120315ED

Page 26319

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Costi. I'm sorry.

3 MR. COSTI: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, and

4 everyone in the courtroom.

5 Examination by Mr. Costi:

6 Q. And good morning, Mr. Witness.

7 Sir, before you start giving evidence, I just would like to

8 remind you that there are protective measures in place, so please do not

9 make any reference to your identity or other information that might

10 disclose your identity.

11 If you wish to make these kind of references, please advise the

12 Chamber and we will go into private session. Do you understand this?

13 Very well. Thank you.

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. COSTI: May I have 65 ter 90319, please. Yeah, not to be

17 broadcast.

18 Your Honour, and if I may, all the exhibits we are going to

19 discuss this morning should not be broadcast. So if I make another

20 mistake forgetting to say it, and unless otherwise said, it shouldn't be

21 broadcast.

22 Q. Without reading out loud, do you see in front of you a document,

23 and do you see the name on it? Is it -- that your name?

24 A. Yes, I see it. It is my name.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 26320

1 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I would tender this document, under

2 seal.

3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P4594, under seal, Your Honours.

5 MR. COSTI: Thank you.

6 May I please now have 65 ter 90317.

7 Q. Now, while the document is going to come up on your screen, I

8 first would like to ask you: Is that correct that you gave a statement

9 to the Prosecution in 1999 and then you subsequently testified in three

10 cases: in the Krstic case in 2001, in the Popovic case in 2006, and in

11 the Tolimir case in 2010; is that correct?

12 A. Yes, it is correct.

13 Q. And an amalgamated statement was prepared containing the relevant

14 portion of your previous testimonies and interview. And, Witness, do you

15 see that statement on the screen before you?

16 A. I see what I see, and I see my signature at the bottom of the

17 page.

18 Q. Thank you. So is this the document that, as you can see from the

19 date, you signed a few days ago on the 9th of March?

20 A. Yes, I can see that.

21 Q. Thank you. And was this document read to you in your own

22 language?

23 A. Yes, in full.

24 Q. Thank you. And does it actually accurately reflect your previous

25 testimonies and -- part of your previous testimonies and interviews and

Page 26321

1 some other information?

2 A. Yes, it does accurately reflect it.

3 Q. Thank you. Last question on this. Sir, if you were asked today

4 about the same matter, would you provide this Court the same information

5 that are contained in the statements?

6 A. I think I would provide the very same information. I don't know

7 what else I could say.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. COSTI: Mr. President, I tender this statement and also

10 24 associated exhibits. And I should indicate that contrary to what we

11 indicate in our final associated exhibit list, we do not tender two of

12 the three handwritten notebooks. In particular, we would not tender

13 65 ter 35006 and 35020.

14 JUDGE KWON: But you are tendering 35027?

15 MR. COSTI: That's correct.

16 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Mr. Robinson?

17 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, with respect to 35027, the

18 notebook, we would ask that only the intercepts contained in the notebook

19 that are referred to by the witness be admitted, as opposed to the entire

20 notebook themselves. If there's some page that is necessary to also

21 include to show the date of the intercept, we don't have any objection to

22 that.

23 With respect to the intercepts themselves, we would ask the

24 Chamber to wait until it hears the cross-examination before making a

25 decision about the admissibility of those, although we may not oppose

Page 26322

1 them by the time the cross-examination is completed.

2 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow the second part of your submission,

3 Mr. Robinson. These intercepts are tendered as part of associated

4 exhibit, following his 92 ter statement. But why do we have to wait till

5 we hear cross-examination?

6 MR. ROBINSON: Well, if you're just admitting them for the

7 limited purpose of understanding his testimony, then, of course, you can

8 do that, but --

9 JUDGE KWON: Are you referring to the notebook?

10 MR. ROBINSON: I'm referring to the intercepts themselves.

11 JUDGE KWON: Individual intercepts.

12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, uh-huh.

13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

14 MR. ROBINSON: In other words, it's true that they make -- they

15 constitute a part of his statement and you can admit them on that basis,

16 but the whole exercise here is to determine the reliability of the

17 intercepts. So if you're going to admit them for that basis, I think you

18 ought to hear the cross-examination first.

19 For example, let's say the witness included in his statement: My

20 colleagues and I -- I've seen 65 ter number 1, my colleagues and I wrote

21 this up as a joke and so it's not reliable.

22 That could be admissible as part of a -- an integral part of his

23 statement but may not -- would not be admissible as a reliable intercept.

24 So I think you ought to at least wait until you hear the

25 cross-examination before making a determination about admissibility of an

Page 26323

1 intercept on the basis of reliability.

2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

3 Mr. Costi, can I hear from you.

4 MR. COSTI: Sure. Thank you, Mr. President.

5 As for the notebooks, we would -- we seeked admission of the

6 notebook not -- not as much for the content of the notebook itself but we

7 do believe that having a full notebook, at least one, would assist the

8 Chamber in assessing the whole intercepting process. So we do think it

9 would be of -- of help to the Chamber in their determination of the

10 process.

11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Shall we shop here for a moment.

12 MR. COSTI: Sure.

13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, for that limited purpose I take it you

14 don't object to the admission of that notebook, handwritten notebook.

15 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.

16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

17 Yes.

18 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 And as for the second matter, it seems to be a -- I understand my

20 friend Robinson's raised a potential reliability issue. We would submit

21 that at this stage the 89(C) standard has been met through the statement

22 of the witness who has recognised the intercept itself, who has discussed

23 in details the process through which this intercept were taken, and who

24 has described the reliability and the carefulness they applied in this

25 process. So if we look at the standard of Rule 89(C), which is a

Page 26324

1 prima facie standard and not a beyond reasonable doubt standard, we

2 believe the standard at this stage is met and there is no reason not to

3 admit this intercept.

4 Now, obviously, if at the end of the cross-examination, and even

5 later, in light of the totality of the evidence when assessing the weight

6 of this intercept Your Honour were to decide that they are unreliable or

7 you want -- you don't want to give any weight to it, then, of course,

8 this is part of your final assessment and determination of the evidence.

9 So in my submission this evidence should be admitted now, and, of

10 course, Your Honour will have to assess at the end of the case the weight

11 to give to it.

12 JUDGE KWON: Separate from these intercepts included in -- in

13 this associated exhibit list, was there some Srebrenica intercepts that

14 may be potentially authenticated by these witnesses? And are you going

15 to deal with them now, or what is your plan for those intercepts that

16 have been marked for identification?

17 MR. COSTI: We believe that the testimonies of this witness and

18 the next witness as well as to the process goes to the authenticity of

19 intercepts taken by the same organs to which our witness is part of.

20 We -- our plan more in general for the other intercept related to

21 Srebrenica is to file as soon as possible a comprehensive motion where we

22 will explain 89(C), why they met the 89(C) standard in terms of

23 reliability and probative value.

24 JUDGE KWON: So this witness will testify to the authenticity of

25 those intercepts.

Page 26325

1 So just -- I'm speaking for myself, from the top of my head, how

2 about marking for identification all the intercepts and then we deal with

3 it all together, because we need -- we may need some witnesses to give

4 some context.

5 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I may be unclear and imprecise actually.

6 This witness, we believe, will authenticate the specific

7 intercept discussed in his statement. As for the other exhibit, we

8 believe that will be -- we will submit they should be taken -- that there

9 should be judicial notice of their authenticity pursuant to Rule 94, if

10 I'm not wrong. My point was that his testimony in general about the

11 process, we will submit in our motion, to some extent supports previous

12 determination of other Chambers as to the authenticity of all the

13 intercepts taken by the ABiH in the Srebrenica area.

14 So as far as the specific authentification [sic] of this -- of

15 this witness concern, I would say that it refers specifically to the

16 intercept we're going to discuss today, and that's why I would submit

17 that they should be admitted.

18 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll consult -- the Chamber will

19 consult the issue.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE KWON: In this case we'll grant the Defence request to wait

22 till the end of the cross-examination and see what we can do at the time.

23 Otherwise, all the other exhibits, associated exhibits, will be

24 admitted and be given number in due course by the Registry.

25 Yes, Mr. Costi, please continue.

Page 26326

1 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Now I would like to read a short summary of the witness

3 testimony.

4 During the war, the witness served as a member of an intercept

5 unit of the ABiH. He was assigned to the so-called southern facility,

6 which he contributed to establish. The southern facility was an

7 elevation with no natural obstacles. It was a prime location for

8 listening to the VRS communication in the Srebrenica area. His task and

9 the task of his unit was to intercept the radio relay communication of

10 the VRS. The witness's testimonies describe the equipment they used, as

11 well as the process of intercepting, recording, transcribing all the

12 relevant conversations.

13 And as for the process, the witness testified that first an order

14 from the command would indicate the frequencies and direction to monitor,

15 that's because the command had a complete picture and was in a position

16 to determine the direction of the interesting information. The witness

17 would then scan the required frequencies and when you heard a sound, we

18 stopped the scanner and start recording the conversation. The

19 conversation considered relevant would then be transcribed on a working

20 notebook. The witness and his unit made sure that the transcription was

21 accurate and if something was not recognizable, they wouldn't guess.

22 They would write that it was an inaudible part. And, similarly, if the

23 speaker was not identified, they would write a number or sign instead.

24 Finally, the notebook, the working notebook we are talking about,

25 was passed over to typists and a typist who would type the conversation

Page 26333

1 Q. And for what you could see when you were there, would you say

2 that the protocol, the procedure adopted for intercepting communication,

3 was, let's say, similar, if not the same, of the one you previously

4 adopted during the war at the southern facility?

