25 "meaning" or so. Therefore, I guess there was an interjection and I had
1 to rewind the tape several times, and probably the first time wrote it
2 down automatically and then I realised that it was a mistake, and we found
3 out that there was another collocutor who used the words
5 Q. Okay. So the word that is crossed out that is on the right side
6 of the screen under ERN 0078-1568, znaci, later appears, having been said
7 essentially by X in the -- in the line that follows, or the second line
8 that follows that paragraph where it's crossed out; is that right?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And as you recall that, that may have been the result of
11 having rewound the tape or listened to the tape again?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Now, I just want to refer you to the preceding page, which
14 I guess would end 1567. And on that page I see the term at the bottom of
15 the page, which appears to be Znaci also. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that's also crossed out, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us what the word is that's crossed out underneath the
20 one that was rewritten clearly, that isn't crossed out?
21 A. I probably was uncertain and later on when I listened to it one
22 more time, I realised what he really wanted to say.
23 Q. Okay. Is it possible to go to the second page of the English
25 In this particular section of the intercept there is a reference
1 to someone to call extension 91 in order to get in contact with the
2 lieutenant-colonel regarding an individual that's mentioned in the
3 intercept. I wondered if you could locate that in the original
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Now, essentially from the point that there is a cross-out
7 that we have discussed earlier, znaci, that later appears a few lines
8 later, there are no cross-outs or corrections in relation to anything that
9 follows, which includes the paragraph that I've refer you to. Can you
10 tell us why that's the case if there were parts that were difficult for
11 you to hear previously and how that appears that there are no cross-outs
12 or corrections in relation to the remainder of that intercept?
13 A. Probably because at that moment I could hear him well. The
14 quality of signal changed constantly.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.
16 I would like to show one other intercept, if I may. The English
17 translation is 65 ter 1130A, and I would ask if that could be put on the
18 screen for the benefit of the Court. And I would like also to show the
19 witness the original of that notebook.
20 For the record the notebook is designated P2322.
21 Okay. With respect to the translation -- I'm sorry, could I have
22 65 ter 1130E displayed. All right.
23 With respect to this particular intercept, it appears to begin
24 with the phrase, "Beara speaking." Then there is a sequence of ellipses
25 followed by, "Hello Signor Lucic, how are you?" Can you locate that in
1 your original notebook entry? Okay. Could I have that -- his indication
2 at least shown? Okay. Could you point once again. I'm sorry. As you
3 can see below your finger there is a giant X or large X that appears to
4 cross out that entire passage. Is that a cross-out that you made?
5 A. Of course.
6 Q. And can you tell us why this particular -- this particular passage
7 is crossed out?
8 A. Because I wasn't satisfied with what I heard, so I listened to the
9 conversation again, and retranscribed it.
10 Q. Okay. Before we get to that, can you tell us if you can recall,
11 does this particular passage represent more than one person speaking, or
12 is it just one person speaking?
13 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I would object to the form of the
14 question. When he says "this particular passage" is he speaking about
15 this page we see here with these lines with this X or the entire
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose we are talking of -- although we have two
18 transcripts here on the notebook, we are still talking of the same
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm actually referring to this -- yes, I'm
21 referring to this particular passage because there is more to the
22 intercept than what's on this particular page at this -- at this time. So
23 I'm just referring to the -- the area on the page where the words that
24 appear to be crossed out.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the only place where they show up anyway.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE:
2 Q. I don't -- I don't recall if you were -- if you gave an answer to
3 the preceding question, but my question was whether or not you can recall
4 if it reflects more than one person speaking or not.
5 A. According to the text, it's just one person speaking.
6 Q. Okay. Now, there are also a number of ellipses in our --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I need to understand. I need to understand better.
