1 Tuesday, 8 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody.
6 Before we start with the first witness, the Chamber would like to
7 raise three matters. The first one relates to the last hearing of last
9 At the end of our last hearing on the 2nd of June, 2010, we dealt
10 with two exhibits the Prosecution moved for leave to amend its
11 65 ter exhibit list with them. As we were already over time that day,
12 the Chamber did not rule on that motion. The Defence didn't object to
13 this motion. Now leave is granted. The documents P312 and P313 [sic],
14 marked for identification, should be added to the 65 ter exhibit list.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In addition to that, it has come to the Chamber's
17 attention, in contrast to the material submitted with its Rule 92 ter
18 motion, the Prosecution now wishes to tender Witness PW-025's original
19 witness statements provided to the OTP as his Rule 92 ter statement
20 instead of his testimony in the Popovic case which was submitted to the
21 Chamber in connection with the Rule 92 ter motion. The Chamber notes
22 that its decision on the 92 ter motion, which provisionally admitted
23 both, first the Popovic transcripts and, secondly, those exhibits which
24 had been admitted through PW-025 in the Popovic case, was based on an
25 analysis of the transcript of the Popovic testimony as the Rule 92 ter
1 statement in this case, not the underlying witness statement provided to
2 the OTP. The Chamber thus considers that the Prosecution seeks what
3 amounts to a variation of the Chamber's Rule 92 ter decision of the
4 3rd of November, 2009.
5 The Chamber considered it's potentially problematic that the
6 Prosecution is seeking such a variation in a relatively informal and
7 last-minute fashion. In the future, such requests should be made in a
8 timely written filing in order to allow time for the Chamber to consider
9 the effect of such a substitution on its previous analysis of the
10 evidence proposed for admission in the Rule 92 ter motion and for the
11 accused to have adequate time to prepare for cross-examination.
12 With regard to the evidence of PW-025, however, the Chamber is
13 mindful of the benefits of admitting a more concise witness statement for
14 which there already exists a B/C/S translation, despite the lack of
15 notice to the Chamber and the accused. Moreover, in light of the fact
16 that Mr. Tolimir has been on notice of the fact that the Prosecution
17 would be seeking the admission of the witness statement, albeit as an
18 accompanying exhibit rather than as a Rule 92 ter statement itself, since
19 the filing of the motion in February 2009, it would appear that there
20 would be no prejudice to the Defence if the Chamber were to permit such a
21 substitution in the instant case.
22 Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objections to raise in this regard?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 I will take your word for it. If you believe there will be no
25 problems, then I will take that for granted. Currently, I am unable to
1 recall all of the arguments we put forth in our submissions when
2 discussing this particular topic. Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
4 Accordingly, once the witness attests that the underlying witness
5 statement reflects what he would say if examined, the Chamber will admit
6 it pursuant to Rule 92 ter, along with the 11 intercepts named therein,
7 which it considers inseparable and indispensable from the underlying
9 The third point I would like to mention is the very urgent --
10 extremely urgent confidential motion we received yesterday from
11 Mr. Tolimir.
12 Mr. Thayer, would you like to comment on that? Do you have
13 anything to say?
14 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning,
15 Your Honours. Good morning, General Tolimir, my learned friends. Good
16 morning, everyone.
17 We are in receipt of the proposal. I don't know whether it's the
18 Trial Chamber's preference to have written submissions or oral
19 submissions. I'm available now to address the issue in a shorter or
20 slightly longer fashion, depending on the Court's wishes.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would appreciate if you could deal with this
22 problem of this motion now, orally, because we have the witnesses
23 scheduled for today and tomorrow, so that it is -- an urgent decision is
25 MR. THAYER: Okay. I'll move, then, as quickly as I can,
1 Mr. President.
2 Having had an opportunity last night to review the proposal, I
3 frankly see nothing presented there, either in fact or in law, which
4 would necessitate or warrant this pretty radical proposal to just put the
5 brakes on the intercept operators completely.
6 I should say at the outset that the Prosecution, of course, has
7 absolutely no objection should the Defence desire/intend to adduce expert
8 testimony on any issue, particularly in connection with the intercepts,
9 as we're dealing with them now. Frankly, we had expected to see these
10 kinds of motions pre-trial or earlier. We had been encouraging the
11 Defence to do so. We've been trying to persuade the Defence to put its
12 case, as I think you've heard us on a number of occasions, to the
13 witnesses so that we can really clarify what the issues are that are to
14 be joined in this trial, particularly when we have these almost
15 20 intercept operators who are about to come in.
16 I think one thing that this urgent proposal raises, one issue it
17 brings up, is precisely how important it is for the Defence now to be
18 up-front with the Chamber and with the Prosecution about what its theory
19 is, what its case is, with respect to these intercepts. And that is
20 important for a number of reasons. The primary two reasons, I think,
21 are: One, fairness to the witnesses themselves when they come here to
22 testify under Rule 90 -- I think it's 90(G). I'll check, but it's
23 somewhere in Rule 90 where a party is expected to put its case to the
24 witness. And if it is the Defence's case in this case that these
25 intercepts are fraudulent, they're manufactured after the event, with the
1 necessary implication/accusation that these witnesses were part of that
2 or, in fact, a continuing part of that, since they're coming here to
3 testify about their contemporaneous notations and transcriptions of these
4 intercepts, then under Rule 90 and under any fair trial rights concept of
5 which I am aware, that should be put to the witnesses so that there is no
6 doubt about what the Defence's case is.
7 On the other hand, if the Defence's case is that it accepts this
8 process, generally speaking, that this interception was going on, that
9 these note-books were used at the time, but that at some point after the
10 war portions were inserted in between entries, then that should be
11 presented to the witnesses so that the witnesses understand what they are
12 being essentially accused of, so we can join the issues, and so that they
13 can be framed in a clear manner and not lying in wait for further down
14 the road, in which case we may be forced to bring these witnesses back if
15 they're not properly confronted with these issues.
16 So from -- secondly, from a trial efficiency perspective, I
17 believe it's very important that this issue be raised now, that we have
18 an idea what the general's case is with respect to these intercepts.
19 On the third hand, if his position is, I accept the authenticity
20 of these intercepts, at least in certain circumstances, and we do see
21 occasions when General Tolimir appears to accept the authenticity of the
22 intercepts when it suits him; for example, in his pre-trial brief he
23 relies heavily on a number of intercepted conversations that he believes
24 are in his favour, then we need to know that, too. And from our
25 perspective, he can have it all three ways, if he wants. There's no
1 and/or here or one or the other. He can have it all three ways, but we
2 need to know what his case is going to be.
3 And, again, we have no problem with expert testimony in this
4 issue. I think, and I'll have to consult with Mr. McCloskey, but I don't
5 see a problem, for example, if he can get it together quickly enough,
6 that we would have that testimony come in in the Prosecution's case in
7 chief. In that way, we could have the full scope of this testimony at an
8 earlier stage, and the Trial Chamber would be perhaps in a position to
9 deal with it sooner than later and have this intercept issue resolved,
10 which may benefit, again, the clarity and efficiency of the trial.
11 As for the mechanics of any expert testimony, we have to liaise
12 with the Defence to make the proper arrangements. We need to know who
13 the expert is, what kind of tests we're talking about, what kind of
14 experts we're talking about. The accused is in the same position as any
15 other party in terms of expert testimony. We need to know and have
16 proper notice of what that's going to be. And in terms of maintaining
17 the proper chain of custody and the physical integrity of the evidence
18 itself, in this case the note-books, we need to liaise to some degree on
19 that before we can, I think, take the next steps, if the Defence is
20 serious about presenting expert testimony on this issue.
21 And what we've seen so far, I think, is a -- and I don't mean
22 this ini a necessarily pejorative way, but we've seen, I think, a certain
23 coyness on behalf, rightly speaking, of the Defence with respect to its
24 case. You may recall in -- during the testimony of the witness who just
25 completed his testimony, there was some questioning by the accused on
1 this issue of the date on the note-book and so forth, but the actual
2 theory, the challenge to the witness that this witness was part of
3 manufacturing/fabricating these note-books, was not put directly to the
4 witness. And particularly when we have witnesses coming in here who were
5 sitting down -- they will testify about sitting down, having their
6 headphones on, recording the conversations, transcribing them themselves
7 in these note-books, working with the cryptography, being involved in the
8 whole process, it's particularly important for that case to be put to
9 those witnesses if for no other reason for out of fairness to the
11 I think one of the most important issues that I saw in the
12 proposal is why the -- why the sudden urgent need to shut down the
13 testimony. Why now, when everybody has known from the beginning of this
14 trial, in its pre-trial stages, that this testimony was coming? There is
15 no surprise at all about this testimony. The accused cannot credibly
16 claim that he was surprised in any way by any of this testimony or the
17 disclosure that he refers to in his filing. He knows -- the Defence
18 knows that these issues were raised in the examination of Prosecution
19 witnesses in the last case; he knows that they were raised specifically
20 in the Defence's pre-trial brief or briefs in the Popovic case; counsel
21 for Beara cross-examined witnesses on these issues; the Beara and
22 Vujadin Popovic team both raised these issues in their final briefs; and,
23 again, the accused, himself, again, depending on whether it suits him or
24 not with respect to how he views the authenticity of these intercepts,
25 the accused himself raised this issue in his response to our 92 bis
1 proposal almost a year ago. And, again, he was being coy in the
2 response. If you read the response, he said, I'm not going to tell you
3 what my theory is because I don't want the Prosecution to be able to
4 tailor its examination and give away my cross, but I've got -- basically,
5 he says, I've got issues with the authenticity of these note-books. So
6 he's known for a long time that this was going to be part of his case.
7 So why we have the urgency now all of a sudden is not present in the
8 proposal, and I don't think there is a legitimate reason that this has to
9 be -- that this needs to stop these proceedings.
10 The accused can put the proposition of his case, whatever the --
11 whatever his theory is, he can put that proposition, without having his
12 expert report in his hand, to any intercept operator that comes. We can
13 assume -- let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that his expert
14 report concludes, yes, that there was multiple handwriting or that these
15 note-books were manufactured after the war. He can put those
16 propositions to these witnesses without having to wait and delay the
17 trial proceedings. He's already done that, as I said, in a coy way. He
18 questioned the last witness on that very issue. So I see no reason to
19 suspend these intercept operators from testifying. We've got them here,
20 and, in fact, the first three intercept operators are MUP intercept
21 operators who didn't even use note-books. So that's just not even an
22 issue on the table for these witnesses.
23 I think I'll stop there. Thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Thayer.
25 Mr. Tolimir, do you want to comment on this and add something to
1 your written motion of yesterday?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Greetings to all those present. A prayer follows.
4 I wanted to say the following: When the Prosecutor was speaking
5 about the submission I filed, stated that I put forth my own Defence
6 thesis; however, I'm not doing that. I only want the truth to surface
7 here. I examined a witness for a whole day who was the boss of all these
8 operators who collected intercepts. In his presence, while examining
9 him, I asked him whether these reports could be treated in real time. He
10 said they were able to do so in spite of the fact that even the most
11 up-to-date services were unable to do that. He said he needed only two
12 hours to do so, whereas the most modern services and equipment requires
13 at least four. I also asked him whether they exchanged data. He said
14 they did not. Thirdly, we found the note-book, which speaks for itself.
15 We shouldn't discuss any Tolimir's thesis here, but we should only
16 consider what is the truth.
17 We have already asked for an expert, which needs to be approved
18 by the Registry. This expert will do his own part, and Tolimir wishes
19 for nothing but the truth. If the Prosecutor has the same intention as I
20 do for the truth to surface, then they shouldn't oppose anything that
21 would go against that. I see no reason for that. We should all know the
22 truth. The Prosecutor is not to be blamed for any untruths presented
24 Secondly, I didn't want to accuse anyone. I'm not the Prosecutor
25 here. I am the accused. I can only put questions to witnesses. I
1 cannot accuse them of anything. I can only ask them whether they did
2 something or did not. I wasn't coy at all. I spent days analysing the
3 reports of those services who created intercepts before we even had an
4 armed force. This should not become personal. Everything I do is aimed
5 at discovering the truth.
6 I filed my submission in such a fashion because I believe the
7 expert we are requesting could be -- could deal with this rather quickly.