5 A. Yes. The procedure followed was, one could say, identical, as we

6 were part of the same unit, as the same command structure. We had the

7 same company commander. So, in general, everything was the same.

8 Q. Thank you very much.

9 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, this would end my examination.

10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

11 Sir, in this case, your examination-in-chief, or evidence

12 in-chief, was admitted in lieu of your oral testimony in a written form.

13 Now you will be further asked by Mr. Karadzic in his

14 cross-examination.

15 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.

17 Good morning to everyone.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.

20 A. Good morning.

21 Q. You confirmed, did you not, that you served in the army?

22 A. Yes. Should I say when?

23 Q. No, it's not necessary. But you served in the JNA. And which

24 branch?

25 A. I was in the communications department, a radio telegram

Page 26334

1 operator.

2 Q. Did you inherit some sort of equipment when the war broke out?

3 Did any equipment fall into your hands, and did you have the same

4 equipment that the other side had?

5 A. Yes, we did inherit something at the southern facility, but only

6 antennae. As for everything else, well, the equipment you have in mind,

7 well, with that equipment, that military equipment, we couldn't have done

8 anything, so it wasn't necessary for us.

9 Q. What sort of equipment did you use for your work?

10 A. Well, the equipment we used was equipment produced by

11 international producers such as Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu. We had receivers,

12 Icom receivers. AOR receivers. We had these basic Kenwood units, these

13 450 devices. We had UHER recorders that were used by organisations for

14 their sessions, their work council sessions, for example, and by other

15 reporters at radio stations for the public in general. And we also had a

16 small device called a balance mixer. That was a key element for

17 receiving the signal we were interested in. And that is a device that

18 was invented a long time ago. I didn't invent it, nor we didn't invent

19 it. But some of the devices I myself created, constructed.

20 Q. Thank you. I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish.

21 But since we're speaking the same language, please wait for the

22 transcript to come to an end. Then you can speak.

23 A. Very well.

24 Q. Tell us, where was this equipment from? The equipment that

25 wasn't inherited from the JNA, where did you obtain it from and when?

Page 26335

1 A. Much of the equipment was obtained from the radio clubs that

2 existed at the time. So, for example, we obtained equipment from my

3 radio club. All the equipment from that club. But many devices were

4 provided through channels I'm not aware of. From various places in the

5 world. I don't really know how it was obtained. All I know is what sort

6 of equipment we had on-site and what sort of equipment we actually used.

7 Q. Thank you. So this was equipment that was more modern. It was

8 newer than the equipment you had inherited.

9 A. We only inherited antennas. We had to construct quite a few

10 antennas too, but all the other equipment was more modern than the radio

11 relay equipment that the Yugoslav army used.

12 Q. So your equipment was more modern than the equipment that the VRS

13 had?

14 A. I'm only talking about radio relay equipment used for

15 communications. I'm not talking about other radio relay equipment. I

16 don't know what the other side had, and I wouldn't like to express an

17 opinion about that.

18 Q. Thank you. And tell me, were these systems compatible? The

19 systems that the two or three warring factions had, were they compatible

20 with each other?

21 A. Well, in certain cases, yes, when it came to ordinary radio

22 communications for which the usual frequencies were used.

23 In our system, in various municipalities, for example, the same

24 radio relay communication system was used. But when we talk about

25 interceptions and so on, I don't think that this was the case, because

Page 26336

1 our units didn't have radio relay communications that were established in

2 such ways. They had this particular system of communications which was

3 more encrypted, which was a safer system, in comparison to the system

4 that the VRS had for which these radio relay devices were used.

5 Q. Thank you. Did these various communications systems result in

6 sound distortion? Did they affect the quality of the sound? Was there

7 any interference as a result of this, of the systems used?

8 A. When the signal was heard, it was usually quite distinct. With

9 the exception of certain words. For example, we had some of these

10 devices for communications between our commands, and when the device

11 starts omitting a signal, you can usually hear it in your headphones.

12 And that signal can affect the audibility of a certain word and then we

13 make a note of the fact. But since -- if you have two radio relay

14 communication devices, if they're to communicate with each other, there

15 has to be optical visibility. In other words, the antenna of one radio

16 relay had to be matched with the signal of the other radio relay, and

17 then we capture the signal from somewhere else.

18 Sometimes we could hear only one radio relay station and not the

19 other one, and then we would draw the conclusion that one participant

20 could be heard and not the other one. But when you go through our

21 log-books, you can see whether we could hear one of the participants,

22 several of the participants, both participants, and so on and so forth.

23 Q. Thank you. Did you also intercept the conversations of the third

24 warring party?

25 A. Since we were far away, I didn't, or, rather, my unit did didn't

Page 26337

1 do that at our facility. As for whether anyone did anything within the

2 third warring faction, I don't know. We only intercepted conversations

3 of the Drina Corps. That's the area from Bijeljina and all the way up to

4 Cajnici [phoen]. That's the area concerned.

5 Q. Thank you. Can we establish the purpose for which this was done

6 in fact? Am I right if I say that the command issued an order for these

7 interceptions and this was in order to inform the command of the

8 intentions of the other side, of what was going on on the other side?

9 A. Well, the unit that I was a member of was established for that

10 purpose, because, Mr. Karadzic, we intercepted the conversations you had,

11 and we intercepted the conversations of your generals and high-ranking

12 officers. So we intercepted conversations at that level alone. We

13 weren't interested in lower-level conversations. Other people would

14 intercept such conversations by using different devices and a different

15 technical system. So we intercepted the conversations that your cabinet

16 had, conversations that Koljevic and Ms. Plavsic had, Mladic's,

17 Tutaric's [phoen] conversations, and so on and so forth. I won't list

18 all the generals.

19 Q. Thank you. I would kindly ask you to pause and wait for

20 interpretation.

21 So it served the sole purpose of informing your commanders.

22 There was no other purpose; correct?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 Q. Did a court participate in the process of decision-making by way

25 of issuing orders?

Page 26338

1 A. Did someone provide orders to my command? I don't know. I only

2 knew what my superior requested me to do, and I organised the work around

3 that task and performed it as an officer. I'm not familiar with any

4 other matters.

5 Q. Thank you. Since I can see that many tapes were destroyed, did

6 anyone warn you that you should preserve them, as they might be used in

7 courts?

8 A. Well, you see, never, throughout the war, did I think I would

9 attend a court such as this one to testify. We did that for the purpose

10 of our defence, and that's how I saw my job.

11 I can tell you that until May or June 1994 all such material,

12 such as the notebooks, was destroyed, burned. We didn't even think that

13 they might be used for anything else.

14 As for the tapes, once a tape ended and shifts rotated, we handed

15 them over. It was usually the company commander who did that. Or the

16 next company commander would receive it, the full tape, and take it to

17 the command. Then we would be told to erase the tape or perhaps listen

18 to a particular conversation again. But, for the most part, they were

19 erased and then returned to us to be used again. I don't know whether

20 before erasing them they were copied onto some other tapes. That is

21 something I don't know. But I do know that there's very little material

22 that was recorded before the summer of 1994 that was preserved, although

23 it contained important matters such as the events of winter 1993. It

24 would be very interesting to have it, in particular, in a forum such as

25 this one. But we never thought that it might come in handy before a

Page 26339

1 court.

2 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that before the notebooks were kept,

3 everything was written down on sheets of paper which were not kept, they

4 were destroyed?

5 A. Yes. At least in my unit. I don't know about the other

6 locations. But when there was a certain amount of such material, we

7 simply burned it.

8 Q. Thank you. I noticed that tapes were hardly ever numbered and

9 filed in a particular way.

10 A. I think they weren't, actually. If there are numbers on the

11 tapes, these are probably numbers that different companies assigned to

12 these tapes, because these tapes were used for workers' council sessions

13 or something like that. But I didn't really notice anything like that.

14 I didn't really pay any attention to it either because that wasn't my

15 job.

16 Q. Thank you. However, a tape was not marked in a way so as to make

17 it clear where it was in the notebook. So it wasn't really matched to

18 the notebook markings.

19 A. No. Because, for example, a notebook might be filled up before a

20 tape. And then it could happen that a tape could still remain in the

21 facility even when the notebook would be full and sent off elsewhere.

22 In principle, the tape and notebook were only used by us as work

23 material to create a file or a report in our computer to say what it was

24 that was recorded. So then in the computer there would be the date, the

25 number of the document, and so on, and which area was being listened to,

Page 26340

1 and so on. And very often you cannot find that in notebooks. Because

2 these notebooks were really like the papers that we destroyed until 1994.

3 This was just working material for us. We did not see any linkage. We

4 did not really link [Realtime transcript read in error "like"] these

5 things up.

6 Q. Thank you. Had you known that it would be used somewhere before

7 a court of law, what was supposed to have been done in order to make

8 things better? What are the things that you did not do because you did

9 not have a court of law in mind?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last sentence: [In English]

11 "... did not really like ..." Instead: "... did not really link ..."

12 [Interpretation] This is mistyped in the last line. The witness

13 said: "We did not really link these things up," and the transcript says

14 "We did not really like these things up."

15 Is that right, Witness?

16 A. Are you referring to my last answer?

17 Q. You said that "I did not link things up." You didn't talk about

18 me liking something. The tape and the notebook.

19 A. Well, we didn't link these things up because this was simply

20 working material for us.

21 Q. Thank you. Now that you know that you are in this situation,

22 tell us: What were the things that should have been done in order to

23 have made things better, or different?

24 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just wonder: The witness

25 is not a lawyer, so I'm not sure he can answer this sort of questions.

Page 26341

1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Costi.

2 Mr. Karadzic, he answered the question. He -- he didn't think

3 about that.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellencies, if he's

5 thinking now, it would be useful if we would know. Perhaps we could link

6 things up now.