8 At least by reference to the English translation that we have, where we
9 have -- the previous one we also have L against -- against -- yeah. All
10 right. Still respective of the fact that we have half a page plus an
11 entire page plus another half a page crossed out, in relation to this
12 intercept. We have Zoka, Beara, then in brackets Lucic, and cross --
13 which is translated apparently as inaudible. Is there anything in that
14 transcript which is crossed out that can be attributed to --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: To a second person?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I understand the confusion. And I think
18 I can answer it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: The position is as follows: Let's try to place it
20 in the chronological order as he has explained it.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Right.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: He first made this entry.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Correct.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Starting with the frequency, the time, and then
25 supposedly the interlocutors here, without commenting, it's one, seems to
1 be one, Zoka-P-Beara, and a certain Lucic, with the statement inaudible.
2 So then he crosses out the entry in its entirety. Right?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Right.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And then he goes over the intercept again and makes
5 a second entry without indicating the frequency, the time and the
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Exactly.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: He has testified that it was only one person
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: With respect to the portion on the screen at the
11 moment that's been crossed out. I've only asked him with respect to the
12 passage in particular as opposed to the intercept.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, because otherwise it doesn't make sense, okay.
14 Because otherwise it doesn't make sense. All right. Granted. Go ahead.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I apologise for the confusion. I'm sure I could
16 have phrased the question much more accurately.
17 Q. But with respect to what's displayed on the ELMO right now, the
18 area that is crossed out on the screen, does that -- I think you have
19 indicated already that that relates to one person; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It was with respect to this particular intercept, it
22 begins to begin with the phrase Beara speaking.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So you were referring him to the entire intercept.
25 It is clear enough in my mind for the time being, so will the's proceed.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. May I have the following page, please,
2 shown on the ELMO. Okay. If we could get both pages, that would be
3 easier, faster. All right.
4 Q. Now, with respect to what's displayed on the ELMO now, the page on
5 the left side of the screen appears to be crossed out. Now, can you tell
6 us whether it is intended to cross out the entire page or just the
7 portions that are covered by the particular X?
8 A. The whole page.
9 Q. Okay. On the right side of the screen there is a portion on the
10 top right corner of the screen, and that is -- well, I guess I should for
11 the record indicate that the area -- the page, the entire page that was --
12 the witness indicated was Xed out was ERN 00800809, the page I'm referring
13 to now is 00800810. With respect to the top part of that page, there is
14 also an X that is placed through part of the material on that page. Is
15 that intended to cross out what's contained there?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And is that -- those three passages, that is on page -- on ERN
18 ending 810, ERN ending 809, and ERN ending 808, are all those three --
19 well, two and a half pages, what you were talking about when you said that
20 you crossed out what you initially wrote down and began again?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, I want to refer you to the part of the page on the right-hand
23 side of the screen, ERN ending 810, that's not crossed out, if I may.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, with respect to that material there is no indication, as the
1 Court has pointed out, as to the interlocutors, right? That is the
2 speakers, a heading, the frequency, and things that would normally appear
3 at the beginning of a recorded or transcribed intercept?
4 A. It's not there because it's the same conversation.
5 Q. Okay. And is that -- well, is that to say that what's not crossed
6 out here relates to what's on the couple of preceding pages that the Court
7 had indicated with a frequency, time, participants, et cetera?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Now, with respect to the -- this part of the -- that is the
10 not-crossed-out part of what you transcribed, there are a series of
11 ellipses that immediately follow the name Beara, then there is a series of
12 ellipses and then there is what appears to be the word "Zdravo" and then
13 another series of ellipses. Can you explain why that occurs in this part
14 of the conversation, if you know?
15 A. They are there because I didn't hear a part of the conversation.
16 Q. Okay. In fact, there are a number of ellipses that are
17 attributable, what appears to be to L, who is the other participant in the
18 conversation, and not to B. Can you explain how that is the case, if you
20 A. Person designated as B could probably be heard very well, while
21 the person designated as L could most probably not.