8 This is his profession, and it is only up to the Registry when this
9 person would be allowed to do so and when he would be able to receive the
10 material in question. Nothing is up to Tolimir. I'm not trying to
11 obstruct anything. I accept anything this Court decides, irrespective of
12 whether this contributes to the truth or not. I am trying to make the
13 truth known, but the ultimate decision is yours.
14 This is all I wanted to say for now. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. Before your decision,
17 I wanted to state another fact.
18 The Prosecutor stated that I accept certain things when they are
19 in my favour, whereas I don't accept them in other situations. It is not
20 up to me to accept or not any reports. I never invoked any particular
21 reports of these witnesses or any intercepts that can be found in the
22 note-book. Please do bear in mind I even allowed them to include those
23 elements pertaining to me. I don't want the truth not to be made known
24 for something having been omitted previously. I want everything out.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber, after having considered all
4 arguments, finds itself in a quite complicated situation. The Chamber is
5 of the opinion that we have to make clear that the rights of the accused
6 have to be preserved. We must guarantee a fair trial, but, on the other
7 hand, also an expeditious trial.
8 The motion received yesterday in the late afternoon comes at a
9 very late stage of this procedure. Nevertheless, the parties and the
10 Chamber was able to consider the reasoning of the motion and took into
11 account nothing about the truth. If these documents are real -- if these
12 note-books are real documents produced at the time or not, this is to be
13 decided at the end of the trial.
14 The Chamber is of the opinion that the accused has every
15 possibility to challenge the evidence, as Mr. Tolimir did with the first
16 two witnesses, intercept supervisors, during cross-examination. The
17 accused has every possibility to call witnesses, including expert
18 witnesses, in the Defence case, and if there is any reason, after having
19 received the expert report of the expert witness about these note-books,
20 then it might be the case that the witnesses we have heard about the
21 note-books should be recalled, if there is a reason at that stage of the
23 And as the Prosecution offered, it will do its very best to
24 assist an expert witness with the material to be checked. And in the
25 end, the Chamber is of the view that there is no limitation -- no
1 violation of the rights of the accused if the Chamber is continuing the
2 hearings with intercept witnesses.
3 But to make it very clear, it is up to the Chamber, at the end of
4 this trial, after having heard witnesses and after having received
5 evidence, if these note-books can be accepted as evidence or not. The
6 Chamber gives weight to all evidence, including documents, at the end of
7 the whole case.
8 To summarise that, the Chamber is of the view that the stay of
9 the hearings, which would result in the cancellation of several days of
10 hearings, is not the proper way to deal with this motion. The Chamber
11 will deny -- is now denying this motion but especially will preserve the
12 rights of the accused to have a fair trial. This is very clear.
13 After this decision, the Chamber is prepared to start with the
14 next witness, and the witness should be brought in. I think there are --
15 just a moment.
16 Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
19 It seems that you're rejecting my proposal. Does it mean that
20 you are also rejecting my proposal for the engagement of an expert in
21 these proceedings? I proposed that with a good intention. I proposed
22 that other witnesses be heard before the expert provides his opinion
23 about the testimony of those witnesses. Please bear that in mind. I
24 could not send my request sooner because only yesterday I received
25 materials from the Prosecutor that formed the base for the submission of
1 my motion. Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think, Mr. Tolimir, the Chamber's decision was
3 very clear. It was only dealing with your request not to hear the
4 intercept witnesses today and the following days of our hearings and to
5 have, in fact, a cancellation of hearing days. This motion is denied.
6 We were not dealing at all with your request for -- to have an expert
7 witness about the origin of these note-books. We are not dealing with
8 that problem at the moment today.
9 Mr. Thayer.
10 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, while the witness is being brought
11 in, I have two quick housekeeping matters, just to keep the Court
13 We have two --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While the witness is being brought in the screens
15 should be closed because he must have the possibility to come in and to
16 take a seat.
17 MR. THAYER: Yes. We have two English translations -- here
18 we go.
19 We have two English translations for P00159 and P00160, and they
20 are now up-loaded in the e-court. We understand that the Chamber wishes
21 to be advised when these are made available, so they are there now. And
22 they were previously MFI
23 translation and they're up-loaded.
24 With respect to the Chamber's --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we perhaps deal with that first?
1 MR. THAYER: Sure.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These two exhibits will be exhibits and no longer
4 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 With respect to the Chamber's second issue today with respect to
6 the Prosecution's informal and last-minute fashion, for which I take full
7 responsibility - that was my informality and last-minuteness - there are
8 two subsequent witnesses for whom, as the Trial Chamber noted, we are
9 doing the same thing. Does the Trial Chamber wish written filings with
10 respect to those two witnesses, or do I have a pass for those two
11 witnesses? We're certainly -- we'll certainly file a written notice if
12 that's what the Court wishes.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, please be patient for a moment, and the
15 screens should be opened.
16 Dealing with your last question, the Chamber dealt with these
17 three witnesses already. That was our decision. But in future that
18 should be made clear in a more formal way. That would assist the Chamber
19 and the accused in the preparation of the evidence of the witness.
20 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 And I take the opportunity to mention that this morning the first
23 matter I raised, there was a mistake. I was not dealing with -- in fact,
24 with the document P313, but P314. I was just told that there was a
1 Now, sir, excuse me that we dealt with some procedural matters.
2 You are welcomed to the Tribunal. Would you now please read allowed the
3 affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: PW-025
7 [The witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
9 You know that there are protective measures in place for you so
10 that you will not be addressed with your full name, and --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- your voice and your face will not be known
13 outside this courtroom.
14 Please, the parties should switch off the microphones while the
15 witness is answering questions.
16 Mr. Thayer, do you have examination-in-chief?
17 MR. THAYER: I do. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
19 Q. Good morning to you, Witness.
20 A. Good morning.
21 MR. THAYER: May we have 65 ter 6288, that is, P305, up in
23 Q. Witness, you'll see a document appearing on your screen shortly.
24 When you were here last, this document was handed to you in hard copy,
25 but now we're going to look at the computer for it. I just ask you to
1 confirm whether you see your name on this document.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will not be broadcast.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it.
4 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender P305.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness said he sees it. Could the witness
6 state that this is his name?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my name.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. This will be received under
10 MR. THAYER:
11 Q. Witness, do you recall providing a signed witness statement to
12 the Office of the Prosecutor in January of 2007?
13 A. Yes, I recall having provided that statement.
14 Q. And, Witness, did you read that signed witness statement in your
15 own language when we met I think it was a week ago yesterday?
16 A. Yes, I did read the statement.
17 Q. And, Witness, can you attest before this Trial Chamber that that
18 witness statement accurately reflects what you said during your interview
19 with the Office of the Prosecutor in January of 2007?
20 A. Yes, this is the statement that I provided in 2007, which I
21 signed, and which I subsequently read a few days ago.
22 Q. And just so the record is clear, Witness, can you attest that
23 that statement is a fair and accurate representation of what you told the
24 OTP in January of 2007?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And, Witness, during that interview, were you shown a booklet or
2 packet of 11 intercepts?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And, again, when we met last Monday, did you again review those
5 11 intercepts in connection with your testimony today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And were you able to determine whether or not you personally took
8 part in intercepting, recording, transcribing, and transmitting those
9 intercepts, those conversations?
10 A. Yes, I did take part in that.
11 MR. THAYER: And with the assistance of Madam Usher, I'm going to
12 hand you an exhibit.
13 Q. Sir, I just ask you to look at the first 11 tabs in that booklet.
14 On the side, there are 11 tabs. I ask you to kindly leaf through those
15 11 tabs and tell the Trial Chamber whether or not you can confirm again
16 that you took part in intercepting these 11 conversations.
17 A. Yes, I've reviewed the 11 reports and can confirm that they are
18 my reports.
19 Q. And I know it's been a week since you saw them, sir, but can you
20 confirm whether or not those are the 11 intercepts you were shown during
21 your interview in 2007?
22 A. Yes, they were shown to me. They are the ones.
23 Q. And, Witness, finally, with respect to your 2007 witness
24 statement, can you attest before this Trial Chamber that if you were
25 asked the same questions today that you were asked back then, during your
1 interview, would your answers be the same?
2 A. Yes, of course.
3 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender the
4 witness's witness statement under seal - that's P292 - as well as the
5 11 intercepts which have been identified by the Registry by P number 293
6 to 303. Just to save a little bit of time, I did not show him the actual
7 witness statement, but he did confirm that he had reviewed it.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First I would like to clarify one date. This is
9 P299. In your list or in the Registry's list - I'm not sure about
10 that - it is stated the 22nd of July, 1995, 2335 hours, but, in fact,
11 this is a document of the 23rd of July, with the same time. And the
12 witness referred to it in the statement also as a document on number
13 0320-1509 to -- 0320-1509 of the 23rd of July, 1995. Just to be very
14 clear which document you are referring about.
15 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just taking a look at
16 it right now.
17 I think I see where that notation came from, and it's -- maybe we
18 can just ask one question of the witness and clarify that for the record.
19 Q. Witness --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful.
21 MR. THAYER:
22 Q. If you would turn to tab 7 of your booklet, please.
23 MR. THAYER: And we can look at P299.
24 Again, this is under seal, so it shouldn't be broadcast, but on
25 e-court it's 299.
1 Q. Witness, just so we know we're looking at the same document, do
2 you see an eight-digit number in the upper right-hand corner of this
3 intercept report?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you see --
6 A. Yes, I can see the number.
7 Q. And does it end in 1508, 1508?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When we look at report number 832, if you can locate that one at
10 the bottom of the page, do you see an intercept with the time of
11 2335 hours?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what is the date of this particular report number 832?
14 A. The 23rd July, 1995.
15 Q. And if we look above at report number 831, which is the report
16 immediately preceding report number 832, do you see an intercept, a
17 report, of 2305 hours?
18 A. Yes, I can see that.
19 Q. And what is the date of that report that's listed there, sir?
20 A. 22nd July, 1995
21 Q. Do you have any idea or explanation or can you tell the Court
22 whether the dates on these two reports appeared to you to be correct or
23 not? And if you can't draw any conclusions, that's fine, too. We're
24 just asking for your help. We have one document here with two dates and
25 two times which are fairly close together, so we're just asking for some
1 clarification. If you can supply that for the Trial Chamber, please.
2 A. To be honest, at this moment I can't tell you exactly what
3 happened. This report here was late, and the typing and sending could
4 have spilled over to the next day, which did happen if a report was
5 received late in the evening. I really can't remember what happened in
6 this particular case. It may be an error as well. I don't know.
7 Q. Okay. Well, let's look at the next intercept in your packet,
8 which is at tab 8 of your booklet.
9 We just looked at reports 531 and 532.
10 MR. THAYER: And, Your Honour, for e-court purposes, this is
11 P300, and it's --
12 Q. Again, we just looked at reports number 831 and 832.
13 Do you see report 833 on your screen or in your booklet, sir?
14 Again, this is P300.
15 A. Yes, I can see it, yes. I can see that, yes.
16 Q. And what is the time on this intercept?
17 A. 00.35, 23rd of July.
18 Q. And, again, having seen the subsequent report coming out shortly
19 after midnight
20 as you said, 23 July 1995
21 in explaining to the Trial Chamber whether you can determine whether the
22 date on report number 832, the one that precedes this, is correct or not?
23 A. It is possible that there was a mistake in the date or, rather,
24 in the time. There may have been a mistake in the way the time was
25 recorded. Or just bear with me for a moment, please. Or perhaps a
1 mistake was made in recording the date. The reports always followed each
2 other in sequence, unless a report arrived very late and was typed late,
3 and then it was sent the following day, whereby the correct date was
4 recorded on the report with the time indicated, the time from the
5 previous day.
6 MR. THAYER: Okay. Sir, unless there are any further inquiries
7 from the Chamber, I think we'll leave it there and move on.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The documents P292 to P303 will be
9 received under seal, and the document -- the pseudonym sheet will be
10 P305, under seal.
11 Please carry on.
12 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 I will have a few extra questions for this witness, but first I'd
14 like to read the summary of the witness interview. And I think we can
15 remain in public session for the entirety of the summary.