7 JUDGE KWON: It's for you to make submission later.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Did it sometimes happen that a conversation would not be recorded

11 but, rather, taken down live, written up as it was taking place?

12 A. I claim with full responsibility: Never.

13 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that, as far as these intercepts are

14 concerned, if something was omitted, it would usually be the very

15 beginning of the communication taking place; is that right?

16 A. If you understood what I said in the beginning, what I said at

17 the beginning of my testimony, I said that permanently 24 channels were

18 listened to and then what can happen is the following: For example, the

19 scanner gets to this particular channel and then a speaker is silent for

20 some reason and then the other channels have to go through and then

21 sometimes the conversations did not really start from the beginning. And

22 then we have to go two or three channels back if there was this silence,

23 so there's always this possibility of part of a conversation not being

24 recorded. But usually it's two operators who are establishing the link,

25 so it didn't really affect things much.

Page 26342

1 Usually in the beginning there would be an exchange of greetings

2 and things like that. So then later on, from the moment when the

3 conversation was recorded, it would be written down in the notebook. We

4 did not write anything before that. For example, if we knew which radio

5 devices these were and then we'd say "Badem" and another code-name --

6 well. Just so that one would know which radio relay communication it

7 was.

8 Q. Now, did this create problems for you, in terms of

9 identification? Because, at the very beginning of the conversation,

10 usually the participants in the conversation identify each other and

11 greet each other by using each other's names.

12 Did you have to make a special effort to identify them if you do

13 not hear their names?

14 A. Just a moment.

15 If we would not hear their names, we never tried to write down

16 some name or invent some name unless we were 100 per cent sure. We knew

17 the voices of quite a few officers. For example, when I talked to my

18 friends or if a friend calls me, I don't really have to think who it is.

19 I recognise their voices. So then we used to recognise a lot of these

20 voices, and then we'd write down "Krstic," "Popovic," whoever, I mean,

21 the persons whose voices we would recognised, and then if not, usually

22 we'd mark the interlocutors by numbers - 1, 2, 3 - depending on how many

23 interlocutors were involved. So if we were not 100 per cent sure that we

24 knew who it was, then we would not guess in any way that this was this

25 person or that person or whoever.

Page 26343

1 Q. Thank you. What about the issuers of your transcripts. Did the

2 identity of the participants really matter to them?

3 A. Well, it mattered to us, too. It was interesting to know who it

4 was that was talking. And certainly it was of interest to my superiors

5 too. Often when I'd finish my shift I would go to my command, to my

6 superiors, and then I'd see on the wall some of these work maps,

7 operation maps, where they would mark code-names - Milici, Vlasenica,

8 Zvornik. Each unit had its own code-name. And then I saw that from

9 these transcripts of ours, next to every one of these code-names they

10 would write up the names of the officers, roughly, and whatever else was

11 heard in the conversations.

12 So the command new roughly which team of officers belonged to a

13 particular unit, worked in a particular unit. That's what I saw. But I

14 really had nothing to do with that because we did not specifically deal

15 with that particular job.

16 Q. Just so you know, I'm waiting for the interpretation.

17 You mentioned that you underwent training. This was probably in

18 the JNA. What did it include, this training?

19 A. In the JNA, from May -- March 1967 until 1968, I was in a radio

20 telegraph unit where we learned the Morse code, because the then-army

21 used that system a lot. Radio telegraphy, in addition to teleprinters

22 and so on and so forth.

23 I, since I was a top-notch operator even before the war and I had

24 taken all these exams, not a single one of our trainers was better than I

25 was, so I assisted them. Once we underwent certain training, once people

Page 26344

1 learned certain things, then communications would be established. That

2 kind of practice was carried out, how to use this system. Even before I

3 came to do my military service in the army I had had tens of thousands of

4 communications throughout the world.

5 Q. We can discuss that in public, can we not?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. I don't know whether this needs to be redacted. Although I

8 personally think that it's not really necessary, because there are a lot

9 of ham radio operators.

10 A. A lot.

11 Q. Did this training involve some kind of voice recognition

12 training, some kind of music training, if I can call it that?

13 A. When I was in the JNA, there was also a unit that dealt with

14 radiophony. Now, whether they had something along those lines, I don't

15 know. Because the Morse code is a completely different type of

16 communication where there are no voices. There is this monotonous tone

17 that is heard as a signal, like when you're pressing that button.

18 There's really nothing to -- I mean, it's important to understand the

19 code, the combination of those two signs, and then you would know what

20 each letter was. And that is how text could be encoded and decoded and

21 then written up in hand, so -- I don't know. I didn't undergo any such

22 training.

23 Q. Thank you. So there is no metacommunication. There is no irony.

24 There are no jokes. Everything is literal in Morse code; right?

25 A. You're right. Exactly. Tit, ta, that's the way it is. Dot,

Page 26345

1 hyphen. Everything is monotonous. There are no oscillations in tone.

2 Q. Tell me: Weather conditions and the electromagnetic situation,

3 did they affect the quality of the sound that was recorded and heard?

4 A. Only if there was a lot of thunder. Then that could be heard in

5 the headphones. Nothing else affected it.

6 Q. Thank you. And is it correct that - actually, you spoke about

7 this - that you were never ordered to identify the interlocutors

8 involved?

9 A. I don't recall any order that arrived. I mean, whatever we

10 heard, we wrote down. If we knew who the interlocutor was, then we'd

11 write down who it was. And if we did not know, then we'd give numbers.

12 Interlocutor 1, Interlocutor 2, 3, 4, and so on. And then in that way we

13 would state who it was that was actually talking. We thought that that

14 was the only right thing to do. I don't remember that anyone ever asked

15 us to do anything else.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, did you notice that there was a lot of

17 metacommunication involved, something that cannot be read but it can be

18 felt if you're just listening? Irony, self-irony, jokes, exaggerations.

19 Did you notice that speech is full of that, as opposed to the written

20 word?

21 A. There were situations when sometimes the interlocutors would

22 curse, swear, make jokes. We did not take that into account. Our

23 notebooks reflected everything that was said in the original. I don't

24 think that we stated if they laughed or things like that. Or at least I

25 didn't do anything like that.

Page 26346

1 So it was just normal. I mean, when people talk, that kind of

2 thing happens as well. It depends on how close they are.

3 Q. Thank you. So there are Serbs and Croats and Muslims there. And

4 they're rather similar, if not the same. Do we agree that quite a few

5 proverbs are used, figures of speech, allusions, and so on, when we

6 speak? Were you in a position to observe that, and did you notify the

7 users of your transcripts of that as part of this metacommunication, as

8 part of this figurative speech?

9 A. As I've already said, we wrote down in our notebooks only what it

10 was that we heard. We never went into giving any kind of comment with

11 regard to anyone's conversation or any conversation. There were civilian

12 conversations as well, because many officers talked to their wives,

13 families, friends, and so on. We sent those conversations on as well,

14 but they probably ended up only in the notebook and the command.

15 So it was only what we heard. We never went into any kind of

16 comments of our own regarding anything, except for what had been recorded

17 and conveyed.

18 Q. Thank you. Am I to understand, then, that the user of your

19 transcript, the commander, could only read what was written down, without

20 any additional instructions, notes, or remarks that this or that was a

21 joke or an exaggeration, allusion, or a turn of phrase?

22 A. As regards my facility, I don't think we ever did that. We only

23 forwarded what had been recorded. No comments were made. Never. That

24 was not our job, and no one asked us to do it.

25 Q. Thank you. Were the commanders receiving only transcripts,

Page 26347

1 without listening to the conversations you recorded and transcribed?

2 A. When once we have recorded a conversation, we transcribed it into

3 a notebook, and that text from the notebook was typed into the computer

4 in its totality. And then through the digital repeater communication

5 links the operator forwarded such messages, and no other people were

6 involved, save for the operators themselves.

7 On the sending end, it was encrypted and decrypted at the other

8 end and then sent to the person who was supposed to receive it.

9 The tapes themselves were retained to some extent and then people

10 could check things. I don't know whether it was done or not. And once

11 by the time the tape has arrived, the information contained on it was

12 already too old and not up to date.

13 Q. Yes, I was interested in how they would interpret this sentence.

14 Were there any omissions or mistakes that were made, and were you

15 ever requested to correct them by your command? When I say "omissions or

16 mistakes," I have in mind the handling of all that material, as well as

17 in the way you kept the notes.

18 A. I have to repeat yet again. Once a text had been transcribed and

19 noted down in the notebook, it was typed into the computer in the very

20 same form, and sent. Which meant our job was done. We never received

21 any information where it was requested that we checked or corrected

22 something. Our superiors knew how we worked. If we had not done our job

23 properly before sending it -- well, sometimes if there was an important

24 conversation and we couldn't hear or make something out, everyone who was

25 in that shift came and listened to that particular conversation. Only

Page 26348

1 when everyone agreed that it was inaudible, we made that note, and there

2 was no need to carry out any further checks or corrections.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the break, could we see

4 05207.

5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Witness, my previous question was aimed more at the pattern,

7 standard procedure of note-taking that was in place.

8 Could you have a look at this document for that purpose.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I believe it may be broadcast.

10 1D05207.

11 That's not quite the thing.

12 JUDGE KWON: 1D5207.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, this is it.

14 Could we have it in Serbian as well.

15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Are you familiar with this captain who signed the document?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in.

18 A. I can read it.

19 JUDGE KWON: We now zoom -- I'm sorry. We'll not broadcast this

20 document.

21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Can we agree that it says something about the forwarding of the

23 report to the PEB?

