1 Monday, 11 December 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, ma'am. The accused are all

10 here. I see Mr. Josse isolated today, on his own.

11 MR. JOSSE: Mr. Krgovic, Your Honour, is going to be here later.

12 He's gone to the Serbian embassy to try to sort out our client's

13 provisional release.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

15 The rest, I see, are all here. The rest are all here. Okay.

16 Prosecution is Mr. Vanderpuye and Mr. McCloskey. And I think we can

17 safely start. The witness is already in the courtroom.

18 I just wanted to check with you, Madam Registrar, that he's got

19 facial distortion and pseudonym only.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: That's all. All right. And his number will be?

22 THE REGISTRAR: PW-140.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

24 So good morning to you, sir, and welcome to this Tribunal. You

25 are about to start giving evidence as a Prosecution witness. Our rules

1 require that before you do so, you enter a -- make a solemn declaration

2 that you will be testifying the truth. Madam Registrar is going to give

3 you the text of the solemn declaration. Please stand up. Read that

4 solemn declaration aloud and that will be your undertaking with this

5 Tribunal.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

7 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

8 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-140

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Please make yourself

11 comfortable. Take a seat. You may have been -- you may have followed

12 what I said earlier, that Prosecution sought on your behalf two protective

13 measures. Namely, your name will not be used, we will use a pseudonym;

14 and no one will be able to see your face outside these four walls. You

15 have, I suppose, been informed about these protective measures.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And I just wanted to have confirmation from you that

18 you are satisfied with this arrangement.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm satisfied.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. First that will be Mr. Vanderpuye who

21 obviously you will have met already who will examine you in chief and he

22 will then be followed by the various Defence teams in cross-examination.

23 Mr. Vanderpuye.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours,

25 ladies and gentlemen, counsel. At this time I'd like the pseudonym sheet

1 please presented to the witness. It's P02318. Please, thank you.

2 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

3 Q. Mr. Witness, good morning.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. Would you please have a look at the document in front of you, and

6 without telling us what it says can you confirm that you are the person

7 named in it, please.

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Would counsel like to have a look at the

10 document, if necessary?

11 May I inquire, Mr. President?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead. That document will go straight under

13 seal and will be preserved in that condition.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

15 Q. Witness, do you recall giving testimony -- giving a statement to

16 the Office of the Prosecutor that you signed on the 18th of November,

17 1999?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. And was the statement that you gave at that time truthful?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Have you had an opportunity prior to today to read your statement?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you read the statement in your native language?

24 A. Yes, in my native language.

25 Q. And was that the language in which you originally gave the

1 statement?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And what language is that?

4 A. It's Bosnian.

5 Q. And are you satisfied that the statement you read was correct and

6 accurate?

7 A. Yes, I am.

8 Q. And does the statement, as you read it, fairly and accurately

9 reflect your declaration or what you said?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And does the statement fairly and accurately reflect what you

12 would say were you to be examined here today?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: At this time I would offer the statement into

16 evidence. It is P02317 for the record.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. And obviously that also

18 will go under seal.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have also a very

20 brief 92 ter summary that I would like to read into the record with the

21 Court's permission.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Private session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 5287-5289 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Open session]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now.

16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment. Now.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE:

19 Q. Witness, I just want to draw your attention to your work with the

20 radio relay unit in the army after July 1995, or from July 1995 forward.

21 Now, with respect to that work, can you tell us briefly what

22 procedures, if any, you followed with relation to recording intercepted

23 communications?

24 A. When you're taping intercepted conversations or communications,

25 there was a standard procedure. At a certain frequency, a given

1 frequency, which would be provided in an order, we would scan specific

2 channels, 24 channels. The channels where we picked up some activity

3 would then be monitored.

4 From the point in time when an activity was picked up at a certain

5 channel, when the scanning stopped, that was the moment when the tape

6 recorder was turned on. They were mostly UHER tape recorders. That's

7 when you would depress the pause, when the conversation began. If the

8 conversation was interesting, if there was any information there that was

9 useful to us, for the purposes of defence, those conversations would be

10 adequately conveyed or transferred to the operations work book which was

11 in front of us on the desk.

12 Then the work book, depending on the type of the conversation or

13 its urgency, would be used by another man to retype the conversation and

14 then it would be sent to the corps command through a Paket connection. If

15 the conversation was not that important, during the day, then all the

16 conversations would be retyped and sent to the corps command. That was

17 the standard procedure.