16 The witness was interested in radio since elementary school
17 because his brother was involved in a local Ham Radio club, then became
18 active in Ham Radio clubs himself as a teenager and received his
19 B Category Ham Radio license in 1998 -- that's -- pardon, 1988. He began
20 working for the MUP in 1990 in the communications section of a public
21 security sector. From 1992 to 1995, the witness worked in the MUP as a
22 signalsman, typing, encrypting, and transmitting documents to other MUP
24 In June of 1995, he was temporarily assigned to the State
25 Security Sector, which was short two men, so he and a colleague were
1 loaned to that unit at the northern site, where he worked as an intercept
2 operator for more than six months.
3 The witness described the procedure used when intercepting,
4 taping, and transcribing VRS radio communications as follows: He would
5 monitor the channels on frequencies which they had selected. When he
6 began recording a conversation, he would note the date, time, channel,
7 and frequency on a piece of paper. Afterwards, he would transcribe the
8 conversation onto paper. If any portion was inaudible, he would indicate
9 it with three dots.
10 The most important aspect was to achieve 100 per cent accuracy.
11 They would listen to conversations many times, if necessary, and
12 sometimes several of them would listen to the same conversation.
13 Sometimes the typist would be asked to listen to the tape with headphones
14 on to assist in an accurate transcript. Sometimes the operator and the
15 typist would both listen to a tape on a speaker. Sometimes the witness
16 would dictate intercepts he had taped directly to the typist.
17 They did not always transcribe the entire conversation which they
18 had typed -- I beg your pardon, which they had taped, if portions of it
19 were unimportant, that is, if passages were not of any military interest.
20 If the information was urgent, they would sometimes transcribe directly
21 from the tape into the computer.
22 The witness and his colleague worked as a team and helped each
23 other in all aspects of intercepting and transmitting these
24 conversations, performing all aspects of the job. Most of the time, the
25 witness worked as the intercept operator and his colleague worked as the
1 typist because his colleague was a faster typist and the witness had more
2 radio experience, but they took turn doing these tasks.
3 The witness reviewed 11 intercept print-outs and recognised them
4 as his and confirmed that he intercepted and recorded them.
5 And that ends the summary.
6 Q. Witness, I just wanted to follow up on a couple of areas to
7 expand on your statement a little bit and your prior testimony.
8 You said in your witness statement and during the last trial that
9 you and your colleague worked together, very closely, intercepting these
10 conversations. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber, please, what
11 types of tasks you would work together closely doing? Just if you could
12 give the Trial Chamber a brief flavour of how you actually worked
13 together as a team.
14 A. Would you like me to illustrate that with an example of our
16 Q. Sure, I think that would be helpful. Thank you, sir.
17 A. Well, I can give you this example: If I was seated by the radio
18 set, listening in on a conversation, and for the most part the
19 conversations we intercepted at that time were urgent in nature, in such
20 cases, the colleague who was next to me would come close. We had UHER
21 recorders, and we would use them to record those conversations. Then
22 together we would listen to the conversation in question again, and he
23 usually noted it down since he had better handwriting. If the
24 conversation was urgent, he would type it directly into the computer. If
25 some things were unclear, we would listen to particular portions over and
1 over. And, if necessary, we would even ask the assistance of another
2 colleague in order to confirm what they could hear if we were uncertain
3 of it.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we please pause for a moment. There is a
5 technical problem with the earphones. Perhaps we should continue
6 talking. Was it again the problem of the B/C/S language?
7 Witness, could you please repeat the last two or three sentences.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's no problem.
9 In such a case when I intercepted a conversation, we would listen
10 to it again from the UHER recorder --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I
12 cannot hear the witness, whereas I can hear you well.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could anybody work on that?
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you can put the question to the witness,
17 and with his answer we will see if the problem is solved.
18 MR. THAYER:
19 Q. Sir, would you please tell the Trial Chamber just a little bit
20 about how the shift system worked for you and your colleagues at the
21 northern site?
22 A. At the outset, the shifts took two to three days when we just
23 arrived in June. However, at some later stage, we began taking turns
24 every seven days. There would be our team, that is to say, me and my
25 colleague, who would stay there for seven days, and then another team
1 would come in. And the same system applied until the end.
2 MR. THAYER: Okay. Are we doing okay, Mr. President? All right.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No complaint by Mr. Tolimir, so we should
4 carry on.
5 MR. THAYER: Carry on, thank you.
6 Q. Let's take a look again at your booklet that you have in front of
7 you, sir. And I'd ask you to take a look at now tabs 12 through 23 of
8 your booklet.
9 And I just want to first ask you: Do you recall me showing you
10 an additional dozen intercepts when we met last Monday?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And if you'd kindly flip through those 12 intercepts from
13 tabs 12 to 23, and I would ask you whether you can tell the
14 Trial Chamber, once you've had a chance to refresh yourself, whether or
15 not you participated in intercepting, recording, transcribing, or
16 transmitting those intercepts.
17 A. Yes, I did participate in either interception, recording, or
18 transcription of these conversations.
19 Q. And how can you tell? How are you able to make that
20 determination, sir?
21 A. First and foremost, I can tell that by the time of the
22 conversations as well as the topics discussed and participants included.
23 I can also tell by my signature which follows each and every intercept,
24 be it as the first or the second name. In any case, my name always
25 appeared following the intercepts. I can also say that I still recall
1 many of those conversations.
2 Q. Now, I note for the record that tabs 12 through 22 run from
3 8 July through 10 July of 1995 and that the last intercept is dated
4 25 July. With respect to the intercepts between 8 and 10 July,
5 tabs 12 through 22 - and we're speaking about P306 to 316 just for the
6 record - you just testified that you recall some of these actual
7 intercepts. Can you clarify a little bit -- provide a little bit more
8 detail for the Trial Chamber how it is that you're able to recall
9 anything about any of these intercepts?
10 A. Certainly I recall them, especially those which included certain
11 high-ranking UN officials such as Generals Janvier and Nicolai and
12 perhaps Mr. Gobillard. I recall them because at the time it was my great
13 wish that those conversations would amount to something. I still carry
14 that feeling within me. This is how I can recall certain details from
15 those conversations. They are still with me. Of course, there are such
16 conversations which I remember to a lesser extent.
17 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, Mr. President, at this time I would
18 tender Exhibits P306 to P316.
19 And if we could just take a look at ...
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
21 MR. THAYER: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to clarify the time and the number
24 If you look at P316, dated 10th of July, 1995, I don't find it in
25 the binder.
1 MR. THAYER: We'll see if we can --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you help us?
3 MR. THAYER: I'll see if I can help.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Because tab 22 contains an intercept of the
5 10th of July, 1995, at 2015 hours. That might be the previous month. It
6 may be a misinterpretation on my side, but perhaps you can clarify this.
7 MR. THAYER: Okay, Mr. President.
8 What we should be looking at - and perhaps we can call it up on
9 e-court and look at the booklets together - tab 22 should be 65 ter 5625,
10 as you've identified, P316, and it should be an intercept dated
11 10 July 1995
12 of text that it is a continuing -- a continuation of the conversation
13 from report number 531.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir [sic], I understand that, but where
15 is the time noted of 21 hours?
16 MR. THAYER: Okay, yes. Now I understand -- now I understand,
17 Mr. President, your question. Okay.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sorry. I was not asking Mr. Tolimir, but
19 Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: That's all right.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I apologise.
22 MR. THAYER: Now I understand Your Honour's question.
23 The approximate time that we've placed on the index for this is
24 based on a corresponding intercept taken by Croatian authorities. I
25 believe you will hear testimony, because our intercept heaven is going to
1 continue beyond the next two weeks, you will hear testimony from Croatian
2 intercept operators, and I believe there is a Croatian intercept. In
3 other words, there were Croatian intercept operators who intercepted this
4 very same conversation, and they have placed a date -- I mean, a time of
5 2100 hours, if I'm not mistaken, on their report. And these are two
6 separate armies, two separate areas, both listening to the same
7 conversation. That's what -- that's what the evidence we will proffer to
8 Your Honours on that issue will show.
9 So -- and if you go back and look at report number 531, which is
10 indicated here, you'll see that that precedes the 2100-hour time, and
11 that's why we've listed an approximate time of 2100 hours here.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I believe that was produced by the OTP for the
13 purpose of this list, but it doesn't -- that document itself, the
14 intercept, doesn't contain any indication of the time; only the day.
15 MR. THAYER: That is absolutely correct, Your Honour. If you
16 look at the original ABiH intercept in the original language, it flows
17 chronologically by the date and the report, but there's no time. It just
18 says this is a continuation of the prior -- of the conversation at the
19 prior report number 531. As I said, this is report number 532.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
21 The documents P306 through P316 will be received under seal.
22 MR. THAYER:
23 Q. Now, as to the last intercept in your booklet, Witness, this is
24 at tab 23, and this is P317.
25 MR. THAYER: Again, it should not be broadcast, please.
1 Q. I just ask you, Witness, if you could take a moment to review
2 this intercept again. And I want to know whether you have any
3 independent recollection of this intercept which was taken on the
4 25th of July.
5 A. Yes, this does ring a bell, sort of.
6 Q. Okay. Well, I understand if it doesn't ring any particularly
7 loud bells 15 years after the fact, Witness. Let me ask you -- turn your
8 attention to one remark at the end of the intercept where it's written:
9 "During the conversation, we concluded that person X is, in fact,
11 Do you see that? And if you do, do you have any recollection of
12 how it was that you were able to make this conclusion that you note here
13 at the end of your report?
14 A. Well, you see, occasionally we introduced remarks at the bottom.
15 If there were things we were uncertain of in a certain conversation, say
16 the identity of a person, or if we were subsequently able to identify
17 that person, then such a remark would be made. Sometimes a person
18 identifies himself or herself later on during the conversation. On other
19 occasions, we were able to do that by recognising the person's voice. We
20 had such examples with Rajko Banduka [phoen], who was at the position of
21 secretary at the Main Staff. And at first we thought he was just a
22 signalsman, but later on we recognised who he was. He would sometimes
23 make remarks to the effect, Well, I'm going to put you through to
24 Milan Gvero, or something like that. We would simply remark on that
25 towards the end of the conversation. Of course, we made use of such
1 identifying features in order to identify the participants.
2 Q. And while we're on that topic, what other means or methods would
3 you use to identify a speaker in a conversation, aside from, for example,
4 the -- Mr. Banduka, the secretary you described, overtly introducing
5 somebody by their name during the conversation?
6 A. Of course, we were able to identify certain speakers by their
7 tone of voice, since they conversed frequently with others. At a certain
8 point in time, we knew with certainty who some of the speakers were
9 because of their voices. Perhaps I should add this as well: There were
10 certain topics and a number of conversations; and in the course of the
11 first few conversations, we were unable to a certain speaker, whereas
12 that speaker would identify himself or herself later on and the whole
13 group of conversations included the same topic. So by the end of that
14 topic, of that group of conversations, we were able to pin-point the
15 identity of a certain speaker.
16 Q. So before you would write down a remark like the one we just
17 looked at at the end of this intercept, identifying the participant as
18 General Gvero, how certain would you have to be of that person's identity
19 before putting it in a report?
20 A. Well, you see, if I hadn't been certain about somebody's
21 identity, either I would not have written it down or I would have written
22 "probably" or "likely." But if I was sure, then I would have recorded
23 that as me being sure.
24 Q. And as an intercept operator, sir, why was it important for you
25 to make a distinction between, on the one hand, noting that this is, for
1 example, probably General Gvero versus putting in the report that you
2 have identified the speaker as General Gvero?
3 A. Because we tried very hard to do a good job, as good a job as
4 possible. We wanted to be as correct as possible. We wanted to make --
5 avoid making mistakes and record mistaken identities. Even if we
6 subsequently found out who was speaking, we would subsequently record
7 that by way of a remark. We would note who the persons in the
8 conversation were.
9 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I note we're approaching the break.
10 I only have two more questions for the witness, but I can certainly pick
11 those up after the break, to be short.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Well, perhaps it's better to -- if it's only for
13 some minutes, you should conclude your examination-in-chief.
14 MR. THAYER: Then I'll do that.
15 Q. Sir, let's look at P293 on e-court, please.
16 MR. THAYER: And, again, it should not be broadcast.
17 Q. And if you want to look at the hard copy, it's the first tab,
18 number 1, tab number 1 in your booklet, for anybody that's using the
19 old-school method.