22 Q. Now, in the beginning of this part of the -- this part of the text
23 where it starts with -- it just starts with Beara, can you explain --
24 well, can you explain how it is that you came to attribute that name to
25 the conversant in this intercept?
1 A. Because he introduced himself as that.
2 Q. And is the introduction what appears on ERN ending 808?
3 If I could please have the notebook turned to that page. Well, do
4 you see the introduction, or is there such an introduction on that page?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And could you just point to it?
7 A. [Indicates]
8 Q. And that starts with P-u-k, Beara, and then there's a series of
9 ellipses and then Zdravo, is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That's in the middle of the page ERN ending 808, following an
12 indication of the letter B. At a certain point in this conversation, if I
13 could just go to the English translation, 65 ter number 1130, 1130A.
14 Great. And can I go to ERN page -- ERN number -- oh, page 2. Sorry. Can
15 I have the notebook turned to ERN ending 812, please? No, no, 812, ending
16 812. Okay, great.
17 All right. Now, there's an indication -- okay -- that another
18 participant joins this conversation, it appears to be someone by the name
19 of Zoka. Okay. And do you see that on the screen there on what's
20 displayed on the ELMO at the bottom of the page? Or reference to the name
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, preceding that there appears to be -- well, no indication
24 that -- that appears to be the first entry into the conversation of this
25 participant. I think the word that's attributed to him is "da," is that
1 right? "D-a"?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Preceding that there appears to be a phrase that is -- that has
4 been interpreted in English, according to our translation, as "Uh-huh, let
5 me talk to him," which is written down, I think, in your notebook as "aha,
6 dajmiga"; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now when you reviewed your material, did you notice whether or in
9 the printout version of your handwritten transcription attributes the
10 phrase "dajmiga" to Lucic or to Beara?
11 A. Can you please repeat your question?
12 Q. Yes. Well, let me ask this: Did you have an opportunity to
13 review the -- a printed version, that is typewritten version, of the
14 intercept that you prepared concerning this subject?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in particular, did you notice whether or not the phrase that
17 we've just discussed, "dajmiga," was attributed to Lucic, the person
18 designated as Lucic, or Beara?
19 A. I don't know in the typewritten text.
20 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to what you have written in your notebook
21 versus any other document that you may have reviewed, which would you
22 consider the more authoritative or accurate?
23 A. Mine, of course.
24 Q. And the attribution that you have of this phrase, "dajmiga," are
25 you certain as you recall it today, that you transcribed it accurately?
1 A. Of course.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can I just go briefly to the original English
3 translation? I think that was page 2. That's right. Okay.
4 Q. Now, once Zoka enters into the conversation it appears as though
5 Lucic is no longer a participant.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then there appear to be certain ellipses and -- certain
8 ellipses that relate to what Zoka is saying, but none that relate to what
9 B, Beara is saying. And can you explain why that is the case? If you
10 know, and if you can recall.
11 A. It would happen that you could hear one collocutor better than the
13 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, with respect to the original that -- the
14 handwritten transcription, there appear to be no cross-outs, no rewrites,
15 virtually none. There are what appear to be typos, but -- I mean
16 handwriting errors, but other than that there don't appear to be
17 cross-outs as we have seen previously in the other intercepts. Can you
18 explain how that is the case in particular?
19 A. Because at that point I was writing what I was hearing.
20 Q. Okay. And do you recall the circumstances under which this
21 particular intercept was transcribed after it had been crossed out?
22 A. I can't remember that.
23 Q. Okay. Do you have any doubt, after having reviewed the material,
24 about whether or not it was reliably or accurately transcribed by you?
25 A. On my part, yes, it was.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have no further questions at this point.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you.
4 All right. We will have the break now. Technically we should
5 have 30 minutes because of the redaction, but since the redaction happened
6 very early during the session, I think -- 25 minutes, all right. Okay.
7 So we will have a break of 25 minutes.
8 --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 6.11 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So who is going first?