18 Q. And is that the procedure that was followed by you at the location

19 at which you worked?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And was that a procedure that was communicated to you by your

22 superiors for you to follow in the facility in which you worked?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And it was a standard protocol that was followed by the intercept

25 operators in the facility in which you worked?

1 A. That should have been the standard protocol. I can only talk

2 about the standard protocol during the shifts when I was on duty. The

3 shifts that I was on duty or that my people covered, that was the standard

4 protocol in such cases, yes.

5 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review a packet of ten intercepts

6 that I presented you with in my office sometime ago?

7 A. Yes, I did have the opportunity.

8 Q. And in particular, did you review the handwritten material that

9 was contained in the packet?

10 A. I did.

11 Q. Did you recognise the handwriting?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is that handwriting yours?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did you recognise in addition to the handwriting any signature or

16 mark at the end of the handwritten material?

17 A. At the end of each of the handwritten document was my signature.

18 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the originals of the

19 handwritten material that you were presented with?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you have an opportunity to compare the originals to the

22 photocopies that are contained within the packet?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. And did you satisfy yourself that the photocopies conformed to the

25 original versions of that handwritten material?

1 A. The photocopies absolutely conform to the original versions.

2 Q. With respect to the handwritten material, was that material that

3 you prepared during the course and scope of your job at the facility in

4 which you worked back in 1995?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And do the -- does the handwritten material [Microphone not

7 activated] was the handwritten [French translation coming over English

8 channel]?

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the interpreters are trying to --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the microphone was not on the right

11 channel.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- please Mr. Bourgon and Madam Fauveau. Is it okay

13 now?

14 Yes, go ahead, Mr. Vanderpuye, if you could repeat, please.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Please excuse me.

16 Q. Does the handwritten material -- was it prepared close in time to

17 the events that are recorded in it?

18 A. They were prepared very shortly thereafter.

19 Q. I'm not going to have you look at all the intercepts that you

20 reviewed but I would like to draw your attention to a couple of them, if I

21 may, the first of which is in tab 6.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll just orient the Court. Tab 6 is P01133 and

23 in particular I'm referring to the handwritten notebook entry 1133 C, if I

24 could have that just displayed for a moment to the witness. I'm just

25 going to have the English translation also put up on the screen for the

1 benefit of us.

2 Q. Can I draw your attention to the top of the left document? Just

3 have a read of that and let me know when you're finished with that,

4 Mr. Witness.

5 A. Will you please clarify what this pertains to?

6 Q. Talking about the very first recording on your left side, should

7 be on the screen, I was just asking you to refer to --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, sir.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.

11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

12 I just note that the translation that is up on the screen is a

13 translation not of the document that is on the left side. According to

14 what's on the screen, the translation is of the document 7820 and not

15 4841. If we could have the right translation with the right document it

16 would be -- then we can better compare the two.

17 Thank you, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Although I cannot read, of course, the text or

19 the handwriting on the left-hand side of the monitor, I do, however, see

20 that there is no part of that document which, on three subsequent lines

21 indicate the initials capital C:, X:, C: in that sequence. So there is

22 probably a problem here.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE AGIUS: But where is the X?

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think my esteemed counsel is correct. I think

2 what we are looking at here is a translation of the printout version of

3 the handwritten intercept. And for that reason I guess I won't offer this

4 translation as a translation of what's in the text. It's really kind of

5 to assist us through it. But I could have the witness simply just read

6 the written material into the record, if that would satisfy counsel.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think that would be extremely helpful.

8 Mr. Bourgon? I think we can proceed in that manner.

9 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, go ahead.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Q. If you would, Witness, if you can see that well enough, hopefully,

12 could you read the first intercepted communication that's indicated in the

13 page on your left?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Could you read it out loud, please.

16 A. "They didn't call here. You take the message. Question: Which?

17 Answer: They are looking for Jankovic and Popovic. Say that Jankovic

18 escorted these people to Kladanj and Popovic went with APCs towards

19 Konjevic Polje."

20 Q. Now, do you recall having transcribed this particular intercept?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And do you recall in substance what this communication relates to

23 or why it's important?