20 Do you see that there, sir? It's a report number 526, dated
21 9th of July.
22 A. Yes, I can see it.
23 Q. And was this the typical heading and format of one of your own --
24 that is, one of your MUP SDB intercepts, to have "CSB-SDB Tuzla" at the
25 top of the report?
1 A. Yes, my colleague and me started our reports in this way or a
2 similar way, according to the instruction that we had received. This is
3 exactly how we started our reports, as a matter of fact.
4 MR. THAYER: Okay. Let's look at one more document. And this is
5 P310, please. Again, not to be broadcast.
6 Q. And, sir, this is at tab 16 of your booklet. Please just let us
7 know when you've had an opportunity to look at it, once you've found it.
8 MR. THAYER: And this document should not be broadcast either.
9 Q. Do you have a document that's headed "Armija Republic
11 A. Yes, I can see it, yes.
12 Q. And I will not identify the location that is listed there, but do
13 you have a report, and it includes report number 521, but with the ABiH
14 heading at the top? Do you see that report, sir?
15 A. Yes, I can see it.
16 MR. THAYER: And for the record, the ERN is 0320-5142.
17 Q. Can you just explain for the Trial Chamber how it is -- and if we
18 just look at the document, we see the "CSB-SDB Tuzla" heading right above
19 the report number 521. But at the top of this document, as a whole, it's
20 an "armija" document, it's an army document, but with a MUP report
21 enclosed. Can you just explain for the Trial Chamber how that happens?
22 A. Well, let me tell you. I know that we handed over our reports to
23 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the relevant department. It was
24 only normal for us to provide the same materials that we had to the
25 BiH Army. If we had materials, there was no reason for us to hide
1 anything from them.
2 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Witness.
3 That concludes my examination.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
5 We must have our first break now. The tapes must be rewound.
6 And we will resume five minutes past 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
10 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I neglected to tender one final
11 intercept in the booklet, and that is number 317.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received under seal.
13 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 Now, sir, you know the accused, Mr. Tolimir, has the right to put
16 questions to you.
17 Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Once again, I would like to welcome everybody in the courtroom.
20 I would like to greet the witness. I'll have a few questions for him
21 with regard to his previous testimony.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Since we're speaking the same language, I would kindly ask him to
25 wait for me to say, Thank you, and once the cursor has stopped moving on
1 the transcript, then you start answering my question, in order to avoid
3 A. I understand.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce
6 P292. This is the witness's statement provided to the OTP. Thank you.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. While we are waiting for the document to be produced, I'm going
9 to put my question.
10 Before January 2007, did anybody contact you in -- did anybody
11 contact you with regard to your testimony before this Tribunal?
12 Thank you.
13 We have the first pages of the document on the screen, but let me
14 ask you, once again: Did anybody contact you before January 2007 with
15 regard to the testimony either here or in some other courts?
16 A. Before I provided my testimony, I was contacted maybe a month or
17 two before. I don't know exactly. A person came to contact me.
18 Q. Thank you. Was that person from the Prosecution, and do you know
19 that person's name? Thank you.
20 A. I believe that the person is from the Prosecution, yes.
21 Q. Did they approach just you or everybody and that's why you don't
22 know that person's name? Thank you.
23 A. I don't know the person's name. She was a lady. I don't want to
24 make a mistake. And there were three of us during our initial
25 conversation that I was also involved in.
1 Q. Thank you. Were you asked to provide a statement, and were you
2 told that you would be asked to testify?
3 A. Yes, we did mention our future testimonies. We were asked
4 whether we were willing to testify before this Tribunal.
5 Q. Thank you. Did that person know that you had the documents that
6 you are testifying about or did she not know?
7 A. I don't know whether she knew or not. She just contacted us as
8 prospective witnesses. I don't know whether she was aware of the
9 documents or not.
10 Q. Thank you. Thank you. I apologise. Could you please tell us,
11 before the interview that you're talking about, a month before
12 January 2007, when you were contacted by that person, did you have these
13 materials on you? Where were they?
14 A. No, I didn't have those materials on me.
15 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us if you know where those materials
16 were in January 2007? Who were they with?
17 A. The first time I saw these materials was when I came here to
18 The Hague
19 Q. Thank you. Could you tell the Trial Chamber when was that? What
20 year, if you can't remember the date.
21 A. That was in the year 2007, in the month of January. I was here
22 for four or five days. Before I appeared in court, a couple of days
23 before that, I had an occasion to peruse the materials.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see the second page
1 of the document that we now have on our screens. Thank you.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. While we are looking at the second page: Did you need to seek
4 approval from your employer in order to come and testify?
5 A. It was a matter of courtesy for me to tell them that I was called
6 to testify, because I had to ask for a leave of absence. And I did not
7 encounter any problem with this regard.
8 Q. So you just told them that you would go; you didn't have to ask
9 their approval?
10 A. Yes, I did receive a piece of paper that I presented to them,
11 showing where I was going, how long I would be here. And based on that
12 piece of paper, I was relieved of my duties.
13 Q. Once again, for the transcript, were you given consent from your
14 employer to testify before the International Court; yes or no?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Please, before the month of June 1995, were you a member of the
17 Intercept Service or not?
18 A. Before July 1995, I was not a member of that service.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you very shortly. We received
21 the answer "Yes" in page 36, line 2. I saw the witness, that there was a
22 sign of doubt. Could you please give the answer again? Mr. Tolimir
23 asked you:
24 "Were you given consent from your employer to testify before the
25 International Court; yes or no?"
1 Which is your answer?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said yes.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Could you please tell us, in January 2007, did your brother also
7 testify in that case, like he did in mine, before you?
8 A. If we're going to talk about that, I think it would be advisable
9 for us to go into private session.
10 Q. He testified just like you did. I'm not going to ask for any
11 names. I'm just asking you whether he testified in 2007.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In 2005, before you joined the service, did your brother work in
14 the State Security Service; yes or no? Thank you.
15 A. I did not understand. 2005?
16 Q. You said that in June 2005, from the MUP you were transferred to
17 the State Security and started working for the Intercept Service. Did
18 your brother work in the State Security Service at the time?
19 A. I believe that you're referring to 1995.
20 Q. Thank you for correcting me. During 1995, did your brother work
21 in the State Security Service?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Was your only boss your brother when you started
24 working in the Intercept Service, or were -- did you have any other
25 supervisors on the north facility?
1 A. He was my immediate superior, and I'm not aware of the rest of
2 the hierarchy of that service.
3 Q. When you provided this statement in January 2007, was anybody
4 else present in the room besides yourself and the members of the
6 A. The only other person was an interpreter, as far as I remember.
7 Q. In 2007, when you testified, were you proofed by an intercept
8 service of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
9 A. No.
10 Q. In the course of the seven days while you have been here, did you
11 have contacts with anybody else but Mr. Thayer?
12 A. No, I did not have any contacts with anybody else. I've not had
13 any contacts since I arrived here in The Hague.
14 Q. Thank you. Did you contact your brother, because he also
15 testified in the meantime? Did you contact him after he provided his
17 A. To be honest, I sent him an SMS that I had arrived, and we did
18 not discuss this case at all.
19 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at paragraph 8 in your
20 statement. We can now see it on the screen. It's the penultimate
21 paragraph in the Serbian and English statements, both on page 2. Can you
22 see it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I'm going to quote something, and then I will have a question for
25 you. And I quote:
1 "We did not always transcribe the entire conversation which we
2 had taped if portions of it were unimportant; for example, passages not
3 of any military interest."
4 My question: What was the purpose of intercepted conversations
5 if you were the ones who determined the significance of those
6 conversations, if you were the one to determine which portions were
7 interesting and were not?
8 A. Let me tell you, this concerned a very particular situation.
9 Conversations were intercepted, recorded, and forwarded the way they were
10 recorded. But here reference is made to the parts in which two
11 participants engaged for a lengthy conversation lasting for over
12 45 minutes. For example, they talk, I listened to them, and then in
13 their conversations they tackle some private matters, some matters of no
14 interest to me. However, I keep on listening, and then at one point they
15 touch upon some matters of interest. Then I make a summary and I say, at
16 a certain time in one of the conversation, This is what was said. This
17 is what I mean when I say "summary." And those were usually
18 conversations with lower-ranking foot soldiers or officers who sometimes
19 conversed among themselves in the early hours of the night. They would
20 normally discuss private matters. And only occasionally they would touch
21 upon some things that concerned the front-line.
22 Q. Did you act the same if, for example, you had two participants of
23 whom one was interesting and the other was not; for example, you were
24 intercepting a conversation involving your commander, when your commander
25 would be interesting and the other one would not be interesting? Would
1 you also omit portions which were not relevant?
2 A. No, no, never. In such situations, we never worked in that way.
3 What is described here concerns informal conversations where nothing else
4 is going on. One would come across a lengthy conversation which were not
5 interesting, save for some little bits that were then summarised.
6 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell me whether, while you were
7 recording, did you omit what the other interlocutor said and only
8 recorded what was said by the interlocutor that was of interest to you
9 and your service?
10 A. No, never. It happened very often at the beginning, and late
11 more rarely, that we did not hear the second person, then we would put a
12 line of dots and we would say that we could not hear the interlocutor.
13 And sometimes the transmission was not clear. We would also record that,
14 and later on we would try to reconstruct the conversation. What I'm
15 saying is that we tried to follow the words of both interlocutors, as far
16 as that was feasible.
17 Q. Thank you. Please tell me, in this binder containing intercepted
18 conversations from 1 to 23 that the Prosecution just showed you a while
19 ago, are there any conversations in which you could not hear both
21 A. Of course there are.
22 Q. In this binder containing conversations from 1 through 23, are
23 there any conversations where you can hear just one person and you could
24 not hear others, whom you did not record?
25 A. If I understood you properly, you're asking me whether there are
1 any conversations in which you hear both interlocutors.
2 Q. I'm asking you this: Are there any conversations --
3 I apologise to the interpreters.
4 I'm asking you, again, are there conversations in this binder in
5 which you can hear interlocutors on both sides when they talk to each
6 other, but you can't hear the person whose message they are trying to
8 A. Yes, I believe that there were such conversations; for example,
9 such a third person was not heard clearly. Sometimes you could hear a
10 person talking on the phone, and then there was a person standing by the
11 telephone whom we couldn't hear. There were such instances and such
13 Q. Thank you. My following question is this: In this binder, are
14 there conversations in which the words of one interlocutor are heard very
15 well when they engaged in informal conversations, and when they tried to
16 convey a message from a third person, for example, an interpreter, you
17 couldn't hear that?
18 A. I really can't answer your question. I don't have an impression
19 that that happened. Sometimes it happened that the transmission was not
20 clear enough, but it's very difficult for me to say when that happened
21 and in what situations. It sometimes happened that you could hear the
22 interlocutors very well, and then some time would pass during which you
23 could not hear them well, and whether that information was important or
24 not, I don't know.
25 Q. I'm asking you again. You've had the binder in your hands for
1 seven days. I'm sure that you've had enough time to look at it. Are
2 there any conversations there where you can hear an interpreter in
4 not hear the interpreter conveying the message that they had received
5 from a third interlocutor?
6 A. Let me first tell you that I've not been perusing these materials
7 for seven days.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
9 MR. THAYER: Just two things, Mr. President. One, the question
10 was asked and clearly answered at least once. And the second, I was
11 going to object that there was an assumption built into the question that
12 was not in the record, and the witness answered it himself. But I just
13 want to place that objection on the record about asked and answered.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank
17 you, Mr. Thayer.
18 I wanted to be fair towards the witness. And before I presented
19 to him what I wanted to prove, I wanted to be fair and then I wanted to
20 ask him whether there were such conversations. I am asking him again,
21 and then I will move on to proving my case.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Are there any conversations in the binder where you can hear an
24 interlocutor in the Main Staff and an interpreter and the interlocutors
25 in the UNPROFOR Command in Sarajevo
1 moment when the interpreter conveys the message from such a person? Are
2 there such conversations?
3 A. I don't know. Let's come to that conversation and we can discuss
4 it. From this position, I really can't tell you whether there were any
5 such conversations or not. There were situations when you could hear the
6 interlocutors and others, when you couldn't hear them. I can't really
7 give you a specific answer to a very abstract question.