24 A. I can't find it right away, but I know what PEB stands for. That

25 was the name of our unit, counter-electronic warfare.

Page 26349

1 Q. And where it says RRPC, what does it mean?

2 A. Radio relay interception something. I'm not quite familiar with

3 it.

4 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, just to make sure, I wouldn't mention the

5 name of the centre, if you were asked to -- if the witness is asked to

6 read the document, he should be careful not to mention the name.

7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

8 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry to --

9 JUDGE KWON: That's why I told not to broadcast.

10 MR. COSTI: Yeah.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We don't do that then.

12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Does it say here that it has to do with certain shortcomings and

14 deficiencies which need to be corrected for the purpose of ensuring the

15 maximum quality of radio monitoring information. And then we have the

16 order itself.

17 This is in August, late August 1995.

18 So in item 1 (a) the following is requested. The original

19 conversation is being forwarded as recorded. And then we have the

20 specific information. Then, under item 2, we have scrambling. Well,

21 what prompted the command that they should request the conversations to

22 be forwarded literally as they had been recorded?

23 A. You mentioned scrambling. We didn't engage in that. And this

24 was probably not send to us. I don't recall any such thing. This was

25 the scrambling unit. I don't know what they worked on, and perhaps they

Page 26350

1 were not doing their job sufficiently well and they were cautioned. You

2 yourself said it concerned scrambling, which had nothing to do with my

3 unit. It would have been counter-productive for us who were trying to

4 listen in to scramble.

5 Q. I agree that item 2 has to do with scrambling, but look at

6 item 1. There they ask that any conversations that are forwarded need to

7 be recorded literally. It only means that they had a sufficient reason

8 to make that request.

9 A. Well, looking at this, that's what we were doing all along.

10 Have a look at our reports in 1993 and 1994, as well as 1995,

11 because this is towards the end, in August 1995. This is precisely what

12 we did. Date, frequency, azimuth, participants, et cetera. This may

13 have been a circular letter which reminded all subordinate units that

14 they need to harmonise the way they submitted reports. But this is what

15 we followed throughout.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted. And, I

18 believe, after that we can go on our break.

19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, this will be admitted.

20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2199, under seal, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will have a break for half an hour and

22 resume at five past 11.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

Page 26351

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Did I hear well when you said that you were recording everything,

4 but once you realised a conversation was private, what did you do then?

5 A. Sometimes we recorded private conversations which did not contain

6 any information but were of personal nature, say, an officer talked to

7 his wife. We didn't think it was relevant for the command to know.

8 Perhaps a conversation or two of that nature slipped by, but we

9 usually never sent it up.

10 Q. Thank you. Who did the screening? Who made the selection of

11 relevant as opposed to irrelevant conversations?

12 A. Selection was usually made by the operator. He was aware of the

13 contents and then perhaps consulted me or the squad leader or the

14 computer operator. Sometimes such conversations were noted; sometimes

15 they were not. Basically it all depended on the conversation itself, and

16 we made a call right there and then.

17 Q. Thank you. You mentioned me as well among those you listened to.

18 Did you have such material; and did the OTP receive everything?

19 A. As regards you, Mr. Karadzic, we did have recordings of your

20 conversations. Among other things, you had particularly long

21 conversations in 1995, in the summer and fall of that year, with certain

22 representatives or sympathisers in London, Paris, Moscow, and you

23 probably remember that. You also talked to other members of the

24 Presidency, such as Koljevic, and who was it who came after you, with

25 thick eyebrows?

Page 26352

1 Q. Krajisnik.

2 A. Yes, Krajisnik. Thank you. You also talked to many other

3 people, starting with the General Staff and General Mladic, down to

4 lower-ranking units who used that -- which used that type of

5 communication.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 A. Let me complete me answer. Because, in addition to asking

8 whether we listened to your conversations, you asked me -- let me try and

9 remember.

10 Q. Whether the OTP received all my conversations.

11 A. I don't know that. We sent conversations to the command, but I

12 don't know how it was sorted, logged, archived, et cetera, or who

13 received it in the end. That is something I'm not familiar with.

14 Q. Thank you. How did you treat my conversations with my

15 sympathisers, friends; and did you make a distinction between my

16 conversations with -- my unofficial conversations as opposed to official

17 conversations? Was there a selection made based on the collocutor?

18 A. I'm waiting for the transcript.

19 We did not carry out any selection. For the most part, all

20 conversations of yours, Krajisnik's, Plavsic's, and Koljevic's,

21 especially long conversations, well, there, they introduced themselves to

22 you, and that's how we recorded them. I know that all those transcripts

23 were in the notebooks, and the texts sent. I don't know whether they

24 were all preserved and whether they will be used in this trial. Once we

25 sent them on, our job was finished. We were no longer interested.

Page 26353

1 Q. Let me ask you about your personal impression. Do you agree that

2 Serbs are not particularly skilled in keeping their secrets? In other

3 words, were you able or did you have a feeling that you could receive and

4 gain any information?

5 A. Let me just wait for the transcript.

6 You see, I have worked in communications for a long time, and I

7 can say that the higher the rank or position, the less regard there is

8 for the rules. So it was more difficult to eavesdrop on the

9 lower-ranking units than it was on generals, because no one can say to a

10 general what to say or not to say. That does not exist. They were prone

11 to being less cautious the most. And I don't know who recommended it to

12 them, probably the Army of Yugoslavia, that such communication was

13 secure, but it wasn't true. There is no such thing as secure

14 communication.

15 In any case, they frequently said, when engaging in conversation,

16 Talk freely. No one is listening in.

17 So the most senior personnel were the least cautious.

18 Q. Did I understand well, then, that generals spoke freely and that

19 they didn't only say things that were facts, but said other personal

20 things, boasted, discussed many other things, et cetera?

21 A. I'm waiting for the transcript again.

22 I could observe, and it was particularly pronounced in the Orlovo

23 theatre in 1993 -- well, I'm really sorry that we no longer have that

24 material, but this would be particularly illustrative of your question.

25 There were many JNA officers who came there to observe an exercise of

Page 26354

1 sorts, and it was interesting to listen to their conversations when they

2 called their colleagues in Belgrade and the way they discussed

3 operations, what trenches they reached, and what lines they were. We

4 forwarded all such information, and you could clearly see how they

5 boasted of this and that. They bragged. And, for example, they had the

6 intention of having an offensive at 7.00 p.m. that day, and thanks to the

7 information we received, at 5.00 p.m. our forces engaged them in a

8 counter-attack. And that was the end of their operation. Their

9 objectives were clearly not met.

10 Q. Thank you. Did it also happen that they said that today, for

11 example, they had captured a hill which they were really intending to

12 take the next day. Did they brag of -- about such things?

13 A. Well, you know, a lot of time has passed, so I can't be specific.

14 But the conversations are in the notebooks. If you have time and

15 interest, you may look it up and then obtain that information.

16 I no longer can say anything specific in that regard.

17 Q. I don't need you to be specific. You mentioned the boasting

18 yourself. Did they sometimes talk of things in advance although such

19 things did not take place at the time of conversation? Did they

20 exaggerate things? Did they boast?

21 A. Well, as I have already said, yes, they would boast and

22 exaggerate, especially on the Orlovo battle-field. As to whether they

23 spoke about certain things prematurely in advance, I really don't know.

24 But, yes, they would say they'd arrived here or there. They'll do this

25 tomorrow, then that.

Page 26355

1 Q. Thank you. Is it true that these conversations show that some of

2 the participants were aware of the fact that their conversations were

3 being intercepted? And they would ever say, Well, let the Turks listen

4 to us.

5 So did they reveal a fact that they were aware that they were

6 being listened to?

7 A. Well, on the basis of my experience, according to the information

8 that I had, up until the Autumn of 1995 they were convinced that we

9 weren't listening to them. That's probably because they didn't know how

10 they were being listened to and what equipment was being used for that

11 purpose. But they did know that there were perhaps one or two radio

12 relay devices that had remained in our territory, these centres, and it

13 was probably on that basis that they came to the conclusion that we

14 couldn't listen in to their conversations.

15 And at the beginning of my testimony I said that what we did

16 couldn't even have been done with the original equipment, radio relay

17 equipment. You could have listened to one channel. It would not really

18 have been adequate. The sort of interceptions that we made could not

19 have been made with the original or old equipment, and we didn't really

20 need this.

21 Q. Thank you. But do we agree that with regard to telephone

22 communication hubs most of them remained on the Muslim side in Mostar,

23 Sarajevo. I don't know whether there was anything in Livno, Tuzla,

24 Zenica, Bihac.

25 As far as telephone infrastructure is concerned, were the Serbs

Page 26356

1 in a more disadvantageous position?

2 A. Well, look, this is a civilian phone network that was in

3 existence. It had been in existence for a number of years before the

4 war. And I don't know -- we're discussing a military network here that

5 the Drina Corps, with JNA equipment, managed to establish. They

6 established a war-time communication network. But this other network was

7 a civilian one, in Kladanj, Jovanovici, Tuzla. Well, each municipality

8 or each post office, in fact, had its own radio relay system of a similar

9 kind, because that was the latest technology at the time. And the radio

10 relay equipment was obtained from Sweden. It wasn't local equipment. So

11 I wouldn't compare those two types of networks. I wouldn't want to

12 analyse whether someone was in a better position or in a more

13 disadvantageous position. That's not really relevant.

14 Q. Thank you. In the course of the war, was it customary for the

15 sides involved to provide each other with misinformation?