11 Mr. Zivanovic.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. Could we please show Exhibit -- Prosecution Exhibit 1324B? This
16 has already been shown to the witness.
17 Witness -- I don't think this is the right thing. 1324. 1324B.
18 I apologise, but I don't think this is the intercept I was looking for.
19 THE REGISTRAR: 1324D?
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1324, I only have B and C here.
21 This is the one.
22 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, it is 1324D.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] However, I have another typed
24 version of this intercept. I don't think I have this one. In my version,
25 and it is a -- I don't have this text. At least the beginning is
2 MR. MEEK: May I interject for just -- if I could help.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
4 MR. MEEK: I think what was on the screen is what was given to us
5 this morning before the first witness testified, and it said additions to
6 tab 7, so Mr. Zivanovic is correct. The one he is looking for is not on
7 the screen.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for that one,
9 because I have the original text, which was marked -- or rather it bears
10 the same number, 1324B and C. I don't know which one this is. I see this
11 for the first time. I have the package here. It is tab 7, and I have
12 three documents there. The first one is an English translation, the other
13 one is a copy of the handwriting, and the third one is a printed document.
14 A printed version of the notebook copy. Therefore, I am a bit confused by
15 the document I can see now, because I've never seen it before.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, I suppose there is a simple
17 explanation which actually --
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think Mr. Meek's explanation is probably
19 accurate, but I'm not certain if Mr. Zivanovic is referring to the -- a --
20 the third document being a printout, because I had also given a supplement
21 which was -- which can -- contained the more recent version of the
22 electronic printout, which is what had been plaguing us with the testimony
23 of the prior intercept witnesses. So he should have in his packet an
24 English translation which -- which he received prior to today, then he
25 should have also an English translation that he received today. Don't
1 have it? Okay. A notebook entry, and then a supplement which is a -- the
2 more modern version of the electronic printout and the old version of the
3 electronic printout which he had also prior to today. So maybe if he
4 could tell me specifically which documents he doesn't have, I will be more
5 than happy to even give him my copy if he wants to use it.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's try to -- let's start with the document, the
7 addition that you provided, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start with the addition that you provided --
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: -- today.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know whether it was in the morning or this
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: It was this afternoon, unfortunately,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: It was an addition to tab 7.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Addition to tab 7. Now, what we see on the
20 screen now --
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: -- is precisely the addition to tab 7.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. And I can perhaps further identify
24 it as a translation of the notebook entry.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I was going to say that. That appears to me, I
1 stand to be corrected, of course, to be a translation into English of
2 the handwritten entry in the notebook, which we don't seem to have had
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is correct.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, what we had before, apart from the entry, the
6 original entry in the notebook, was also another English translation,
7 which in the first line has the megahertz or the frequency, then channel
8 6, then time, 1250 hours, and immediately below that, directions S-E.
9 That, and I stand to be corrected, seems to be a translation of 0320-5748,
10 which is the second page of a typewritten version of the intercept,
11 supposedly being the copy that was relayed by the station where he
12 operated to the [B/C/S spoken].
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I may correct the Court. That is a
14 translation of the older version of the electronic printout, which --
15 which is designated 0072-7931, it looks like. 31 or 34, I can't tell on
16 my copy. It's 31. Okay. That was supplemented by 0320-5746. So the
17 header is slightly different, but the substance, that is what -- the
18 substance of the text is identical.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay. There is one difference that I
20 notice, that in the second line Pravac -- in this one we have Pravac JI,
21 while in the English translation we have directions SE. I take it in
22 their language J means south.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it means "jugo-isto." Southeast, I