8 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we move on to --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir and Witness, please don't overlap.
10 It's very difficult for the interpreters. Slow down a bit, and don't
12 Carry on, please.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, Witness. I wanted to be as fair as possible to you in
18 trying to jog your memory about the things you may have heard. It's not
19 up to me to try to catch you unawares 11 years down the road. That is
20 why I wanted to present the transcripts themselves.
21 I'm asking you whether you remember, since you told the
22 Prosecutor so, any conversations between the generals. And I can try to
23 jog your memory about what you said about that particular transcript.
24 You said as follows --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. "I recall certain conversations with UN officials, such as
3 General Nicolai, General Janvier, and others. I hoped that those
4 conversations would amount to something, and I still have that feeling
5 with me."
6 Is this what you said a moment ago during examination-in-chief?
7 A. Yes.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Lines 4 through 10, page 26, for
9 the sake of the Chamber and the Prosecutor.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You said you remembered those things. That is why I'm asking you
12 whether you recall any such conversations in which not everything was
13 interpreted by the interpreter when conveying the message of one of the
15 A. When I discussed my memory of those conversations, then I said
16 that I could remember such conversations in which some generals
17 participated, but I don't recall each and every line of those
18 conversations, and this is not what I said. I said that I remember them
19 in general. That was the gist of my statement.
20 Q. Thank you very much for this statement of yours, which is only
21 fair. I do not contradict what you are saying. If you can recall what
22 those generals discussed, then you must have been able to hear either
23 them or the interpreter. Otherwise, you would not have remembered it;
25 A. Yes. We also could hear the interpreter, because they
1 interpreted for the most part in such conversations.
2 Q. That is why I'm asking you that. Are there any conversations in
3 which you could not hear the UNPROFOR generals speak but that those
4 comments are still contained nonetheless?
5 A. Well, yes, because the message was conveyed by the interpreter.
6 I only noted down what I could hear. What I couldn't was replaced by
8 Q. Thank you. We'll get to that. But before that, tell me, did you
9 receive any information about whether your reports reached the final
11 A. No. We sent it to the centre we were supposed to, and I have no
12 knowledge of what followed.
13 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me whether you were ever subsequently
14 asked to review again a particular conversation in order to clarify
15 portions which you were unable to decipher at the outset?
16 A. At the time we were working on this, we kept going to certain
17 conversations, because I remember a few of them even now where I could,
18 for example, hear the word "Asandi" [phoen]. It was very quiet. And
19 upon listening to it over and over again by a number of us, we reached
20 the conclusion that this word actually was the bad pronunciation of the
21 last name of Janvier. So I'm trying to illustrate this, how we went back
22 to listen to certain parts to be sure. If a report had already gone out,
23 I would follow it up with a note stating that in this and that report the
24 person in question was actually General Janvier, rather than the unknown
25 word of "Asandi" as we noted down initially.
1 Q. Thank you. In your chain of command, starting from your brother
2 onwards, did you ever receive a request to revisit a certain conversation
3 in order to try to clarify parts that were unclear?
4 A. I'm not sure. I don't think so. As far as I recall, we did not
5 have such feedback or additional requests for review. We would simply
6 send it on. And whether anybody worked on it any further, that is
7 something I don't know. We never listened to things again unless we did
8 so at the very moment before sending anything out.
9 Q. Thank you. Tell us this, please. When there was a change of
10 frequency on the equipment you used, how long did it take you to locate
11 the participants in the particular conversation again on a different
13 A. Well, we had two combinations at the time. When I say
14 "combinations," I mean two sets of equipment that were prepared
15 beforehand. And on one combination, we always kept the same frequency.
16 And if there was nothing of interest, then we used the other one to
17 search all the channels, trying to locate anything of interest. And if
18 we were both free at the time -- at that moment, we would look for any
19 additional frequencies together. Otherwise, there were no frequent
20 changes in frequency. Most of it was well known.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have on the left-hand side
23 P293 in e-court, and on the right-hand side of the screen P294.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: And that's tabs 1 and 2 of the booklet, if anybody's
1 following along in hard copy.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's very helpful. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can you see the left-hand side? This is a conversation you
6 recorded at frequency 836, channel 13, at 11.10 p.m. Allegedly, the
7 conversation was between General Tolimir and General Janvier. Can you
8 hear any other participants in this conversation, save for
9 General Tolimir?
10 A. No. Only you can be heard.
11 Q. Thank you. Can you hear General Janvier's interpreter?
12 A. Probably not. Had we been able to hear him, that would have been
13 noted down.
14 Q. So this is the first example in which only one of the
15 participants is heard.
16 Now shift to the right-hand side. This conversation was taken at
17 10.30 p.m.
18 A. This is number 2?
19 Q. Yes. It is P33 -- or 533. It's on the screen.
20 A. I have it before me.
21 Q. Well, see here, the first one says -- T says: "I'm listening."
22 And P says: "Hello."
23 Who is P?
24 A. Obviously, the interpreter.
25 Q. Okay. Then T says: "Yes, I'm listening."
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Next, P says: "General Tolimir"?
4 A. Yes, and the three dots.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you hear here a speaker from the General Staff
6 and General Janvier's interpreter?
7 A. Yes, but the interpretation was obviously interrupted.
8 Q. Sorry, it was me, I just turned off the microphone.
9 A. I can see that we heard them, and then something was interrupted,
10 and then it would go on. So obviously we couldn't make out parts of the
11 conversation. When I say "hear" or "cannot hear," you must bear this in
12 mind: This is not as if we were sitting in this room where we can hear
13 each other well. The situation is different. It can be suddenly cut
15 Q. Thank you. Is this the second type of example as I mentioned ini
16 which you can hear one of the participants and at the outset you can hear
17 the UNPROFOR general's interpreter, and later on you could hear neither
18 the interpreter nor the general? Is that one of such conversations?
19 A. I can see here that at times we could, and then at other times we
20 could not hear the interpreter. That's all I can say.
21 Q. Thank you. You could hear him only at the beginning of the
22 conversation when they established communication and at the end when he
23 said, "Do you have anything to say" in the penultimate line on the
24 right-hand side? Can you see that?
25 A. I don't think so. There were a number of places here where we
1 could hear the interpreter: "Do you have anything to say," and then:
2 "Hold on, maybe we'll need to contact you." "Around what time should we
3 do that?"
4 So there were different moments when we could hear him.
5 Q. Thank you. On the last -- in the last line on the right-hand
6 side, does it say: "Do you have anything to say," and then followed by
7 the question mark?
8 A. In one of the lines, yes, it says:
9 "Do you have anything to say?"
10 Q. Does T say:
11 "I have nothing to say. I would like to thank the general, and
12 we'll speak later"?
13 A. Yes, this is what it says.
14 Q. Does this conclude the conversation between the participants?
15 A. Well, I can see that he goes on. It says: "Wait."
16 Q. Is this the end of the conversation? Doesn't T say: "We'll
17 speak later"?
18 A. Well, obviously the conversation was not finished. You can say,
19 Bye, but then you can say, Wait, wait, there's something else that we
20 want to ask you. So the conversation goes on in a normal fashion.
21 Q. The second part is between other participants. You can only hear
22 the T. There is no P or J. There are no other participants, only the T.
23 A. Are we looking at the same interview -- intercept? After the
24 line: "Do you have anything to say," T says: "No, I would like to thank
25 the general, and we'll speak later."
1 Later on, it's -- something follows: "If we need to contact you,
2 at what time should we do this?"
3 So it goes on, if this is the conversation we're talking about.
4 Q. Thank you. Look at the transcript on the screen: It is
6 A. This is what I'm looking at.
7 Q. Well, look at it on the screen.
8 A. Well, it is a bit difficult to peruse it on the screen.
9 Q. Do you see it now? Doesn't the last line say: "There's nothing
10 to add. I'd like to thank the general, and we'll speak again"?
11 A. On the screen, this is the last line, but in my booklet, this is
12 not so.
13 Q. Thank you. I'm not trying to pre-judge anything.
14 My next question is this: Before this conversation, did you
15 intercept conversation 531, when -- where we have Generals Tolimir and
16 Janvier as the participants and both are heard?
17 A. Where can I find that?
18 Q. 531. There should be a tab. I'll tell you which one.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I'll try not to compound the
21 confusion, but I think I know what the problem is.
22 If we work with the booklets that we have, there is a print-out
23 that we can all share and look at the same thing. I think what has been
24 up-loaded into e-court is a slightly different version. You can see that
25 the ERNs are the same, but if you look on the right-hand page, 0320-1097
1 is in the middle of the page, and there is a second page that I think may
2 be confusing the issue. If we go to the second page, that's what is in
3 our booklets. And you can see at the top of the right-hand page of the
4 second page in our booklet "0320-1097." So I suggest that the general is
5 not seeing the second page and may be being misled, thinking that that's
6 the end of the conversation, when, in fact, if you turn the page, there's
7 a second page of the conversation.
8 We have it in our booklets. I've distributed the booklets to the
9 accused. And it's just a matter of what's being shown on e-court at the
10 moment. I think that's what's tripping us up. So if we -- it may help
11 just to look at the booklet, if, for nothing else, for this exhibit. And
12 we've got the second page up. In any event, it's in e-court there.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have the second page of this document in
14 B/C/S on the right side of the screen. This seems to be the same as the
15 printed version we have in our binder.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Thayer, he just confirmed my
17 assertion, and that is that you can only hear here the final part of the
18 conversation, where you could hear the interpreter, but throughout the
19 rest of the conversation you couldn't hear the principal messages that
20 General Janvier wanted to convey to the other speaker.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I can only tell
22 you that in certain places we could hear the participants, and there were
23 others wherein we couldn't. I don't know whether this conveys
24 General Janvier's message or not, but what we could hear is noted down.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you hear any other information forwarded by General Janvier,
2 save for the information about when they were to speak next the next day?
3 A. Well, they say: "When can we talk to you, around what time?" So
4 they communicated. It says: "Well, tomorrow morning, if needed at
6 So it was obvious that you were going to continue this
7 conversation. I see no point in disputing this.
8 Q. Is this something General Janvier wanted to pass on, or was this
9 the word -- the words -- the voice of the interpreter?
10 A. Yes, it was the interpreter, but he wasn't speaking of his own
11 free will. He conveyed information from the general.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you recall a single thing that General Janvier
13 conveyed to General Tolimir here?
14 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I can't remember everything. I
15 couldn't hear the general. And I did not analyse this conversation in
16 detail. I only know that this was recorded, reproduced the way we were
17 able to hear at the moment.
18 Q. Since I'm running out of time --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No problem, whatever you wish.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Tell me, please, is it possible, in the computer you used to
23 reproduce these conversations, to have the following: That you printed
24 out a single collocutor, and then later on this same collocutor five or
25 ten lines later by mistake?
1 A. Well, I can't say anything specifically, but of course errors
2 occur. Just the other day I found an error. It was possible to have
3 typos, but I'm not aware of any specific situations like that.
4 Q. Thank you. This suffices. So such errors were possible; yes or
6 A. Well, I don't know about such particular ones, but there could
7 have been typographical errors, although I'm not aware of any specific
9 Q. I did not ask about you about any specific errors. But if
10 something like that happened, would it be necessary to include what both
11 interlocutors were saying, because one answer can appear later and can be
12 put in a place where it would be given a totally different significance?
13 Is that possible?
14 A. Well, if you can hear both interlocutors at least to a certain
15 extent, then we made sure that the second interlocutor's words are
16 recorded or the place was left for them. If you couldn't hear the second
17 interlocutor, you made a note of that and you just recorded the words of
18 the first interlocutor.
19 Q. I'm happy with your answer. Now that we are reading those
20 monologues when only one person is heard talking, is it possible that,
21 for example, the 10th sentence in that monologue could be shifted from
22 the penultimate place to the 10th place in that monologue?
23 A. No, no.
24 Q. What can prove that that was, indeed, not the case? What can we
25 follow the course of the conversation on?
1 A. I don't know, but I know that when I listened to conversations,
2 when I recorded them, I recorded them as I heard them. I don't know what
3 constitutes good proof that things transpired the way they did or not.