24 A. As one can see from this conversation, every little piece of

25 information was important for us. There is quite a lot of information in

1 this conversation. They were looking for Jankovic and Popovic. Jankovic

2 had escorted people to Kladanj and Popovic had gone with APCs towards

3 Konjevic Polje. At that time those were very important pieces of

4 information for us.

5 Q. And can you tell us why, if you can recall, why that information

6 was so important to you?

7 A. It was important because it had to do with the problems in

8 Srebrenica. Any information was important to us. Let me tell you once

9 again, in this conversation, they mention specific names and specific

10 needs.

11 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. I'd like to refer your attention to a

12 different intercept, if I could. That's behind tab number 10. And the

13 reference number is P01149. I'd like to have 1149C, please, displayed for

14 the witness.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand I have the same problem with this

16 translation as well, so I'll have the witness, if he could, read the text

17 of the handwritten material into the record as well.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you can move along the same lines as we

19 did.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: The idea, when I say let's proceed the same way we

22 did before, is point the excerpt or the part that you are interested in to

23 the witness and ask him to read it out aloud as he did in the previous

24 occasion.

25 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, unless there is a challenge on

1 the part of the Defence whether this is a correct translation we can move

2 on quickly.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. That's fine. I don't see that there is

4 one, so we'll proceed, I guess, along those lines.

5 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review this particular intercept,

6 Mr. Witness?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And do you recall having transcribed this particular intercept as

9 well?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And can you tell us why it was that you recorded this particular

12 intercept?

13 A. I don't think it needs to be explained. Whoever reads this

14 intercept will fully understand why it was recorded.

15 Q. Well, just for the purposes of the record, could you tell us why

16 it is that you recorded it?

17 A. Of course I can. In this intercept -- just a minute, yes. Let me

18 take a closer look at it.

19 In this intercept, they specifically mention -- or, rather,

20 indirectly mention the President of Republika Srpska, Karadzic, and that

21 alone makes it a very interesting intercept.

22 Q. In the intercept itself, you have a designation that's in quotes

23 referring to something that the president says and that is that all the

24 goods must be placed inside the warehouses before 12.00 tomorrow. And

25 that's specifically in quotes. Can you tell us why that's the case?

1 A. It's in quotation marks because they quote the specific words of

2 President Karadzic.

3 Q. Now, placing things in quotation marks, is that something that you

4 would normally do in order to attribute a given statement to a person

5 that's speaking?

6 A. I don't understand the essence of your question. Only the

7 quotation refers to specific words uttered by a person. Only that part

8 was put in quotation marks, as is the case here. This is a conversation

9 that President Karadzic had over an intermediary. These words: "All the

10 goods must be placed inside the warehouse before 12.00 tomorrow." These

11 words are in quotation marks precisely because these are the words of

12 President Karadzic. And apparently they are saying to him: "Deronjic,

13 this is what the president says," and then they give the words uttered by

14 him, and that's precisely why these words are in quotation marks.

15 Q. Thank you for that. Just bear with me one moment.

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have nothing further at this time, thank you.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

19 Have you decided about the roster that you are going to adopt?

20 Mr. Zivanovic, who is appearing for Colonel Popovic will go first. How

21 long do you expect your cross-examination to last, Mr. Zivanovic?

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think it will

23 take me more than half an hour.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please put on the screen

3 Exhibit 1133, introduced by the Prosecution, together with the

4 translation, which is tab 6?

5 THE REGISTRAR: 1133 A, B, C? Which one?

6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

7 00801481 -- actually, A and B.

8 Could you please scroll down a little bit? And could you

9 simultaneously put up B on the screen? Or even better, would you please

10 show B? I actually don't know if this is B or C.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose we need to know, however.

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] You're fully right, Your Honour.

13 I apologise.

14 Instead of the right-hand version, could we see the handwritten

15 version? Could we see the handwritten one, please? All right. That's

16 fine. Thank you. This is the version we saw earlier. Could we see

17 together with what we saw when the Prosecutor was questioning the witness?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. McCloskey draw my

20 attention to the fact that the prior -- well, what was displayed on the

21 screen previously had certain initials, and I wasn't aware of whether or

22 not it was being broadcast at this time but if it's not, then fine. If

23 so, then maybe there is something we can do.

24 THE REGISTRAR: It was not broadcasted.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for that, but I have a confirmation that

1 it was not broadcast. Let's somebody verify it for sure to make sure.