25 JUDGE AGIUS: So that is clear. You have an explanation of that.
1 Then we had the second version of the relayed message, which is,
2 as I said it earlier, 0320-5747 to 5748. Do we have a corresponding
3 translation of that into English or not?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is not -- I'm sorry there is not a
5 dedicated translation of that particular document, but it is
6 substantial -- it is substantively and textually identical to 0072-7931, I
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So I think that's clear enough. Do you need
9 any more clarification, Mr. Zivanovic?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think I'm
11 more at a loss than before. Namely I hear for the first time that there
12 are older and newer versions of this document. Therefore, I realise now
13 that there are two versions in existence, and I haven't received them
14 before. And now I see that there are two versions of translations of the
15 same document. At a first glance I see some important differences or
16 discrepancies. I would kindly invite you to compare the two translations
17 in English, if that is possible, if we can do that in e-court. Then you
18 will realise that the heading is different, first of all the time is
19 different, between the two versions of the old and new document.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let -- you can ask questions on that, and it can
21 become also a submission, but the thing is you are not right in asserting
22 that we have a confusion. I think it's pretty much clear. The versions
23 in -- the typed versions in B/C/S, one is, as we have been told,
24 replication of -- of the other, in that the time is also the same, it's
25 1250. It's only when we come to the -- the handwritten entry in the
1 notebook that you have a different time. So -- and what you have, and
2 that's the only way we could have it, is a translation into English of the
3 handwritten notebook entry which previously you didn't have, and which you
4 have now, and the translation of one of the two identical versions of the
5 message relayed from the station to the central or command of the 2nd
6 Corps, which hasn't changed, it has remained the same. And that was
7 available to you.
8 Yes, Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Maybe someone can help me here. Your Honour has now
10 twice referenced 0320-5747, and the next page, 5748, which are Bates stamp
11 numbers. Frankly I can't find those in my materials, unless they didn't
12 Bates stamp them.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: According to what we have, and I think we have the
14 same thing, we have the text in what appears to be a computer generated
15 printout of an entry which goes back, which is not dated, but it is the
16 same frequency, 784675, kanal 6, time 1250. This is as it appears on
17 00727931. Now, an exact replication of this, but in different typed
18 script, okay, different typescript, appears also in a document which bears
19 ERN number 0320-5748. Mr. Vanderpuye is suggesting, and of course I
20 haven't verified the two documents, that one is an exact copy of the
21 other, that there is absolutely no difference between one or the other.
22 This has been translated, and it is the translation that you probably had
23 in front of you when you looked at the screen and said, "This is not what
24 I have." Do you follow me, Mr. Zivanovic?
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to clarify
1 the situation with the witness by putting questions.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm trying to help you as well. Until this morning
3 when you got the additions, you only had one translation into English.
4 That was not a translation of the handwritten entry in the notebook, it
5 was a translation of 00727931. Now what you have received earlier on
6 today is a new translation, a translation that you didn't have before.
7 It's not a replacement of the previous translation that you had. It's a
8 new translation, and it refers exclusively to the handwritten entry in the
9 notebook. All right? I don't think I can be more clear than that. If I
10 still haven't made myself clear, then please tell me.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I did just want to clarify for the record that
12 the supplement -- supplement which is 0320-5748, that was given to Defence
13 counsel by placing it in a locker on the 9th of January. I just want to
14 make sure he actually has it, because that's -- that's our -- our -- our
15 view of it. And that being the case, are view is also therefore he has a
16 translation of that particular document to the extent that it's identical
17 to the one that he already had.
18 The only thing new that he would have received today is the
19 translation of the notebook precisely because of some of the things that
20 he has identified as being distinct between the two of them.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: If this is creating problems for you, Mr. Zivanovic,
22 we can always move to someone else from the Defence teams and you take
23 your turn later. If -- if that makes -- would make your life easier, you
24 will -- you will find us on your side.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. However,
1 I am prepared to continue with my cross-examination. I believe this has
2 been cleared sufficiently.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show to the
5 witness the version in the B/C/S, the newer version as termed by the
6 Prosecutor, 1324B.
7 Q. Witness, could you please look at the document and tell me whether
8 you have ever seen it before?