4 Q. Thank you very much. I will leave it to the Trial Chamber
5 whether technical problems are possible or not. We just saw technical
7 A. I'm not sure that this is a technical mistake. Are you referring
8 to the situations when only one interlocutor could be heard?
9 Q. I asked you whether there were conversations in the binder where
10 you can hear just one interlocutor in their monologues. And I proved it
11 by pointing to the letter T.
12 A. Yes, there were such situations where we could hear only one
13 person and not the other.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please wait. Now carry on.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Witness, I just asked you whether it was possible for those dots
19 or those lines, where T is speaking, could be mixed up in the computer.
20 Is it technically possible? Could line 10 then be shifted to line 22?
21 Is that -- such a computer error possible?
22 A. I don't know. I'm not sure that the computer could be
23 responsible for such errors.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you please now look at report 532. In your
25 binder, it is under tab 22. Thank you. The document number is 5316,
1 page 2.
2 A. Are you saying "531"?
3 Q. Yes, that's correct.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Thayer.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's tab 22.
6 Mr. Thayer.
7 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President.
8 I just want to make sure we're all on the -- literally on the
9 same page. It depends on exactly which conversation General Tolimir is
10 referring to. If he's referring to report number 531, although that is
11 included within the report that's at tab 22, what we have at tab 22 is
12 actually another intercept that's in that same report. So we have an
13 English translation of number 532 under tab 22. So if we really do want
14 to look at tab -- I mean, if we really want to look at report 531, let me
15 see if I can find that in the booklet and get that number so that we have
16 an English translation of report 531, and that is at tab 21, the prior
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Exactly. Thank you.
19 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on. Do you want to deal with
20 number 531? Then everybody should look into tab 21.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have 531 under 22, I'm looking at
22 it, and I intend to put a question to the witness or a few questions with
23 regard to the document under tab 22.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's right, but the English translation is only
25 under tab 21, and the B/C/S version as well.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 5315 shown on the
2 screen, please.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you referring to the 65 ter number?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I'm talking
5 about what was given to me by the OTP to prepare myself for the
6 conversation with this witness, and that is in binder
7 tab 92 [as interpreted]. The page number is, as I've already stated -- I
8 can't see that, I can't see that.
9 My legal adviser is going to read the Prosecutor's numbers to
10 you. Thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the problem is that you mix up what is
12 behind and what is before the number.
13 If you take the binder, if you are looking at tab 21, it is
14 behind -- the document is behind the number, it's the next page, and
15 there is the translation number of this intercept, number 531 in English
16 and the B/C/S version. Behind number 22, you will find 532 only in
17 English, but in B/C/S you will find the intercept 531 and 532.
18 MR. THAYER: And if I may add, Mr. President, we can see that
19 that's an example, tab 22, of the army passing on the MUP's report up its
20 own army chain of command. That's why it shows up again. The first one
21 is the MUP report alone, as the MUP sent it to their centre, and then we
22 see it show up again because the army is passing on that very same
23 intercept to its own people.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this help.
25 Mr. Tolimir, is that clear now? In that case, you should carry
1 on and put questions to the witness.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I said that it is
3 page 22 in my binder, and you're reading from page 22. Never mind.
4 I can put questions on any of the pages, even on the page quoted by
5 Mr. Thayer. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Carry on, please.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In the conversation that Mr. Thayer wants us to look at, can you
10 hear the interlocutors on both sides, in the Main Staff as well as in the
11 UNPROFOR headquarters? Thank you.
12 A. Yes, occasionally you can hear the second -- the other side, and
13 occasionally you can't.
14 Q. Can we at all hear what General Janvier says to Tolimir? Thank
16 A. You can see "P" standing for the interpreter, meaning that the
17 interpreter is conveying the messages.
18 Q. Can you find a single message that the interpreter conveys that
19 reflects either the opinion or request on the part of General Janvier?
20 A. Please bear with me just for a moment. I would like to be able
21 to read the whole conversation. I can't tell you, without reading, off
22 the top of the head.
23 Q. If the Trial Chamber will allow you, I don't mind you reading the
24 entire report.
25 A. The first one that I've come across immediately, it says:
1 "Very well."
2 The general says:
3 "Your units down there are attacking our soldiers."
4 Then one part is inaudible.
5 "Is that correct?"
6 I suppose that it is important what the general says here, that
7 his soldiers had come under attack.
8 Q. Go on reading, and then I'll have questions for you that you will
9 be able to answer after having read the entire document. Thank you.
10 A. Yes, I've read it. Go ahead.
11 Q. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber whether you know what
12 General Janvier was saying here, what the interpreter was saying on his
13 own behalf, what he was saying on behalf of General Janvier, and what
14 interlocutor T was saying on his own behalf? Can you make any
15 conclusions after 20 years?
16 A. As I'm reading things today, I can see that the interpreter was
17 conveying the messages from General Janvier and that you are delivering
18 your own messages, messages on your own behalf.
19 Q. Thank you. So you are saying that we are exchanging messages.
20 Thank you. Please tell me, whose messages are more numerous, whose words
21 are more often quoted, whether Janvier's words or his interlocutor on the
22 other side?
23 A. I would have to count words, actually. I suppose that you spoke
24 more, that you -- in any case, your words are better heard.
25 Q. Thank you. Would you say that you have made a selection of the
1 sentences told by Janvier; in other words, whether you screened those
2 things that could be presented to the Trial Chamber and others that could
3 not be presented?
4 A. If we follow that logic, we would have to omit everything,
5 because you can see here that it says:
6 "Our soldiers came under attack."
8 Q. Thank you for your interpretation. Can one draw a conclusion
9 from this whether this was a dialogue or a monologue?
10 A. Well, this was a dialogue.
11 Q. So in terms of the contents, was that a dialogue or just -- was
12 that just one side heard and the other interlocutor could not be heard?
13 A. You can hear the other interlocutor who is conveying
14 General Janvier's messages, which determines this conversation to be a
16 Q. What messages did you just mention? Could you please tell us
17 whether you recorded this conversation?
18 A. I remember this conversation. I remember some of the details.
19 Whether I personally recorded it or reproduced it, I wouldn't be able to
20 tell you. I'm not sure. I can see that my colleague signed his name
21 here. We had a formal arrangement that one of us recorded, the other
22 reproduced. Our desks were really close, so it wasn't really important.
23 So even if I was mistaken and put my name first and then his name second,
24 it would not mean a lot, because both of us were involved in the
25 contents. I was recording; the other one was reproducing. So I'm
1 familiar with the conversation, is what I'm trying to say.
2 Q. Thank you. Could you please now tell me, after this
3 conversation, conversation 532, was that recorded by you, interceptors
4 from the State Security Service?
5 A. [No interpretation]
6 Q. Thank you. This is another conversation on page 22, where it
7 says -- follow-up is on the conversation 531 conducted between
8 General Janvier and the aggressor General Tolimir.
9 A. I believe that it was my colleague who recorded that other
10 conversation. What's your question, actually?
11 Q. Since the telegram is not signed, you can see in the binder it is
12 not signed -- for the record, we're talking about 5316. Thank you.
13 A. I don't know. All of mine are signed.
14 Q. Thank you. I have one that is unsigned in the Prosecutor's
15 binder, 22, under tab 22.
16 A. 532 report?
17 Q. 532 report.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is this behind the page 22?
19 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should look at the last page in B/C/S.
21 Sorry, the second-last page.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Who was it from the State Security who recorded that important --
25 or, rather, it's not important. Who is it? But was it the State
1 Security Service?
2 A. Yes.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can you hear in this conversation what P is demanding or
6 requesting from T?
7 A. It says here:
8 "Well, tell me, what did you mean -- what did you manage to do in
9 the meantime?"
10 And then your response is to the effect of what you had managed
11 to achieve in the meantime.
12 Q. How come you could hear both interlocutors on both sides of the
14 A. Let me tell you. I am not an expert for this type of technology.
15 I can't tell you how connections functioned. I was the one who
16 intercepted the recorded conversation. I would be the one sitting at the
17 table for 16 hours and listening in. When it comes to the technical side
18 of the technology, maybe you should talk to somebody else.
19 Q. No, I don't want to discuss the technicalities of the job. You
20 are a [indiscernible] professional, but my question is this: How come
21 that you can hear two interlocutors in one part of the conversation, on
22 the same channel, on the same frequency, and then the other part of the
23 conversation you could hear them so well?
24 A. Let me try and explain. And I repeat, there may be somebody else
25 better suited to explain. There are telephones which have a better
1 receiver in their electronic combination, and you could hear an
2 interlocutor using that kind of telephone. It's down to the technical
3 equipment, to the telephone that the other interlocutor was using, and so
4 on and so forth. This is something that I am kind of familiar with, but
5 I can't give you any details. It is possible that you could hear the
6 interlocutor on the other side if they were using a better telephone.
7 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that whenever the interpreters
8 participated from Sarajevo
9 the mic on the Sarajevo
10 A. I presume that they always used the same phone, the same
11 location, but I cannot say that with any certainty.
12 Q. They had a single telephone in the UNPROFOR office, and there was
13 another one at the General Staff. They could communicate directly. They
14 didn't need to dial any special numbers?
15 A. Well, if you say so.
16 Q. What I'm asking you is this: Was it technically possible that
17 you could always hear the speaker from the General Staff and that you
18 were never able to hear the person on the UNPROFOR side, and only
19 occasionally you could hear their interpreters during the informal part?
20 A. We had your channel frequency, and when you picked up the phone
21 in the General Staff, I could hear you very well. As for the other side,
22 we could sometimes hear them and sometimes could not. Only later we
23 managed to locate a duplex frequency on which we could hear the other end
24 of the line much better. It was at a later stage. In order to hear the
25 other end of the line, technically speaking, I'm not well versed to be
1 able to tell you how that could have been done, but I think it had to do
2 with the phone they used and what frequency combination they used. I
3 don't know whether this suffices.
4 Q. Well, it suffices for you to say that there were reliable and a
5 less reliable conversation you are presenting. Just a moment. When
6 conclusions are drawn about what one person is saying to another, were
7 those conclusions always clear cut and could that include all the
9 A. Well, I cannot accept what you just said. Every conversation we
10 recorded, we did so authentically the way we heard it. Each transcript
11 reflects the situation of what we could really hear at the moment. This
12 is what I can tell you.
13 Q. Thank you. When you came to the State Security Service in 1995
14 to work on their surveillance, did you attend any training for those
15 engaging in intercepts and surveillance?
16 A. Well, the training we received was to the extent that our boss
17 told us what to do and what the frequencies and equipment were, as well
18 as what was the point in doing that. Given that I was familiar with the
19 equipment and had worked with radio equipment before, it wasn't very
20 difficult to fit in. It was easy for me to work on that job.
21 Q. Can you tell us whether you attended any training, be it two,
22 five, or ten days for any radio interceptors?
23 A. I attended no special training, save for the training we
24 internally organised. We also carried out research, and all was done
25 under his supervision.
1 Q. Did your boss attend any training?
2 A. I don't know. You should ask him, if you ever have a chance to.
3 Q. As far as we could see, your boss was your brother, because he
4 testified here.
5 A. I was there only for a short while, six or seven months. I
6 didn't work for the service for years to know whether he had attended any
8 Q. Well, he told us so. He also said that he was abroad for
9 training. Do you recall that?
10 A. No, we didn't discuss that, and I don't think it would be fair
11 for me to speak about him.
12 Q. Well, he told this to the Court. He said that he attended
13 training abroad. Did you know that?
14 A. I didn't. I'm not sure he ever told me that.
15 Q. Thank you. So you don't know that he attended intercept training
16 abroad; yes or no?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you attend any training abroad or did you go
19 abroad at all during the war?
20 A. No. I never went abroad, actually, before coming here.
21 Q. Is it possible that a certain report in the binder we saw was
22 taken by another service and was still logged as a report of your
23 State Security Service?
24 A. The reports before me are ours. I am not familiar with any other
25 reports, and I don't know what others did. What is before me is what we
1 did and forwarded to the centre. This is what I know.
2 Q. During examination-in-chief, could you hear from the Prosecutor
3 that a part of the conversation between J and T, Janvier and Tolimir, was
4 recorded by Zagreb
5 A. I seem to recall the Prosecutor mentioning that, but I'm not
6 familiar with it.