2 It's okay. All right.

3 So then provided we keep on using the same system, not

4 broadcasting documents unless you are specifically authorised to, I think

5 we can proceed with safety.

6 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. Tell us, please, in the English version, we see that the frequency

9 indicated is 785.000 megahertz. We can't see that in your original

10 notebook. So can you explain that for us, the reason to that?

11 A. Yes. Very easily. This is the frequency of the main wave. When

12 we receive an order, we receive it with a frequency and with a certain

13 direction. That means that this is the frequency to which we adjust our

14 radio sets and the direction to which we turn our antennas.

15 Q. You didn't understand me. I am not asking you about the

16 frequency. I'm just saying that it is not indicated in the original

17 notebook and can you please explain how come it is written in the

18 typewritten text but it is missing in the original notebook?

19 A. In the notebook, in certain intercepts, in certain conversations,

20 the frequency is not indicated.

21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, please, who entered this frequency?

22 Was it the typist from crypto protection?

23 A. I had absolutely no contact with the typist in crypto protection

24 department.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You are overlapping. You need to slow down a little

2 bit.

3 And, sir, when Mr. Zivanovic finishes his question, do not bump

4 straight into with your answer. Allow a very short interval of time,

5 because what is being said by both of you, who speak the same language, is

6 being translated to us. We don't know your language. We don't understand

7 it, so it has to be translated into English and into French. And if you

8 overlap, the -- some of the words will be missed by the interpreters. So

9 a brief pause between question and answer, please.

10 All right, Mr. Zivanovic, and witness. Go ahead.

11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.

12 Q. Can you please look at the original and give us the time of the

13 intercept that you discussed with the Prosecutor?

14 A. I can't see the beginning of the original version. Since this is

15 a copy, I can't see it. I see only minutes. But judging by the

16 conversation below, which was at 10.37, I would say that the previous one

17 was at 10.27.

18 Q. Thank you. Could we then agree that the time in translation

19 is 10.30?

20 A. 10.27.

21 Q. But if you look at the opposite side it says 10.30; correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at the signature at the bottom of

24 this conversation from the copy in this notebook. Is this your signature?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Are these your initials?

2 A. Yes, the beginning and the end of my last name.

3 Q. (redacted)

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the answer.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, the interpreters haven't heard the

6 witness's answer and that's because, still, you haven't heeded what I've

7 said and you are still overlapping.

8 The question was, first, there was one question, are these your

9 initials; and you said yes, and the end of my last name. And then

10 Mr. Zivanovic proceeded with another question, and we should redact

11 line 13, which was excuse me, and he referred you to your second letter.

12 Let's go into private session now for a while.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 5303 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 [Open session]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, while we were in private session,

17 Mr. Zivanovic for accused Popovic concluded his cross-examination. And we

18 have now -- we are now starting with the cross-examination of Mr. Ostojic,

19 lead counsel for Colonel Beara.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

22 Q. Good morning, sir. How are you?

23 Sir, I want to follow up on a couple of questions that you just

24 described for us here.

25 You say mostly -- on page 22, lines 7 through 9, just recently.

1 "Mostly we had two work posts or two stations."

2 Can you be a little bit more precise for me, sir, and identify

3 when in fact you had two work posts or work stations and when it increased

4 or decreased? And specifically if you can concentrate on the period of

5 June through August 1995 for me.

6 A. I cannot tell you that specifically. A lot of time has passed

7 since then. I don't remember. So I'm talking about what the equipment

8 was on the desk and when they were activated. I cannot tell you what they

9 were.

10 In any case, one RRU1 and one RRU800 were used. I don't know if

11 at specific times both of them were used simultaneously. That's something

12 that I cannot tell you right now.

13 Q. Anyway, my question wasn't clear enough. What I'm asking you,

14 sir, was there any time during the period of 1995 when you had more than

15 two work posts or two work stations?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. When?

18 A. I cannot give you an exact date. A lot of time has passed since

19 then. I cannot be certain about something that I'm not sure about. I'm

20 not sure when this work station was used, which month. It was used as

21 needed. It depended on the amount of the activity and if the work station

22 was needed.

23 Q. Well, can you direct me to someone who would know, sir? Do you

24 know any individual who today would know exactly how many work stations

25 you had in June through August of 1995 at that site?