9 A. I think I have.
10 Q. Can you tell me where?
11 A. Among the documents from the Prosecutor.
12 Q. Did you ever have a chance to see it while you were in active
13 service? I will not mention the name of the location?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at 1324C.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry to interrupt my learned colleague but
18 think the question he put to the witness was whether he had seen the
19 document, but I think the document is more than one page, and I don't
20 think the witness had an opportunity to see the second page of the
21 document before answering the question, so I wondered if my learned
22 colleague might be so kind as to put to the witness the question, having
23 shown him the entire document rather than just the page that was on the
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It is up to you, Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think this intervention was well
2 placed. Could we please go back to 1324B?
3 Q. It is the document you have seen a moment ago. Could you please
4 have a look at the next page as well? Is this a printout of the text put
5 before you by my learned friend Mr. Vanderpuye from the notebook that you
6 were shown?
7 A. It resembles that text, although I don't know whether it is --
8 it's that word for word.
9 Q. Can you also confirm to me that you saw this document at the same
10 time as the first page of the document I have just shown to you?
11 A. Could you repeat that?
12 Q. Did you see this page simultaneously with the first page of the
14 A. I think I did.
15 Q. Can you tell me whether you saw that page while you were still in
16 active service at the location?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 1324C to the
20 witness? I apologise, but it seems there is an error again. In my
21 documents I have a printout of this document in B/C/S, another version of
22 the printout. And here I see a handwritten one among the Prosecutor's
23 documents. I can see it in that tab as the last document, in tab 7. And
24 I think this is what the Prosecutor calls the older version of a -- of the
25 printout. I was just told that we should try with 1324A, although it says
1 here it should be a version in English. It's not it, unfortunately.
2 Under this number I have a document in B/C/S.
3 Q. Can you have a look at this document, please? Perhaps we can
4 scroll down a bit? That's fine. Can you tell me whether it is the same
5 document as the second page of the previous document?
6 A. I cannot tell you that.
7 Q. Can you tell me whether you've ever seen this document?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You did not see it among the OTP documents either?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And you didn't see it earlier, earlier previously at the
13 A. No.
14 Q. After you would transcribe conversations into the notebook and
15 turn it over to the section which dealt with encryption, would that person
16 there working on that conversation, was that person allowed to do anything
17 with your notes, add or omit anything?
18 A. No. They were not allowed to do that. I don't think so.
19 Q. Can you see here that the time marked down by you in the notebook
20 was 1246, and have a look at the time of encryption. Please scroll down
21 the text. No, up, up. A bit more. Yes. Can you tell me what time is
22 there, the time of encryption?
23 A. 1250.
24 Q. Thank you. Please have a look at the notebook, unless you can
25 recall it without it, what was the time that you noted?
1 A. If it is the same text I have on the screen, then the time was
3 Q. Can you tell us what the reason for the time change was?
4 A. I didn't change the time on the typed-out version.
5 Q. Thank you. In the same text that was there before, this is 1324A,
6 I think it is on, we don't have it here. Yes. Can you also please tell
7 us what the reason is why the participants were not indicated?
8 A. Which text?
9 Q. This text that you see on the screen.
10 A. I'm seeing -- I'm looking at three texts, that's why it's not
12 Q. On the ELMO, on your right-hand side.
13 A. Are you talking about the text in my handwriting?
14 Q. No, I'm talking about the printed text. Yes, that's the one.
15 A. Can you please put the question again?
16 Q. Can you see that the participants are not marked in that text?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you explain what the reason would be for leaving out the
20 A. Probably because they were not known.
21 Q. In your original text, besides using the letters X and Y, you also
22 put in a word, the word "tribinka" have you seen that? Have you seen that
23 on the screen?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you say why this was left out?
1 A. How do you mean left out?
2 Q. What the reason is why this word was left out in the printed
3 version of the text?
4 A. Well I couldn't say, I couldn't tell you that.
5 Q. You gave the investigators a statement, you remember that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you please tell me if you remember the zones that you were
9 listening to at that time when you were working?