16 I think the witness is waiting for the letter A.

17 A. Yes, I'm waiting. But I can start giving you my answer.

18 I personally don't know. My job wasn't to assess whether or not

19 someone was involved in deception. My job and the task of my staff was

20 as follows: What we heard, we'd have to record, transcribe, and forward.

21 Someone else in the command was perhaps involved in these other tasks. I

22 really don't know. But that wasn't our task, and we didn't perform any

23 such tasks.

24 Q. Thank you. But if on the basis of metacommunication, intonation,

25 and so on and so forth, one came to the conclusion that the enemies were

Page 26357

1 providing you with misinformation and saying that they were going to

2 attack such and such a place but that wasn't their intention, in such

3 cases would you inform your superiors of the fact? Would you inform them

4 of the fact that you thought misinformation was being provided?

5 A. We never got involved in such things. We never commented the

6 conversations we recorded and forwarded. That was not our task, and

7 that's not something that we did.

8 Q. Thank you. Did you have any problems? I'm now referring to the

9 beginning of July, the first half of July 1995. During that period in

10 time did you have any problems with the equipment you had, with the way

11 in which it functioned?

12 A. As far as I can remember, in relation to the period you are

13 asking me about, I don't think so. I think we performed our duties

14 adequately, correctly, and I think that on the 13th of July, when

15 Mr. Krstic issued orders about clearing the terrain and saying there were

16 to be no survivors, I was with my colleague, sitting next to him. I

17 heard that conversation live, the conversation that my colleague sitting

18 next to me had recorded. So I know that everyone was working adequately

19 at the time and we didn't have any difficulties.

20 Q. Very well. Did you have any problems with the computers, with

21 the level of confidentiality that was to be preserved for your work?

22 A. Well, as far as -- as confidentiality is concerned in relation to

23 our work, no, we never had any problems. But as far as the equipment is

24 concerned, as far as the computers are concerned, sometimes it was

25 necessary to refresh the system, because the computers at the time were

Page 26358

1 fairly old ones, fairly slow, so their memory capacity was not very

2 significant. But that really wasn't a problem.

3 Sometimes perhaps a file wouldn't be forwarded in time, but

4 within two or three hours or in the course of the day it would be

5 forwarded. And finally, we made a selection. We would only forward

6 urgent files immediately. But less important files would be sent at the

7 end of the report or once a certain number of reports had been

8 accumulated. It's not as if whenever we'd recorded a conversation we

9 would forward it, if it wasn't a matter of urgency.

10 Q. What exactly did Krstic say when you listened to him?

11 A. Well, what was his rank? A colonel or lieutenant-colonel?

12 Beara. It had to do with the clearing of the terrain after the

13 11th of September, after the Serbian forces had entered Srebrenica. On

14 that occasion, the two of them had a conversation, and Beara submitted a

15 report to Krstic and said that they were clearing the terrain, that

16 things were going well. And finally Krstic told him, You know that there

17 will be no survivors. He said, I know that, boss. That's what is being

18 done.

19 We have the authentic recording. You can listen to it,

20 Mr. Karadzic. I didn't record that conversation, but I did hear it. So

21 now on the basis of what I can remember I'm interpreting it. So perhaps

22 I'm not a hundred per cent precise. But my colleague who recorded and

23 transcribed it made a record and it can be found.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D05204, please. It's

25 the beginning of August.

Page 26359

1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. And it says that you had problems and that a file was being sent

3 again. So if you saw that something was not going well, you would repeat

4 the action, which you wouldn't do if everything went well; isn't that

5 correct?

6 A. Yes. Well, look, when you send a file, then the other side, the

7 command to whom we were sending the file, if for some reason there was

8 some mistakes in the file or if it hadn't been fully forwarded, they

9 would then inform us of the fact that the file hadn't been received and

10 then we would send the file again in the same form. But if it wasn't an

11 urgent file -- well, if it was urgent, it meant it wouldn't arrive in

12 time, and that was not good for us.

13 Q. It says at the top: As a reason -- for this reason we are

14 sending to you the file in question.

15 And then it gives a number.

16 In what sense was the file referred to in question or

17 problematic?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a translation. I hope the

19 participants have it.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm waiting for the

21 interpretation to be completed.

22 The file was problematic because in the command we were informed

23 through Paket communications that they hadn't received the complete file.

24 That is why the file was problematic. It hadn't been received, and that

25 is why we sent it again. So it wasn't problematic in any other sense.

Page 26360

1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Thank you.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So this is a document from the

4 Prosecution but without this -- this note concerning the problematic

5 nature -- without this complaint. And the remainder was admitted as a

6 separate document.

7 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow, Mr. Karadzic.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The remainder of the document,

9 without the introduction, was admitted. It was tendered by the

10 Prosecution, and I'm now tendering this with this additional complaint

11 that refers to difficulties encountered when transmitting the file.

12 JUDGE KWON: What is the number of the document that has been

13 tendered by the Prosecution?

14 Or, Mr. Costi, could you help us in that regard?

15 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I believe he's referring to

16 65 ter number 3 -- I'm sorry. 20807. Should be this.

17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second then.

18 Could we upload it. 20807.

19 MR. COSTI: Because this is the only document we tendered because

20 it's discussed in amalgamated statement.

21 JUDGE KWON: I don't think -- probably it may be one of the

22 intercepts.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page. In

24 that case, I would tender this as a document of ours.

25 Can we see the next page. 1D05204.

Page 26361

1 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, no, this is another document. We need --

2 yeah.

3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, we'll mark the previous document for

4 identification because we didn't see the English translation.

5 In the meantime, you may proceed. We'll give the number for

6 that.

7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I see the name of -- of a place, and then we

9 need to put it under seal.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI D2200,

11 provisionally under seal.

12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

13 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Mr. President, and I'm not sure this is

14 helpful. I couldn't -- I just got into this belatedly. I didn't know if

15 you were looking for the exhibit number of the intercept that was

16 tendered earlier.

17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Karadzic said this is -- part of this

18 document was admitted as Prosecution exhibit.

19 MR. TIEGER: Right, and I didn't know if you were looking for

20 that particular exhibit number.

21 JUDGE KWON: No.

22 MR. TIEGER: Okay.

23 JUDGE KWON: But in this -- I -- I saw that -- saw the place of a

24 name [sic] in the previous document. That's why I suggested to put --

25 put it under seal.

Page 26362

1 What was the number for this?

2 THE REGISTRAR: MFI, D2200, under seal, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

5 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Karadzic, purely for planning purpose,

6 could I ask how much time more you would need to conclude your

7 cross-examination of this witness.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that I will be to complete

12 my cross-examination within two hours. I won't even need the two hours

13 you allocated to me.

14 JUDGE KWON: Well, how -- from now on, how much long -- how much

15 would you need?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should perhaps complete my

17 cross-examination by noon.

18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let us give it a try. Thank you.

19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. It's no longer on the screen, this document I was interested in.

21 But does it say, does it not, that he's looking for Muslims for an

22 exchange?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at the next

24 page.

25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 26363

1 Q. Can you see this here? K says -- it's the eighth line from the

2 bottom.

3 It says: "Make a list of all the Muslims who are fit for

4 military service so that we can transfer them and use them for an

5 exchange."

6 And what you recorded is what you wrote down; isn't that correct?

7 A. Yes. I recorded that and I wrote that down.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D05208.

10 Again, could it please not be broadcast.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Do you remember this, this remark concerning work with the SPKZ?

13 Can you tell us what that is, SPKZ?

14 A. SP I know; it's a type of software. It's a computer programme.

15 And KZ is "encrypted." So it meant that it coded and decoded

16 communication by way of digipeater.

17 Q. So what does it say here? In the second paragraph it says: It

18 caught our interest and today we went a bit further. Namely, we reset

19 the computer system date to the 9th of June and carried out the normal

20 procedure for generating call-signs, and so on and so forth. And it said

21 that today's date, the 8th of July, 1995, corresponds to the

22 9th of June in terms of call-signs and the chat mode used.

23 And then the conclusion further down is that:

24 "We believe that what we have found seriously jeopardizes the

25 secrecy of work on PR and therefore we believe that responsible officials

Page 26364

1 in the 2nd Corps ... should be made aware of this immediately."

2 So that was a problem, wasn't it?

3 A. Yes. One of the problems that was not isolated. There were

4 problems, as you can see here, but, after all, the operator down there

5 who was better versed in this kind of communication than I was did his

6 job and came to a conclusion. This just shows that my people were quite

7 knowledgeable as far as these technical things were concerned, and now I

8 really cannot recall how this problem was resolved, whether somebody

9 brought in a better system, cassette, or whether the system was

10 re-booted. I don't know. Within four or five hours a new computer could

11 have arrived, or some other equipment. I mean, I do not know

12 specifically now. I cannot say. But it did not really affect our work.

13 We could have sent it with the date that the computer had

14 recorded, but we knew what kind of a mistake it was and that it referred

15 to another time. I don't think it is something that affected the

16 regularity of our normal work.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.

19 I wonder whether "primjedba" is translated properly by using the

20 word "remark." I think that primjedba can also be translated as

21 "objection."

22 Can this be admitted.

23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2201, under seal, Your Honours.

25 MR. KARADZIC: [No interpretation]

Page 26365

1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The Prosecution will undertake the

2 exercise of redacting certain names of places and produce public

3 versions.

4 MR. COSTI: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE KWON: Will do -- the Defence do the same?

6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.

7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

8 Yes, please continue.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 20807. Could I have that,

10 please. Again, could it please not be broadcast.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. That was the 8th of July, and now we are showing the document

13 dated the 13th of July, and you'll probably remember that.