1 A. This is something that the platoon commander would know.

2 Q. How about, sir, with respect to notebooks? On page 12, line 12,

3 you say in answer to my learned colleague's question, that you "had mostly

4 one notebook."

5 Can you be more precise and tell me in June through August of 1995

6 if you had at that time one or more notebooks at the site where you

7 worked?

8 A. One notebook.

9 Q. Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about the frequency. You

10 state on page 18, lines 21 through 23: "When we receive an order, we

11 receive it with a frequency of the main wave."

12 My question to you, sir, is: Did you ever scan the receiver or

13 mixer to find a frequency on your own or did you strictly comply with the

14 orders given to you and listen to only the frequency that you were

15 directed to listen to?

16 A. My assignment as squad commander, amongst other things, was to

17 scan frequencies from time to time because of some new radio relay nodes,

18 and because of something like that, we would not leave one post for

19 another. For example, the other work station was something that I often

20 used during the night to scan frequencies, not channels but frequencies.

21 Q. Sir, on page 10 today, lines had through 7 you told us: "If the

22 conversation was interesting, if there was any information that -- there

23 that was useful to us," you would record it; correct?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Can you tell me, sir --

1 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought he said something different, Your Honour,

2 but I'll ask him again. No or yes?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I heard you. The transcript reflected different answer, sir, so

5 I'm sorry, that's why I asked you again.

6 A. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, I'm sorry.

7 Q. Please don't apologise. Thank you.

8 Now, sir, can you tell me what training you have to determine what

9 information that you were intercepting would be deemed relevant?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm objecting to the question because it is kind

12 of unintelligible as it's written in the transcript, and I don't know what

13 my learned colleague means by deemed relevant, by whom and I don't

14 understand that question at all.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness has, throughout the examination-in-chief

16 [inaudible] questions from Mr. Zivanovic, explained why certain excerpts

17 were selected precisely because he said they were of interest. And what

18 is being -- he's being asked now is to explain whether he had any

19 training, obviously previously or at any time, which enabled him select

20 one excerpt from another, for relevance and importance purposes. This is

21 how I understand the question by Mr. Ostojic. He will correct me if I'm

22 wrong, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Thank you.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Did I understand your question, well, Mr. Ostojic?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Most definitely, Mr. President.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Then you perhaps can repeat it. If you

2 could kindly repeat it. I think the witness has understood exactly what

3 it is. If he can answer it, he can answer it straight away. If he needs

4 the question to be repeated, then we'll have it repeated.

5 MR. OSTOJIC:

6 Q. Sir, what training did you have to determine what information you

7 were intercepting would be deemed relevant?

8 A. I didn't have any specific training, but in the war situation, for

9 us, any information was important because we were not just working from

10 the station where I was working at. There were several different

11 locations where other groups were working. So we could put together a

12 mosaic from different kinds of information. So if I felt that some

13 information was worth something, I would record it.

14 Q. So it was on an individual intercept operator basis, if that

15 individual felt it was important, they would record it; if that individual

16 felt that it was not important, they wouldn't record it. Correct?

17 A. All information was record.

18 Q. Now when you say "recorded," just so that we can understand each

19 other better, you're saying that it was recorded in the handwritten

20 notebook; correct?

21 A. No. Everything that was intercepted at specific channels, there

22 was a standard procedure. There was a habit formed, you would depress the

23 pause on the tape recorder. Everything that we listened to would be

24 recorded. However, a lot of that was not of interest, so that was not

25 then transcribed into the notebook.

1 Q. Let's talk about those procedures, if you will, for a moment or

2 two. You stated in at least the summary that was read to us, that there

3 was an established protocol. Can you tell us if that was a written

4 protocol or an oral protocol?

5 A. It was an oral protocol.

6 Q. Did the protocol, sir, also discuss various shorthand descriptions

7 that you would make in your notebooks, such as quotation marks or dots or

8 dashes or identity of individuals?

9 A. I have to go back to the previous question, I'm sorry. The

10 protocol, as far as I was concerned, was an oral protocol. I don't know

11 if my platoon commander had a written order. However, the order and the

12 instructions were conveyed to me verbally, just like everything else about

13 brackets, dashes and so on.

14 Q. Well, share with us to the best of your recollection what the rest

15 of those protocols or procedures were, such as brackets or dashes. What

16 did they instruct you to do when you were maintaining these notebooks?