10 A. Can you please say that again?
11 Q. At the time when you were working at the facility, and we will not
12 mention the name, what were the zones that you were monitoring, that you
13 were surveying?
14 A. We were mostly covering south and southeast.
15 Q. Did you monitor the area of Brcko?
16 A. I can't remember that, we most probably did.
17 Q. Bijeljina?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Doboj?
20 A. I think, yes.
21 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you this because I found that in your
22 statement provided to the Tribunal, so I assume that you had an
23 opportunity to read it?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And you probably remember that amongst other things that was what
1 you said. If necessary, I can show you the statement.
2 A. Yes, please.
3 Q. This is Exhibit 1D106.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show that exhibit to
5 the witness? It's on page 2. Paragraph 3, the last sentence.
6 Q. Can you see that? "I received instructions from superiors to
7 follow specific locations like Bijeljina, Brcko, Doboj, and other
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. Thank you. Do you remember how many pieces of equipment did you
11 have at the time when you were working?
12 A. Right now I don't really remember any longer. I cannot remember
14 Q. In the same statement I found a place where you said that you had
15 four workstations, and that these workstations were serviced by two
16 operators; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, by two operators.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me exactly, only if you can tell me
19 exactly, what equipment you had. You mentioned here the Kenwood
20 receivers, you mentioned other equipment, but you weren't specific. So
21 what I would like to know is if you know exactly. If not, then --
22 A. No, I don't know exactly.
23 Q. Can we assume the same thing for the antennas as well?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
2 this witness, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Who is going next?
4 Mr. Bourgon.
5 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's evening now.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good evening.
10 MR. BOURGON:
11 Q. I only have a few questions for you, the first one being related
12 to your statement which you gave to the office of the Prosecution where it
13 is mentioned that initially you were assigned at the location, and you
14 were asked to monitor conversations of international organisations. My
15 question is simply, what kind of traffic did you monitor at the time and
16 why was this procedure stopped?
17 A. We monitored foreign parties like the S-4. I don't know why this
18 practice was stopped.
19 Q. And the traffic you were monitoring, in what language was it and
20 did you have yourself any kind of language ability to monitor such
22 A. The traffic was usually conducted in the English language.
23 Q. And what is your knowledge of English? Or what was your knowledge
24 of English at the time?
25 A. Fairly good.
1 Q. Now, can you just confirm that when this took place, it's not
2 clear from your statement, but I take it that that was in 1994, and that
3 the use of notebooks was not -- had not begun yet; is that correct?
4 A. Could you please repeat your question?
5 Q. Yes. When was this that you had to monitor the conversations of
6 international organisations, and did you use at that time notebooks to
7 record the conversations?
8 A. This was in 1994, and it lasted for a month. The notebooks, I
9 cannot remember about the notebooks.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, let's get back to simply those conversations that
11 you monitored in the period of 1995, and again I refer to your statement
12 where you say that it was necessary to listen to such conversations
13 several times. Can you confirm that some conversation might have been
14 three, four times; others many more times before you could actually come
15 up with a good transcript?
16 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
17 Q. Now, in relation to this, I would like you to confirm that the
18 reason you listened to the tape several times is because it was difficult
19 to understand and hear the words, in other words it was difficult to
20 understand what was said on those tapes; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And when you could not hear part of a conversation, according to
23 your statement, and that was raised a couple of times already, you would
24 put some dots. Now, my question in relation to this is simply where I
25 find dots in the intercepts that you took care of, that could mean that
1 those three dots could refer anywhere from three words to a sentence to
2 more; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And if I look at your intercepts, the number of dots, I cannot
5 tell from looking at the intercept itself how many words were actually
6 missing when you took down the conversation in 1995?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And other witnesses, other intercept operators have testified
9 before this Chamber and they have said that on some occasions they had to
10 seek the help of others in order to be able to find out what the words
11 were said, what words were mentioned on those conversations. Can you
12 confirm that this was the case, that you had to look and to seek the help
13 of others in order to understand the conversations?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And whether or not a conversation is one that you could understand
16 after listening to the conversation for three times, or one which you had
17 to seek the help of others, there's no way for us to tell this by looking
18 at the intercepts today. Is that correct?