7 Q. When the Presiding Judge asked about the time of the intercept,
8 it had to do with that. Do you remember?
9 A. I remember the Prosecutor saying so, but I don't know of anyone
10 else recording intercepts.
11 Q. Well, is it still recorded as your intercept?
12 A. No, these intercepts were recorded by me. As for any others, I
13 don't know of any services doing that, and no one ever gave me anything
14 to sign that would have to do with that. What I signed is my
15 conversations. Whether someone else intercepted at other locations and
16 provided that to the Prosecutor's Office, this is something I don't know.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank you for your testimony.
18 You testified fairly about what you know, and I didn't want to ask you
19 about anything else.
20 Thank you. This concludes my cross-examination. I would like to
21 thank the interpreters and the effort they put in to conveying the entire
22 conversation, since we frequently overlapped. I'm well aware of that. I
23 would also like to thank the Presiding Judge.
24 Witness, thank you as well.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
1 Mr. Thayer, do you have re-examination?
2 MR. THAYER: I do, just very briefly. Just a couple of very
3 small points, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Thayer:
6 Q. Sir, can you tell the Trial Chamber why, in the original reports,
7 the reports that are in your language from the MUP that we have in your
8 booklet, why the interpreter is designated with the letter P? Can you
9 just explain that to us, please?
10 A. Because the first letter of the word "Prevodilac," meaning
11 "Interpreter," is P.
12 MR. THAYER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, one final question.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have explained that you signed the intercepts
16 with your first name. I see sometimes that there is another name added
17 to your name. Without mentioning that name, could you explain why there
18 are sometimes two names?
19 A. I think there are always two names. There was an internal
20 arrangement. We put our names there because we were not members of the
21 service. Their employees had their code-names and numbers, whereas we
22 put our names down. The first name was the person sitting at the desk
23 recording, then a slash, and the second name was the transcriber's name,
24 the person typing it into the computer and sending it. Sometimes we
25 changed places. However, for the most part, on our team, I basically sat
1 at the desk with the equipment and my colleague typed it in, since he was
2 a better typist, and he was the one transmitting it.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that.
4 You will be pleased to hear that this concludes your examination
5 of today. You are now free to go back to your normal activities. The
6 Chamber would like to thank you for your attendance here in The Hague
7 again, and all the best for your future. Thank you very much again.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have the second break now. I think
10 it's a convenient time to enable this witness to leave and the next
11 witness to come into the courtroom. Thank you.
12 Please wait a moment so the screens should be closed, and we will
13 rise together.
14 We break now and resume in half an hour at 10 minutes to 1.00.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I apologise for our delay.
19 Could the next witness be brought in. First, the screens have to
20 be closed, I think.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Please be patient for a
24 Good afternoon again, sir. Would you please read aloud the
25 affirmation to tell the truth which is shown on the card to you now.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: PW-027
4 [The witness answered through interpreter]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There are protective measures in place for you.
8 Your voice and face will not be acknowledged outside the courtroom. And
9 Mr. Thayer has some questions for you.
10 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
12 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. In line with your protective measures,
13 I'd like to show you a document.
14 A. Good morning -- good afternoon.
15 Q. I'd like to show you a document on the computer, and it's P323.
16 I think last time around we did this on a piece of paper and handed it to
17 you, but we're just going to show you on the computer screen. I ask you
18 if you can confirm whether or not you see your name on this document
19 before you.
20 A. Yes, I can.
21 Q. And, Witness, do you recall providing a signed witness statement
22 to the Office of the Prosecutor back in January of 2007?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you read that witness statement recently in your own
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. And just to move things along a little bit: You identified two
3 corrections to that statement, did you not?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 MR. THAYER: So may we have 318 on e-court, please.
6 And before I get too far ahead of myself, Mr. President, the
7 Prosecution would tender P323, the pseudonym sheet, at this time.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received under seal.
9 MR. THAYER:
10 Q. Witness, do you see a copy of your witness statement in your own
11 language before you?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 MR. THAYER: Okay. If we could turn to page 2 in both the
14 English and the B/C/S versions.
15 Q. I want to focus on the two corrections you pointed out to me at
16 paragraph 6 first. And, actually, in the B/C/S version, it's going to be
17 over on page -- it's going to continue over to page 3. So just please
18 let us know when you've read the first part of paragraph 6 on page 2 and
19 need the page turned.
20 A. Go ahead.
21 MR. THAYER: Okay. If we could have the next page in the B/C/S
23 Q. And, sir, I just want to focus your attention on the last
24 sentence in paragraph 6, and I'll just read from the English translation.
25 What is written here is:
1 "I do not recall receiving orders to move their antennas; I did
2 not have the know-how."
3 Now, you pointed out a correction to me when you re-read your
4 statement last Monday. Can you just tell the Trial Chamber what the
5 correction is, please?
6 A. Yes. The last sentence of this paragraph, paragraph 6, it says:
7 "I don't remember receiving orders to move their antennae; I
8 wasn't trained for that."
9 This phrase, "their antennae," I actually meant the antennae
10 installed by my predecessors that were to serve for our -- for the
11 purposes of our work. It had to do with the antennae we worked with --
12 Q. Okay. So if fair so say instead of "their antennas," it should
13 simply read "our antennas"?
14 A. Precisely.
15 Q. Okay. On to the next paragraph, paragraph 7. In the middle of
16 the paragraph, you pointed out an error in the following sentence, where
17 it says:
18 "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter
19 paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop, encode
20 the transcript, and transmit it."
21 Would you please tell the Trial Chamber what correction you made
22 to that sentence, please?
23 A. The sentence reads:
24 "We tried to be 100 per cent certain that what they wrote was
1 As a matter of fact, we tried to be 100 per cent certain that
2 what we were writing was correct.
3 Q. Okay. Actually, thanks for your attention to detail. You found
4 another correction that I wasn't even referring to. So what you were
5 pointing out is in the English, it's going to be page 3 of the English
6 translation, it says:
7 "We wanted to be 100 per cent sure of what they were writing
9 And what you're telling us is that should read:
10 "We wanted to be 100 per cent sure of what we were writing down."
11 Is that fair to say?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Okay. And let me call your attention to another sentence in
14 paragraph 7, and in your language it's the -- I believe it's the third
15 sentence that begins:
16 "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter
17 paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop, encode
18 the transcript, and transmit it."
19 And I'll just ask you, is there a correction that needs to be
20 made in that sentence as well or not?
21 A. The word "handwritten" is not necessary. It also says "type out
22 by hand." Well, what other way there would be, other than using your
23 hands to type something into the computer? Okay, I see now. This is the
24 context. Then we would type out the handwritten notes, so we would take
25 down the intercept onto teleprinter paper, just plain paper, which we
1 could make corrections to, for the sake of precision, in case someone was
2 able to hear anything better later on when reviewing the conversation.
3 It happened sometimes that we would together listen to a portion
4 of the conversation to be certain, and then we could make corrections on
5 that piece of paper. Such a finished version would be then transmitted
6 into the laptop, encrypted, and sent to the base.
7 Q. Okay. In the English translation, it says:
8 "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter
9 paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop ..."
10 My question to you is: Whose handwritten transcription would be
11 typed into a laptop? Is it theirs, or somebody else's, or "ours," or
12 what is it, and is there actually an error there as I've read it to you?
13 A. Yes, I meant to say myself and my work-mate who at that moment
14 was typing on the laptop, entering the intercept.
15 Q. Okay. Witness, with those corrections noted, can you attest to
16 this Trial Chamber that your witness statement that you have before you
17 accurately reflects what you said during the interview?
18 A. With the changes just mentioned, the answer is yes.
19 Q. And during that interview, were you also shown a packet of six
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And, Witness, were you able to determine whether or not you
23 participated in the interception recording, transcription, or
24 transmission of those intercept reports?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. And when you arrived here again recently, did you review a packet
2 containing those same six intercepts and make the same conclusion that
3 you participated in taking those intercepts?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. THAYER: With Madam Usher's assistance, I would just hand up
6 to the witness his packet of six intercepts.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you tendering the statement?
8 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President. Sorry, old habits die hard.
9 The Prosecution would tender P318, under seal.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received at P318, under seal.
11 And at that stage, I would like to mention that on page 37,
12 line 21, it should be "P323, under seal." This is the personal
13 information sheet. The number is just missing.
14 Please carry on.
15 MR. THAYER:
16 Q. Sir, I just ask you to leaf through those six intercepts behind
17 the tabs there and ask you if you can confirm again that you were the
18 operator who intercepted those conversations.
19 A. Do I have to read through all of them?
20 Q. Well, take as much time as you need, sir, just to ensure -- I
21 know it's been a week since you've seen that packet. But just take as
22 much or as little time as you need to flip through those tabs and be able
23 to confirm whether or not those are the intercepts that you were shown
24 during your interview in 2007.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Sir, first can you confirm that those are the six intercepts that
2 you were shown during your 2007 interview?
3 A. Yes, I can.
4 Q. And can you confirm that you participated in taking those
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Now, with respect to your 2007 witness statement, can you attest
8 before this Trial Chamber that if you were asked the same questions today
9 that you were asked back then in 2007, that your answers would be the
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, I want to turn your attention, sir, to the last two tabs in
13 your booklet. That's tabs 5 and 6.
14 MR. THAYER: For the record, one is a 4 August 1995 intercept and
15 the other one is an 11 August 1995
16 reports identify General Miletic as being one of the participants in both
17 of these conversations. And those are P324 and P325, for the record,
18 tabs 5 and 6 respectively.
19 Q. My question to you, sir, is: Do you have any independent
20 recollection of being involved in those particular intercepts?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And can you share with the Trial Chamber what, if anything, it is
23 about these intercepts that enables you to remember anything about them
25 A. It was their arrogance towards UNPROFOR troops and their
1 high-ranking officers.
2 Q. Okay, fair enough.
3 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, at this time I would tender the six
4 intercepts contained in the booklet, P319 through P325, into evidence.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They will be received as P319, 320, 321, 322,
6 324, and 325.
7 MR. THAYER: Forgive me. I forgot that there was a gap.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All under seal.
9 Please carry on.
10 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I'd like to read the 92 ter statement
11 summary for the Chamber at this time.
12 The witness was trained as a teleprinter operator and
13 cryptographer during his mandatory JNA service. Prior to the war, he
14 worked as a communications officer, supporting the State and
15 Public Security Services. During the war, he worked as a cryptographer,
16 receiving and sending encrypted and open dispatches in support of the
17 Public Security Services. He also became a Ham Radio operator during the
18 war as a way of helping people stay in contact with their families.
19 From June 1995 through early 1996, he began working shifts for
20 the State Security Services at the northern site. He had no prior
21 intercept operator training and received instruction from his direct
22 supervisor. He worked seven-day shifts with a colleague, though
23 sometimes his direct supervisor was present as well. The ABiH also had
24 personnel at the northern location who worked separately. The witness
25 intercepted primarily high-level politicians and military personnel and
1 became familiar with their channels and voices. At the time, he knew
2 that Generals Miletic, Gvero, and Tolimir were top VRS commands and was
3 familiar with their voices but did not know their functions.
4 The witness described the procedure used when intercepting,
5 taping, and transcribing VRS radio communications as follows: They had a
6 receiver to which was attached a scanner that was constantly running.
7 Once the channel was picked up, they would listen to the conversation.
8 And if it were important, they would begin recording it with an attached
9 UHER recorder. They would later transcribe the conversation onto
10 teleprinter paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a
11 laptop, encode the transcript, and transmit it. If a portion of the
12 conversation was unclear, they would listen to it over and over together
13 until they were sure. If they were still unsure, they would place dots,
14 a question mark, or Xs. Because the handwritten transcriptions would
15 often get quite marked up during this process and because the typed
16 intercept was the most important product, the handwritten pages would be
17 collected and burned.
18 The witness and his colleague worked as a team and would seek
19 each other's assistance listening to the conversations, sometimes both
20 transcribing the same intercept, then comparing their handwritten
21 transcripts as another way of achieving the greatest possible accuracy.
22 The two-name designation at the end of the print-outs was supposed to
23 indicate the interceptor first and the typer/cryptographer second.