14 I see. This has already been admitted under a P number.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch the number.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Do you remember that on that day, on the 13th of July, it says

18 that there was a computer problem. It says that the computer drive is

19 barely alive, kept alive. Yesterday we had to refresh it several times

20 with the NDD programme.

21 So on the 12th and 13th you had computer problems; right?

22 A. [No interpretation]

23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the witness

24 at all if he's not speaking into the microphone.

25 JUDGE KWON: Sir, could you speak into the microphone.

Page 26366

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evident from the report that

2 that's the way it was; right?

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Thank you.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.

6 JUDGE KWON: I think that has been admitted as part associated

7 exhibit.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, yes.

9 Thank you.

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Do you remember that you were asked, in another trial against a

12 Muslim general, audio recordings were requested from a group of you?

13 Do you remember that?

14 A. Maybe my command was asked about this, but I have no idea. No

15 one asked me for anything, nor could anybody have received anything from

16 me.

17 Q. Did someone from the Bosnian Ministry of Defence, for the

18 purposes of this court, for the defence of a Muslim general, did they ask

19 for recordings?

20 A. After I was demobilised in 1996, in April, immediately in the

21 beginning of April, apart from this Tribunal, no one ever asked me for

22 anything in any form.

23 Q. Thank you. And what about this Tribunal, or for the purposes of

24 this Tribunal, or upon orders of this Court. Did the Ministry of Defence

25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina ask you for specific recordings that had to do with

Page 26367

1 General Rasim Delic?

2 A. Mr. Karadzic, as you put this question to me, it looks as if I'm

3 supposed to have some kind of private collection of these recordings, and

4 I don't have any such thing. And there was no need for me to have that

5 kind of thing. So he could not have asked me for that kind of thing. I

6 mean, but he could have asked me, but he couldn't have received anything

7 because I don't have any such thing. Once we completed the recording and

8 the transcription and once the notebook and tape were sent to the

9 command, I'd never see that again, except when I came here and when

10 documents were shown to me, then I saw them. But as for the rest, I had

11 no contact whatsoever with any of that.

12 Q. Did the ministry contact you, though, in relation to that? Did

13 anybody talk to you about that?

14 A. From our state, from our side, whatever you say, no one was

15 really expressing any interest in our work. I mean, it was only the

16 Tribunal. No one ever -- well, I mean, at least I'm talking about

17 myself. I'm not speaking about others.

18 Q. Thank you. I agree, unfortunately.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D05213. Can we have a look at

20 that, please. Could it please not be broadcast.

21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Look at this. Ministry of Defence. It's the Ministry of Defence

23 that is writing to this OTP, and they are referring to a letter in which

24 they are being asked for co-operation, assistance in providing

25 information, and there's a specific reference. And then it says that

Page 26368

1 that was handed over, and that, obviously, they are repeating here as

2 well that they did not contact you to ask whether there was anything

3 else; right?

4 A. [No interpretation]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not hear the

6 witness.

7 JUDGE KWON: Sir, the interpreters were not able to hear you

8 again.

9 But, Mr. Costi, is there any reason not for broadcasting this

10 document?

11 MR. COSTI: Well, Your Honour, I'm not quite sure about it. I --

12 I don't think so. But --

13 JUDGE KWON: Very well --

14 MR. COSTI: -- let me get back on this.

15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Very well. We'll not broadcast this.

16 MR. COSTI: Yeah.

17 JUDGE KWON: Let's proceed.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I hear of

19 this and see this. Perhaps these organs did contact someone. I mean, I

20 see my own name and I see other names, other people. But I really have

21 no idea about any of this. No one had ever contacted me. Perhaps

22 someone provided something to someone else but then they did not consider

23 it necessary. I mean, after all, we had never recorded any conversation

24 here. I mean, the one that you're referring to here, about the general,

25 about this General Delic. Well ...

Page 26369

1 MR. COSTI: [Microphone not activated] [Previous translation

2 continues] ... I'm sorry, Mr. President, I might state the obvious,

3 but --

4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you say it's obvious. Thank you.

5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Are you saying that on the 22nd of July, 1995, the document that

7 is under this number, the third bullet point here, where there is a

8 reference to the names of the operators who intercepted the

9 conversations, you claim that there was no intercepted conversation then?

10 MR. COSTI: Sorry. I'm not sure if this is what the witness

11 actually said. I think he commented that he has no idea about the

12 document. He didn't ...

13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let me put it this way

15 then.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Do we agree that it was established here, document number such

18 and such, pertains to an intercepted conversation of General Delic's, and

19 what is being asked for is that persons who intercepted that conversation

20 should help in obtaining this, and the person's names are referred to

21 here?

22 So are you trying to say that there was no intercepted

23 conversation?

24 MR. COSTI: Sorry. Sorry, again. I don't think he's trying to

25 say that there wasn't a conversation. I think he said he has no idea

Page 26370

1 about the document itself. I'm sorry to interrupt again, but it's quite

2 clear.

3 JUDGE KWON: But he can answer that question as well.

4 Yes.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, see? I mean, I'm assuming

6 what it was that had happened. Number 1, that's my name and surname, and

7 it's stated that I'm a platoon commander. And since I've spent most of

8 my time in the first department -- I mean, rather, this is the first

9 department, and I was in the second department. And these are two

10 persons who had completely different jobs, and it's possible that during

11 their shift when I was not present they recorded that conversation. So

12 then they should be asked about this.

13 I'm just referred to here as the person in charge of that

14 platoon. I mean, I am not familiar with this, and that's why I'm saying

15 that I don't know about it. And, finally, well, yes, obviously this is a

16 document -- well, yeah, it's clear. I mean, I personally don't know

17 about this. But it's possible that these two men -- well, because the

18 other one was the commander of this first group, and the other one was

19 the other person who might have recorded that consideration.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. I'm interested in the following, and, of

22 course, you cannot give an answer to this question, but why did the

23 ministry not contact you? And why did they not ask for your assistance

24 in this regard? So they didn't; right?

25 A. They didn't.

Page 26371

1 MR. COSTI: Well, he has already answered, but clearly this is

2 call for speculation from the witness, and I object.

3 JUDGE KWON: Let us proceed.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

5 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I'm -- I mean, it was discussed by the

6 witness. I'm not sure he provided basis for admission of this document.

7 And I know other witnesses will come discussing the chain of custodies of

8 all these intercepts, and might be the proper course of action, I think,

9 going through those witnesses.

10 JUDGE KWON: You do not challenge the authenticity of this

11 document, do you?

12 MR. COSTI: I do not.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE KWON: As indicated by Mr. Costi, we'll not admit this

15 document through this witness. This witness didn't testify anything

16 about this document.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe I should have objected before

18 your decision. The witness testified that he had not been contacted.

19 And we have this problem with Bosnia-Herzegovina that is not

20 co-operating, and avoiding giving any documents.

21 JUDGE KWON: You'll have another opportunity to tender this

22 document through another channel, other witnesses who can testify --

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... to this, or

25 through a bar table motion.

Page 26372

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 MFI D2024, could we now have that. D2024, MFI.

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Witness --

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Actually, can this please not be

6 broadcast.

7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. -- do you recognise the document; and is this your handwriting?

9 A. Mr. Karadzic --

10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can no longer hear the

11 witness.

12 JUDGE KWON: Could you speak to the microphone, please.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

14 Mr. Karadzic, this is not my handwriting. And this is not a

15 document that I'm familiar with.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Thank you. Can you see the designations? Is it from your

18 location? What is this 7-8 -- well, the figure there.

19 A. 785 is the frequency of the radio relay station. 785 megahertz.

20 1305 is the hour. Based on the text alone, I can't say where it's from.

21 You need to show me the file in the computer and then we can see based on

22 that.

23 So notebooks were working material frequently without the date,

24 only frequency and time. That is to say, the things relevant for the

25 typing up in the computer. This was quite regular in notebooks.

Page 26373

1 Q. Thank you.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at 65 ter 35027,

3 page 84. I believe it was presented by the Prosecution, but I'd like us

4 to see page 85 in particular.

5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go down the page.

7 Page 85 -- 84 in e-court and in the document.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Have a look. Is this the usual way how it was transcribed,

10 especially where it says "Karadzic," here, give me the command post at

11 Kusic's?

12 A. I can see it, yes. It seems that you are speaking. Karadzic is

13 here. Give me the command post at Kusic's.

14 So you introduced yourself to Kusic. Well, now it's gone. Put

15 General Mladic on the phone. And then the answer is: General Mladic is

16 away.

17 Then you seem to say: Very well. Tell Mladic that I approved

18 UNHCR participation in Karakaj in the evacuation of population.

19 So you wanted them to tell Mladic you had approved their

20 participation in the evacuation of civilians in Karakaj.

21 Q. Was this the usual way it was noted down, and was it noted down

22 literally? Or is it an interpretation? Is it direct speech or simply an

23 interpretation?

24 MR. COSTI: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I'm

25 not sure the witness has taken or written down this note, so I'm not

Page 26374

1 quite sure he's in a position to answer. But we can see. Just to say

2 that it's not -- he hasn't recognised his handwriting here, but ...

3 JUDGE KWON: He was a commander of a platoon and then he can

4 answer as far as he knows.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that this is not my

6 handwriting. Mr. Karadzic did not even ask me whether this transcript

7 was mine. She [as interpreted] wanted me to read it, and I did.

8 It contains sufficient information that the operator who recorded

9 it could sit behind a computer and type it, because in the computer there

10 is the reference to the unit and other data, such as the date. In

11 notebooks, for the most part, you will find conversations recorded in

12 this fashion without a date. It was working material.