19 Maybe the question was not clear. Let me try too that question
21 THE INTERPRETER: It is still being interpreted.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat your question
23 or reformulate it?
24 MR. BOURGON:
25 Q. I will indeed, I'm sorry. If I look at your notebooks of the
1 conversations you took down today, I suggest to you that there is no way
2 for me to tell whether each individual conversation is one that was more
3 easy for you to note down or one which was very complicated and which you
4 maybe had to seek the help of others. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Moving on to a different topic, from your statement I understand
7 that definite you were called out to join this unit, you did not have any
8 prior military service; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So that was your first contact with the military?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So if I suggest to you that military jargon or military talk at
13 the time was not something you were familiar with when you started
14 listening to those conversations, would that be a fair statement?
15 A. Can you please repeat the question?
16 Q. Yes. Were you familiar with military talk when you started to
17 listen to those conversations in that unit?
18 A. Not before I joined the unit.
19 Q. Now, moving on to another question, you mentioned in your
20 statement that in Srebrenica in July 1995 you could recall that seven to
21 10 people were working at the same time, seven to 10 operators. Can I
22 understand from this that the level of activity was higher during an
23 attack or during a period such as Srebrenica?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And with the specific time-frame of Srebrenica, would you agree
1 with me that this was indeed a very busy period where there was more
2 people working and more intercepts taking place? Is that what you
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, in relation to the issue of voice recognition, you mentioned
6 in your statement that you, at the time you could recognise some voices,
7 but you don't recall who those people were today. I'd like to suggest to
8 you that the reason for this is that when you could recognise a voice it
9 is because you heard the voice before, and not because you knew the person
10 yourself. Would that be correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So if you hear, to provide you with an example, "Hello, Vukotic
13 speaking" you would assume this was Vukotic and this is what you would
14 write down in your transcript. Is that correct?
15 A. Of course.
16 Q. But there was no way for you to tell if this was the real Vukotic
17 because you did not know him. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if you heard that voice on a number of occasions after that,
20 you always assume, and then took it for granted that you recognised
21 Vukotic and you wrote this name down; is that correct?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Maybe I'll ask that question again. After you heard the
24 voice a number of times, that's the reason why you indicated the name that
25 you thought you could recognise?
1 A. I was not allowed to assume things.
2 Q. I understand. But if you did recognise a voice, and -- I've asked
3 the question earlier, so I will just withdraw the question.
4 My last question is simply has to do with the intercept at tab 6.
5 The one that was discussed today, we don't need to put it on the ELMO.
6 I'm referring to the conversation that you crossed out a big portion of it
7 and that you started over again. Do you know which conversation I'm
8 referring to?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. My question is simply, looking at the 10 intercepts that we have,
11 it appears to be the only one where such a big portion is crossed out.
12 And what I'd like to know is why did you decide to rewrite this
13 conversation, and do you recall this specific conversation?
14 A. I don't recall that specific conversation, but I probably did it
15 because I heard a second voice.
16 Q. And would it be possible, Witness, that maybe somebody intervened
17 to say, "Come on, you can do better than that," because there were lots of
18 portions that were blank in the first part and you decided to do a better
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you very much?
22 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: You thank you, Mr. Bourgon. That brings today's
24 sitting to an end.
25 Witness, we will see you again tomorrow morning at 9.00. In the
1 meantime, please refrain from communicating or allowing anyone to
2 communicate with you on the matters you are testifying about.
3 Sitting is tomorrow morning at 9.00.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Friday, the 12th day of
6 January, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.