24 However, because they worked so closely, they both often listened to the
1 If the conversation were urgent, they would immediately remove
2 the tape, place it on another tape machine, and begin transcribing. On
3 rare occasions, when his direct supervisor was present and an extremely
4 important conversation was intercepted, his supervisor would take their
5 handwritten transcript and the tape to the base to be transcribed there.
6 The witness reviewed six intercept print-outs, recognised his
7 name on them, and confirmed that he participated in intercepting them.
8 Now, sir, I just want to ask you one follow-up question.
9 If we could have P306 on e-court, please. And let's not
10 broadcast that, please. And that is not in this witness's booklet. This
11 is in the prior witness's booklet, but we'll see it on e-court shortly.
12 And if you happen to have the prior witness's booklet, it's tab 12 of the
13 prior witness's booklet.
14 Q. Sir, do you see an intercept report number 512 dated 8 July 1995
15 before you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And is the time 1530 hours?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. THAYER: If we may turn to the second page in the English,
20 and we can stay on this page in the original.
21 Q. And this -- again, it's not being broadcast, so I don't want to
22 mention the name here, but do you see at the very bottom there's a
23 reference to someone who is, and I quote:
24 "... going to bring the rest of it. He is here with us and
25 heading towards you."
1 Do you see that language there, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber what that line is
4 about, please?
5 A. In the cases when our supervisor visited us whenever he could, in
6 view of the fact that he had commitments in the base, when he visited us
7 and when he came across an interesting conversation, a very interesting
8 conversation to be more precise, because of the urgency of the matter and
9 in order to assist us, he would take the tape and whatever was
10 transcribed up to then and he would drive all that to the base in his
11 car. And that -- such a case is demonstrated in here. That's what I
12 stated in my statement. I said that things like that could happen and,
13 indeed, did happen. And here you have one of the things that prove it.
14 The last sentence in this document proves that such things did happen.
15 MR. THAYER: Okay, Witness, I have no further questions. Thank
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, Mr. Thayer.
18 Mr. Tolimir, do you have cross-examination?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I do
20 have a few questions, by your leave. Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please go ahead.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce the
1 statement that the Prosecutor displayed just a minute ago. The document
2 number is P318. The witness provided that statement to the OTP on the
3 20th and the 21st of January, 2007. Thank you.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] We can see the first page of the
6 statement that we will be using for the first question.
7 Q. Please tell me, before the 20th and 21st of January, 2007, did
8 you have any contacts with anybody with regard to the things that you're
9 testifying about today in the courtroom?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did any representatives of the Tribunal speak to you before those
12 two dates, a woman?
13 A. Not about the case.
14 Q. Did anybody from the OTP speak to you before the 21st?
15 A. I received an invitation to come here, and that was all.
16 Q. In other words, your interviews in 2007 were conducted in
17 The Hague
18 A. I'm not clear what you're asking me. What interviews?
19 Q. Where were you on the 20th and 21st of January, 2007, when you
20 provided your statement to the OTP?
21 A. It was here at the OTP.
22 Q. I'm asking you whether before that anybody in Bosnia-Herzegovina
23 or, rather, in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina spoke to you or told
24 you that you were supposed to testify in The Hague.
25 A. Of course, somebody had to invite me.
1 Q. Did you receive consent from any of the BiH bodies to come and
2 testify here in The Hague
3 A. Only from my superior in my work-place, where I still work.
4 Q. I repeat my question. Before this interview, did a certain
5 person contact you, a person from the OTP? Thank you.
6 A. Yes, a person who invited me and who defined my date of travel,
7 and that's all.
8 Q. Thank you. In other words, you did not have any other contacts
9 with the representatives of the Prosecution - thank you - in 2007? Thank
11 A. No, not about the case.
12 Q. Thank you. On the statement that we see on the screen, did you
13 read it and sign it when you first provided it? Thank you.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Did you sign the corrections that you just mentioned
16 during your examination-in-chief, those mistakes that you had just
17 recently noticed?
18 A. Yes, I signed, but these are technical corrections, corrections
19 of mistakes of technical nature.
20 Q. Did you make those corrections during the Popovic case? And if
21 you did, was that recorded in the transcript?
22 A. I don't understand what you're saying.
23 Q. In the Popovic case transcript, did you notice that the same
24 mistakes had been made, and did you remove them?
25 A. No, I have removed them now here.
1 Q. Does that mean that you stated one thing at the previous trial
2 and now you're stating a different thing, all that with regard to your
3 original statement?
4 A. No, no. These are typos or mistranslations. But when it comes
5 to my statement, my statement was the same then as it is today.
6 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us who was present in the room
7 in which you provided the statement which we see on e-court?
8 A. Who was present?
9 Q. Yes. Do you remember who was present? Thank you.
10 A. Well, you have them all mentioned on the front page, all those
11 who were present.
12 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you whether there was somebody else
13 besides those who are stated on the front page of the statement.
14 A. As far as I know, there was nobody.
15 Q. Do you remember or do you not remember? Thank you.
16 A. I remember it very well.
17 Q. Thank you. You said that you had worked as a cryptographer in
18 the State Security. Could you please explain, for the benefit of the
19 Trial Chamber, what is the job of a cryptographer?
20 A. Coding and decoding of strictly-confidential documents. Is that
22 Q. Enough, yes. Could you please -- thank you. I apologise. Could
23 you please explain, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, whether you
24 were allowed to correct anything in the documents that you were given to
25 code or decode while you were working in the State Security Service
1 before the war?
2 A. At that time, I was not the one who transcribed the tapes. I
3 received them already completed, and they had to be checked before being
5 Q. Thank you. This means that you were not supposed to correct
6 anything in the documents that you either coded or decoded; you had to
7 code and decode everything, even the question marks and things like that?
8 A. Yes, exactly, and this applied both to the procedure of
9 dispatching such documents as well as their receipt.
10 Q. Thank you. How often did your supervisor come to visit you in
11 the northern site where you were engaged in the interception work?
12 A. I can't tell you exactly, but that all depended on his
13 commitments in the base. He came often. He would even spend the night,
14 if there was a lot of activity on the channels. Sometimes he would even
15 spend the night, as I say. He came usually during the day, he would
16 spend an hour or two with us, and then he would go back.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir's
19 microphone is not on.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. You said that -- thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. President.
22 Thank you.
23 Witness, you said in your statement, on page 1 --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can page 1 please be displayed on
25 e-court, paragraph 6. Actually, it's page 2. We are looking at page 1
1 now, and I would like the Court to produce page 2, paragraph 6, for the
2 benefit of the witness, to jog his memory as to what he stated.
3 I apologise. It is not paragraph 6. Could you please turn to
4 the following page. Thank you.
5 Thank you. Now we can see the complete paragraph 6. Thank you.
6 Q. You say here in paragraph 6 that you mainly intercepted
7 politicians and high-ranking officers. Is that correct?
8 A. In any case, we found those the most interesting for us, but
9 there were other people whom we listened in.
10 Q. Did you, in the course of 1995, intercept a conversation of
11 anybody else but generals and politicians from Republika Srpska?
12 A. Our range was very broad, so we were able to intercept the
13 conversations of common folks, but we did not find their conversations
14 interesting. We searched for the frequencies with interesting
16 Q. In your work, did you co-operate with the BiH Army and did you
17 set priorities, did you split priorities?
18 A. No, we did not split priorities between ourselves. However, if
19 there was something interesting, in military terms, then we would send
20 our conversation to them and vice versa. They would seed to us those
21 things that we might have found interesting.
22 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at paragraph 7, the penultimate
23 sentence that you can see on this page, paragraph 7, and that sentence
24 starts with the following words, and I quote:
25 "Since the pages became messy and since the typed documents were
1 the most important product, the handwritten pages would be collected and
3 Did I read your words correctly?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is that what you did with your handwritten pages, the ones that
6 were recorded in note-books and on loose pieces of paper? Thank you.
7 A. While we were listening to the conversations, we were liable to
8 make mistakes. And as we listened to the same conversation over and over
9 again, sometimes we would cross out parts of the words or the last parts
10 of the words. Then we would hand the same conversation over to the other
11 colleague, and the decision we jointly made was finally recorded, if it
12 made sense for the overall context.
13 Q. Did it often happen that you corrected yourself, what you
14 recorded and what you thought you heard on the first listening?
15 A. There was no -- there were no mistakes in the gist of the
16 sentences, but sometimes we had to correct words, cross out the first
17 word, and sometimes we would go back to the original solution. For
18 example, if you just heard one part of that word and you didn't hear the
19 rest, you would enter the word with Xs or points. If we were not sure,
20 we would mark that with either points or Xs, indicating that we were not
21 sure of the meaning of what we'd heard.
22 Q. Thank you. Did I heard you properly? When it comes to
23 handwritten pages, did you burn them because they were illegible by other
24 people once you made all of your corrections on them?
25 A. Well, we were afraid they could end up with those who should not
1 see them. We simply burned them because that same text, corrected, would
2 be recorded on -- by a laptop, and that's how we sent it -- that's how we
3 dispatched it. We did not need handwritten materials.
4 Q. Could such materials on laptop also be accessible to the enemy,
5 just like the handwritten material?
6 A. No. Are you referring to the papers, whether those could end up
7 in somebody else's hands, or are you referring to the laptop materials?
8 Q. You said that you burned handwritten materials to prevent them
9 from ending up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. What about
10 the corrected text that was recorded in the laptop; could that end up
11 with undesirable listeners?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Could laptop signals also be intercepted as well as all the other
14 technical means?
15 A. I'm not technically savvy to be able to answer your question.
16 Q. Thank you. Could you please answer the following question:
17 Where and when did you burn the corrected papers? Did you burn them
18 immediately after having entered the corrections into the laptop, or did
19 you burn them in the course of the day at certain times?
20 A. There were no rules as to when those papers would be burned. It
21 depended. We had a bag where we collected all those papers, and when
22 that bag was full, then it would be taken out of the facility and burned
24 Q. Did you use shorthand? How fast did you have to type or write
25 when you made your handwritten notes?
1 A. It depended on the speed of the conversations. If we understood
2 the conversation well, we could transcribe them very quickly or we could
3 make our handwritten notes very fast, and the same applied to the laptop
4 inscriptions. If the conversations were not easy to understand, it took
5 us longer. There were two of us working in one shift, so we were able to
6 work on different segments of the work. One continued listening in, and
7 the other was transcribing.
8 Q. When it comes to your handwritten pages, is it true that only you
9 could read them, that you used some abbreviations and things like that?
10 A. We used abbreviations only on paper. When we typed into laptop,
11 we used full words which could be easily understood by everybody.
12 Q. Thank you very much. You understood me very well. What you are
13 saying is that those papers were not neatly transcribed; it was your
14 working material?
15 A. Yes, because when we transcribed from UHER, we could not hear
16 well at every moment. We had to -- we had to replay a certain word or
17 sentence even 10 times before we were sure what was said to be able to
18 record that in the laptop.
19 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at paragraph 7, where you made
20 corrections during your examination-in-chief, when you were examined by
21 the Prosecutor. Here, you're talking about the methods you used to
22 transcribe conversations and their transcribing by laptop. Could you
23 please tell us, how much time did you need to copy a handwritten
24 conversation which you had intercepted, and how long did it take before
25 you could send it to the end user?
1 A. It would -- it took much more time to record the intercepted
2 conversation on teleprinter paper. Entering a conversation into laptop
3 was a fast procedure. I was a very skilled teleprinter operator, so
4 typing was not a problem for me. I was a skilled typist.
5 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us, how long did you --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are running out of time. We have reached the
7 time of adjournment for today, and we have to break now because another
8 trial is using this courtroom this afternoon.
9 Could you please indicate how much time you will need for
10 conclusion of your cross-examination?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will need some time to clarify
12 facts from paragraph 7, which the witness corrected during the
13 examination-in-chief. And once I've done that, my cross-examination will
14 be over. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In this case, we have to adjourn now and continue
16 the examination of this witness tomorrow. I'm sorry for that, sir, but
17 we have to adjourn. We continue with your examination tomorrow in the
18 afternoon at 2.15.
19 Just to remind you, you shouldn't have contact to either party
20 about the content of your examination. Thank you very much.
21 We adjourn and resume tomorrow at 2.15 in this courtroom.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day
25 of June, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.