17 A. I don't understand what sentence was I -- how I was supposed to

18 answer.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please come closer to the

20 microphone. Thank you.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll explain the question, maybe break it down a

22 little bit.

23 Q. Sir, did your platoon commander instruct you as to how to use

24 certain abbreviations?

25 A. My platoon commander did not say anything about certain

1 abbreviations but about certain marks such as the question mark, three

2 dashes, parentheses, everything that is not heard that you're not sure of.

3 In that sense.

4 Q. All right. And those are the specific protocols I wanted to

5 discuss with you. Share with us to the best of your recollection what it

6 is that you were instructed with respect to all the "established

7 protocols."

8 A. I cannot define your question.

9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... break it down. Did your

10 platoon commander or anyone instruct you as to when you should put

11 quotation marks on any of the intercepted conversations?

12 A. No. That is something that you would already know based on what

13 you know of grammar.

14 Q. Did the platoon commander or anyone, sir, instruct you as to how

15 to identify, if you could not hear a second party to a purported

16 conversation, how would you designate that? Did he instruct you on that?

17 A. This was discussed, but nothing was specific. It depends on the

18 group that was noting it. Somebody would use one, two; somebody would use

19 X and Y to indicate unidentified speakers. Somebody wouldn't use anything

20 except for a dash.

21 Q. What, if any, instructions were you given relating to

22 conversations that you were unable to hear? What would be the

23 designation?

24 A. A whole conversation or a part of a conversation?

25 Q. We'll take both. Tell me what the protocol was for the entire

1 conversation and then tell me what the protocol was for a part of the

2 conversation.

3 A. A conversation that could not be heard wouldn't be in there, but a

4 part of a conversation that was inaudible but that was part of a whole

5 would have an explanation or there would be written in brackets that the

6 next part of the conversation could not be heard, if it was just a small

7 part of the conversation, a word or two or three words, you would make a

8 few longer dashes there. If something was unclear, if we were not sure

9 about a word but we sort of guessed that that was it but we were not 100

10 per cent sure, we would put a question mark in parentheses.

11 Q. Well, these question marks, sir, is it fair that they mean and

12 denote that an assumption is made in the context of the transcription

13 where there is some uncertainty; correct?

14 A. Just pertaining to a specific word.

15 Q. Did your platoon commander, sir, ever tell you that it would be

16 acceptable to go back in the notebook and to add a letter or to change

17 something in an intercepted conversation? Did he ever tell you that's

18 acceptable?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Would it, sir, be acceptable to do that, to change or alter the

21 purported participant in a conversation after you had initially made that

22 recordation in a notebook?

23 A. Not in my shift.

24 Q. Well, do you think, sir, that the other shifts had different rules

25 or established protocols that they followed? Different from your shift?

1 A. If you're asking for my opinion, I think that the rules were the

2 same, but I can speak only about my shift because that's when I was there

3 on the ground.

4 Q. Now, sir, I'd like to direct your attention to tab 8 [sic] that my

5 learned colleague from the Prosecutor discussed with you earlier this

6 morning. And that's the conversation that I think you told us you deemed

7 that it was important, and I think because you said it was the President

8 of Republika Srpska. Just directing your attention to that.

9 And with the Court's permission, if we could have that document

10 and the ELMO. Tab 10. I thought I said tab 10.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But in the transcript we had 8.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry, tab 10. You only used two, 3 and 10 so I

13 thought I had it.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. We've got it right now.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. If I can have that upon the ELMO,

16 please. If I can also have the English version which has the ERN ending

17 2586 next to it, please.

18 Doesn't look like the English version but there it is.

19 Q. Sir, I'm going to focus your attention on that quote that you made

20 with the quotation marks. You say: "All the goods must be placed inside

21 the warehouses between 12 noon."

22 And then I want you to tell us, sir, because in that statement you

23 said that that was something that the intermediary, I think as you put it,

24 relayed specifically the quotes from the president. But if you go -

25 scroll up a little bit, or if you do, sir, about five lines, it has

1 another colon. And then it says: "Deronjic: The president is asking how

2 many thousands?"

3 Do you see that? And if you can just reconcile for me, sir, why

4 you don't have quotes around that but you do on the lower one, just so I

5 can better understand this document.

6 A. I can explain. This part of the conversation at the top did not

7 seem to be a direct quotation to me.