13 You asked me in my testimony if we would do it differently. If

14 we were to do it again, we would try to put all information in, including

15 first and last names, but this is how we worked at the time, and it was

16 enough. What is important is what was noted down. I guarantee, although

17 I didn't write it, I can pretty much guarantee that this is how you put

18 things, this is what you said, and the operator noted it down as such.

19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. If I told you that this is page 84 of a larger collection, do you

21 believe that one of the previous pages could contain a date? We see the

22 time here, but could the date be on one of the previous pages?

23 A. Well, you see, if you leafed through the notebooks, every two or

24 three days you could come across a date inserted by an operator, although

25 it was not necessary. And then, based on the time of conversation, one

Page 26375

1 can go back to it. And if there was a need to list it according to date,

2 it was always easy to do, if anyone needed it. To us, it was not

3 important. Once the file was open in the computer, it received its date,

4 et cetera. And as for this, it was working material, much as the papers

5 we burned. But, in the end, I'm glad we didn't burn the notebook; at

6 least not all of them.

7 Q. So we go back to the issue of: If you had known it would be used

8 by the Tribunal, you would have done it differently; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you, Witness.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I have no

12 further questions of the witness. I seek to tender this page separately

13 as a D exhibit.

14 JUDGE KWON: Since we admitted that entire notebook for limited

15 purpose, i.e., just for purpose of reference, in order to admit this I

16 think we need English translation.

17 I take it that Prosecution has it, this page.

18 MR. NICHOLLS: I've been looking for it, Your Honour, trying to

19 find it. I believe we do have a translation of this. I'm sorry I don't

20 have it at my fingertips yet.

21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. There's a point of admitting this page 84

22 separately. We give the number for -- D number for this.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2202, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE KWON: Since the authenticity has been resolved, there's no

25 need to mark it for identification, Mr. Robinson. This page.

Page 26392

1 Q. Thank you. Did you know, did you observe, that the centre we

2 mentioned in private session was turned into a prison, and a certain

3 number of Serbs were held in detention there?

4 A. I know that part of that centre was turned into a prison. And

5 it's not just that a certain number of Serbs were detained there, but

6 some members of the Territorial Defence were also detained there for

7 various errors they had committed or various misdemeanours.

8 Q. Thank you. How many Serbs were there in your municipality,

9 let's, say, in 1993? And how many Serbs are there in your municipality

10 today?

11 A. Well, I can't really provide you with such information. I can't

12 really tell you how many of them there were in 1993. There were some

13 there at the time, and there are some there today, but I don't want to

14 provide any figures off the top of my head.

15 In any event, there are fewer of them there now than there were

16 in 1990 and 1991.

17 Q. Thank you. So can we agree that there are far fewer of them now?

18 The census shall be carried out very soon.

19 A. The census will show what the situation is.

20 Q. According to what you know, where were the Serbs in your

21 municipality? Where did they live, where did they go?

22 A. I don't know where they went. Many Muslims went. Many Croats

23 left as well, to various parts of the world. In my municipality, there

24 are many Muslims of -- who are now in America, in the Netherlands, who

25 are in countries all over the world. I also have Serb friends who are

Page 26393

1 all over the world, and I still have contact with them to this very day.

2 Q. Thank you. So did a lot of Muslims really leave your

3 municipality as well?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could you tell us why. It's not Serbian territory, it wasn't at

6 the concentration line, so in that case why did the Muslims leave and go

7 to other places throughout the world?

8 A. Well, why? I can just provide you with one example. At the

9 beginning of the war, many people sent their families, their women and

10 children, wherever possible. And later, when they established contact,

11 the others left too. In other words, the families would be reunited.

12 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask you whether there's any specific reasons

13 for you not to start with issues relating to intercepts? Otherwise,

14 given the limited time, I would like you focus on those more critical

15 issues.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I will

17 keep my promise to complete my cross-examination today. But we seldom

18 have the opportunity to listen to a decent man from a Muslim background

19 who will testify to what he experienced and saw, and this is certainly

20 something that will be of assistance to the Chamber.

21 Very well. We will now move on to other issues.

22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Just one other question. The number of the Serbs diminished.

24 What about the number of Muslims? Did it increase or diminish, and where

25 did they go?

Page 26394

1 A. Well, as I have said, I can't provide you with any concrete

2 information, but I can express what my opinion is. It's a town that I

3 live in, after all. I think the number of the Muslims increased. The

4 number of Muslims from Srebrenica, Bratunac, and other places increased.

5 Q. Thank you. When did they start arriving in (redacted) Was it

6 immediately prior to the war -- immediately prior to the war? Did some

7 people leave and some arrive?

8 A. Not immediately prior to the war. It was around 1995.

9 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak up a

10 little bit. The interpreter is having trouble hearing him.

11 JUDGE KWON: Either you could come closer to the microphone or

12 speak up a bit louder. The interpreters seem to have difficulty in

13 following you.

14 Thank you, sir.

15 Thank you --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

17 JUDGE KWON: -- Mr. Karadzic. Please continue.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Costi do we need a redaction at line 11 or

20 line 10?

21 MR. COSTI: Where the name of municipality was cited. And, yeah,

22 I was about to stand up and mention it.

23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 26395

1 Q. Now I'd like to ask you something about the reasons for which you

2 are here, the main reason for your presence here.

3 In your statement, on page 2, paragraph 6, you said that you

4 intercepted communications at the level of the VRS Corps and you

5 deciphered or decrypted these communications; is that correct?

6 A. That's not what I said. We did intercept conversations. We

7 recorded them on a tape and then we transcribed them in a log-book. But

8 there was a different service that was involved in decryption. It was in

9 the room next to our room. They were very close to us.

10 Q. Very well. Thank you. When I said that, I had your service,

11 your department in mind, not yourself personally. So you could decrypt

12 encrypted communications at the level of VRS Corps; is that correct?

13 A. Yes. In fact, is there something that I could correct here?

14 When I record a conversation and transcribe it in a notebook, I

15 then handed the conversation over. It would be typed out. And that is

16 where my work finished. I don't know what would subsequently be done.

17 Q. Thank you. In the summary, you said that you received orders.

18 Does this mean that you worked in accordance with the orders from the

19 army and for the benefit of the army?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. As part of the ordering process and issuing of tasks,

22 did any court or judicial organ take part in it, such as an investigating

23 judge or someone else?

24 A. I received orders from my platoon commander. I don't know who he

25 received his orders from. I suppose from his company commander or

Page 26396

1 someone higher up.

2 In any case, I received my orders from him or, in his absence,

3 from the company commander.

4 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the channels and levels and

5 participants were determined -- well, what was it that your superior

6 command determined? What was it that they ordered and that you could not

7 change?

8 A. Orders I received always included antenna position, frequency -

9 and this goes for the RRU-800 device. So we received an order containing

10 the direction, such as south-east, and frequency. Then we would turn our

11 antennae and scan the channels which were pre-set in the device. If

12 there was any communication, we recorded it.

13 Q. Thank you. How many channels did the RRU-800 have, and what was

14 the distance it can cover, the range?

15 A. The RRU-800 had a maximum of 24 channels. As for its range, I

16 don't know that. It wasn't part of my job. I was just an operator

17 involved in the technical part of the whole operation.

18 Q. Thank you. I was waiting for the interpretation, and I would

19 kindly ask to you do the same.

20 A. No problem.

21 Q. When the scanner picked up something or when you would hear that

22 there was some activity on a particular channel, you stopped the scanning

23 process and returned to the channel in question in order to record.

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. In the meantime, was it customary or understood that you would

Page 26397

1 lose the very beginning of a conversation?

2 A. It all depended on when we registered a conversation on a

3 particular channel. Sometimes we could even get to the very beginning of

4 the conversation; whereas, sometimes we could get to that channel towards

5 the end of the conversation, sometimes in the middle. It all depended.

6 Q. Thank you. Were you under an obligation to identify the

7 participants and to send information to your users, to your commands,

8 about the participants?

9 A. If the participants could be identified, we did that. If not, we

10 didn't identify them. Then we would put a dash or an X or a letter,

11 depending on the number of participants.

12 Q. Thank you. How did you identify them? Did you wait until they

13 introduced themselves, or did you apply certain recognition methods?

14 A. I can only discuss my work and the work of my shift.

15 What was the method of recognition? We identified participants

16 according to the way they introduced themselves. It rarely happened,

17 although it did happen, that we would recognise people. But it happened

18 seldom. I don't know how to explain that. When you have been listening

19 to a voice for a few days and you recognise the tone modulations. Or,

20 for example, when I speak to my wife on the phone, the moment I hear her

21 voice I know it's her, if you understand my point. But this did happen

22 seldom. Usually the participants introduced themselves.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us something about the way of decoding

24 and the codes used by the VRS at corps level?

25 A. I really can't say anything about that. That was not my job.

Page 26398

1 Q. Thank you. Could you, and with what devices, locate the

2 participants? Could you tell where they were?

3 A. My job was not to locate the participants. Once I received an

4 order, I had to implement it. It meant turning the antenna and operate

5 the device. I had to duly work and scan and record and then transfer

6 into a notebook correctly.

7 Another service was in charge of identifying, so I really can't

8 say anything about that.

9 Q. Thank you. What is the working or frequency range of the

10 RRU-800?

11 A. Well, the frequency range, I don't know it off the cuff. But

12 between 600 and 800 megahertz, I think. Once I left that position, I no

13 longer worked with such matters, so I cannot be sure.

14 Q. Thank you. And what about the RRU-1? How many channels and what

15 is the frequency range?

16 A. As far as I recall, the RRU-1 worked between 180 and

17 300 megahertz. It did not have channels. It scanned in terms of

18 frequency volume. It simply went up and down the frequency range.

19 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that besides recording there was also a

20 noting down of conversations live?

21 A. Could you please repeat the question? It's not clear.

22 Q. Did you and your soldiers write down conversations?

23 A. Do you mean without any recording?

24 Q. Instead of recording.

25 A. In my shift, that never happened. We had a procedure in place

Page 26399

1 that we had to abide by.

2 Q. What about the other shifts, as far as you know?

3 A. I don't want to discuss other shifts. I don't know.

4 Q. Let me ask you about the first half of July 1995.

5 Were you in the facility beginning with O?

6 A. I think I was.

7 Q. What sort of communication did you follow? Only Serbs? Or

8 Muslim as well?

9 A. At that time, we monitored only one RRU-800 direction, as well as

10 RRU-1, which was the Serb direction or channels.

11 Q. Thank you. What were the frequencies used for the communication

12 of members of the 28th Division? And did you record any of that?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So any electronic insight you could have of events in and around

15 Srebrenica in the course of those few days came solely based on the

16 communication of the Serb army; correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Did you, and in what way, learn about the decision

19 for the 28th Division not to surrender but to fight its way out to Tuzla?

20 A. I have never heard of that.

21 Q. Thank you. By listening to Serb radio traffic, could you see

22 what the intensity of fighting was and the number of losses in that

23 period?

24 A. You see, a lot of time has passed. While I was up there, while I

25 listened to some conversations, I was appalled. I couldn't believe what

Page 26400

1 was being done. But, now, 17 years later, I really can no longer recall

2 some of the things, especially if I did not work on them directly. I

3 can't even remember many things that I worked on, which is quite a normal

4 thing after such a long time.

5 Q. Thank you. As part of your work, could you monitor my

6 communication with someone? And do you recall anything of that sort that

7 you recorded or wrote down?

8 A. I recall a conversation which involved you and an intermediary.

9 However, there were also many cases when I was not at work when your

10 conversations were intercepted. However, I was not involved in that, so

11 I can't say anything about it. You should ask the person who intercepted

12 it and recorded it.

13 Q. Thank you. Are you discussing the conversation on the

14 13th of March, at some time, between the late Miroslav Deronjic and

15 myself through an intermediary? Was that the conversation?

16 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just wonder whether

17 Mr. Karadzic got the date wrong, because I believe it wasn't the

18 13 of March. That conversation was discussed in other session in this

19 court before.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we discuss it in open session?

21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. But I -- probably it's a type or misspelling,

22 misspoke of 13th of July, not March.

23 Yes, let's continue.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise. My eyes

25 fooled me. Because I know that on the 13th of March the witness

Page 26401

1 corrected something which has to do with the 13th of July.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Are you referring to a conversation in which Deronjic and I could

4 not communicate directly as we could not hear each other; it all went

5 through an intermediary who conveyed his messages to me and the other way

6 around?

7 Is that the only conversation involving me that you recorded?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do we agree that lately you have corrected your previous

10 statement, where you said you thought I was in the same room with the

11 intermediary; whereas, in the notebook --

12 MR. COSTI: Sorry to step in.

13 I would like to see the cite for the witness saying that -- that

14 he was in the same room. I don't think this was said by the witness, as

15 far as I recall.

16 But if you could get a cite, maybe that clarify the matter.

17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can have a look at

19 65 ter 31036C.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. In that intercept:

22 [In English] "The intermediary and Karadzic are sitting in the

23 same room."

24 [Interpretation] Could we have a look at that?

25 JUDGE KWON: Do you withdraw your objection, Mr. Costi?

Page 26402

1 MR. COSTI: I believe my objection was about the cite, and I'm

2 not sure whether the witness ever testified about that. He's reading an

3 intercept and ...

4 JUDGE KWON: Oh, right. So, for clarity, why don't we upload it

5 and let's show it to the witness.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that's not it. Can we

7 see the page following this one? Just one moment. A and C. In the

8 printed intercept, it says C.

9 Actually, can we have a proofing note, 1D05199.

10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I see it on page 4 in English. And it's

11 2010 hours. So in B/C/S ... page 4 as well.

12 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, just to make clear, my -- Mr. Karadzic

13 said, at page 81, lines --

14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I understood.

15 MR. COSTI: Perfect. I'm sorry.

16 JUDGE KWON: We're -- we see here, in the parentheses,

17 "Intermediary and Karadzic are sitting in the same room."

18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Have you made a correction in the proofing note two days ago?

20 A. As for the typed version, I don't want to discuss it at all. I'd

21 like to see the original, the handwriting version, the one I noted down

22 by listening to the tape. And then we can compare it with this one. I

23 didn't write this.

24 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this, given your profession: Would it

25 have made sense to be in the same room with the intermediary and let him

Page 26403

1 listen to the collocutor and convey my words, or would it have been more

2 logical to conclude that both I and the other participant were far aware

3 and we had no direct means of communication?

4 A. I don't want to discuss the text before me. I would like to see

5 my own transcript, and that is what I can discuss. If possible.

6 Q. I apologise. Then we're going to take a look and see whether we

7 have it here. Just a moment, please.

8 I think that it could be 65 ter 31036.

9 Does the content sound familiar?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you did record this; right?

12 A. Yes.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 31036A. Let

14 us not have this broadcast.

15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Is this familiar?

17 A. This is very familiar. As you can see, up here it is not written

18 at all that you were sitting in a common room. This is what I wrote, and

19 this is the only thing that I can discuss, and I do not wish to discuss

20 other matters.

21 Now, why it is written the way it is written over there, that is

22 not my problem.

23 Q. Thank you. So it could happen that something that exists in the

24 typewritten version is not in the handwritten version; right?

25 A. Well, well, perhaps I should put it this way: that in the

Page 26404

1 typewritten version there are things that are not in the handwritten

2 version.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the handwritten version be

5 admitted, please.

6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

7 JUDGE KWON: I think it's already admitted as part of associated

8 exhibits.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will do as well. But I meant

10 because of the correction.

11 JUDGE KWON: You meant to tender that proofing note?

12 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

13 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry to interrupt. That's about the third

14 time. The witness has not made any correction to his statement, as keeps

15 being put to him. The witness noticed a discrepancy between the

16 handwritten version and the printout. That is not the witness making a

17 correction to his statement.

18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's -- that's clear, Mr. Nicholls.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then have 1D05199. I find

20 this confusing. If he hadn't corrected it, how can the proofing note ...

21 JUDGE KWON: It's not that he corrected. He indicated the

22 discrepancy. We will see.

23 We'll not broadcast this.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says:

25 [As read] Participated in the proofing and [In English] witness

Page 26405

1 made the following comment about intercept A and C. The printout

2 intercept 31036C indicates in the heading that the intermediary and

3 Karadzic are sitting in the same room, while the notebook version he

4 wrote ... does not have the information.

5 JUDGE KWON: That's what he said.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to tender this

7 proofing note, please.

8 JUDGE KWON: Well, whether it's necessary, I'm not sure. But I

9 don't see any problem in admitting this.

10 Yes, we'll give number. And we'll put it under seal.

11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2203, under seal, Your Honours.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Witness, did you get the impression, or, rather, did you have

15 any insight, did you talk to your colleagues, about the level of

16 fighting, the level of losses during that week? Between Srebrenica and

17 Kalesija, Srebrenica and Tuzla?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Witness, if you were to have the same task again,

20 would you propose certain changes in the methodology involved; and if, so

21 what would you suggest should be improved?

22 A. Well, that's a relative question. If I had the same task, you

23 know what I'd change? The only thing that I would change, I'd issue an

24 order to my men to write very, very legibly and clearly. That would be

25 number one.

Page 26406

1 I have to tell you that everything that we recorded and

2 everything that we received, we did all of that to help the

3 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is to say, our own command. Not at any

4 point in time could I have imagined that it would have come to where it

5 is now. If I were to be doing this again, we would strictly pay

6 attention to that, because probably we would assume that this would

7 arrive here. And then I would have kept the notebooks and the tapes and

8 everything in order to make all of this easier.

9 That's the only thing I would change, from the point of view of

10 my own job and the tasks involved in my job description.

11 Q. In that case, if it were to be used by a court of law and for

12 those purposes it would have been more complete and more accurate. Is

13 that what you're trying to say?

14 A. Yes.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.

19 Yes, Mr. Costi.

20 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, we don't have further questions.

21 JUDGE KWON: Very well.

22 Sir, that concludes your evidence. On behalf of my colleagues

23 and the Tribunal as a whole, I would like to thank you for your coming to

24 The Hague get again to give it. Now you are free to go.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank this Court.

Page 26407

1 And I am very pleased if I managed to be of any assistance to have this

2 case resolved in a positive or in a negative sense.

3 Thank you.

4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

5 Yes, Mr. Costi.

6 MR. COSTI: Just one -- we discussed about the --

7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Let us wait.

8 MR. COSTI: Okay.

9 [The witness withdrew]

10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Costi.

11 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, we submit that this particular intercept

12 we just discussed should be admitted into evidence right now. The reason

13 being that -- we are fully aware that 89(C) requires the evidence to be

14 of probative value and also relevant, but I would say there is no real

15 discussion here as whether this evidence is relevant or not. The

16 relevance is it appears quite clear and it was discussed to full extent,

17 which is Mr. Karadzic's involvement in the events of those days.

18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.

19 MR. ROBINSON: We don't dispute the relevance of that intercept.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE KWON: Well, I was thinking about more some comprehensive

22 resolution, but given the situation, we'll admit this in ... in full.

23 65 ter 31036.

24 Shall we continue, or shall we adjourn for the week?

25 MR. TIEGER: I believe the latter, Mr. President. I think the