8 Q. Sir, can you just tell me what classification you have as an

9 amateur radio operator? Is it C, B or A? What certification, not

10 classification.

11 A. Class B.

12 Q. Sir, I noticed in this tab 10 document that we are looking at that

13 you as an experienced and qualified intercept operator in July of 1995

14 intercepted a conversation where a speaker uses or cites numbers such as

15 thousands, or in fact 2 was used several times. And I note in the B/C/S

16 version, as we call it, that you had written out the number 2 or the

17 number thousands by spelling it out as opposed to using the numerical

18 number. Am I correct, sir, that that was a protocol that was established

19 in order to develop accuracy, specificity and clarity? Is that why you

20 did it?

21 A. No. That was just a habit of mine, simply, at that time.

22 Q. Is it fair, sir, to state that by writing the number out as

23 opposed to using numbers, that it does indeed make it more accurate, clear

24 and specific as to what the purported participant in a conversation may or

25 may not have said? Do you agree with that?

1 A. It's possible, even though I wasn't thinking about that at the

2 time but just about what I was listening to.

3 Q. Now, sir, if you would have written a number like a thousand,

4 1000, would you put a comma after the 1?

5 A. No, I wouldn't.

6 Q. Why not?

7 A. I just wouldn't. I don't know why but I wouldn't.

8 Q. Would you put a dot?

9 A. Maybe I would put a dot but maybe I wouldn't. I think it's just a

10 question of habit.

11 Q. That's fair. Sir, let me ask you this: If someone in an

12 intercepted conversation would have asked you as an experienced and

13 qualified intercept operator and you overheard a conversation and he

14 said, "3 to 500" how would you record that? How would you write it in the

15 book?

16 A. It depends on the situation where -- let's just clarify whether we

17 are talking about that time or now. The times are different.

18 Now a person is more at ease. At that time a person was quite

19 stressed. There was a lot of conversations. There was a lot of work. So

20 you do not pay attention to many things. What is important is to transfer

21 to the paper what is transcribed from the tape recorder, what was

22 recorded. So you can look and see here, not just in my case, that not

23 much attention was paid to grammatical mistakes because of the speed and

24 because many other things dictated by the circumstances.

25 Q. Don't misunderstand me, sir, I'm not criticising that you wrote it

1 out alphabetically. I'm just asking you, sir, given the fact that it was

2 quite stressed and there were a lot of conversations, am I correct, then,

3 that there could have been many mistakes that were made in writing down

4 the purported conversations that you were intercepting. Do you agree with

5 that?

6 A. No.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. He's answered it.

8 But Mr. Vanderpuye.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would just object to the question because it

10 really calls for speculation and something that's clearly outside this

11 witness's ken.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we fully agree with you. Unfortunately, he had

13 already answered and no damage done because he said no in any case.

14 So ... Okay?

15 MR. OSTOJIC:

16 Q. Well, sir, you still haven't answered my other question. I know

17 you're now at ease, and it's not the -- obviously and thankfully not the

18 same stressful situation where you were listening to many conversations.

19 But how would you record a conversation if a person said, "3 to 500." How

20 would you record that?

21 A. Depends on the situation. Perhaps I would put it down in letters,

22 three to five hundred, maybe I would just use numbers, maybe I would

23 put -- spell it out. It depends on the circumstances, on the situation.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just into private session for a couple more

25 questions?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Sure.

2 Let's go into private session for a while, please.

3 [Private session]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 MR. OSTOJIC:

12 Q. Sir, thank you very much. I have no further questions.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Mr. Ostojic. [Microphone not

14 activated].

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

17 Mr. Bourgon, we have a break in five minutes' time.

18 MR. BOURGON: Maybe it's better to wait until after the break, but

19 as the Trial Chamber sees fit I'm ready to begin.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We'll do what you feel is more convenient to

21 you.

22 MR. BOURGON: Then I prefer to wait until after the break,

23 Mr. President.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: If there is an area you can cover in five minutes,

25 then we can go on for the next five minutes. If not then we'll --

1 MR. BOURGON: Not really, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Shall we have a 30-minute break starting

3 from now, please.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:

9 Q. Good morning, Witness.

10 A. Good morning.

11 Q. I only have a few questions for you this morning, and I would

12 begin by asking you some clarification with respect to something that you

13 mentioned in your statement. If need be, I will -- I can show you your

14 statement. But you explained that in each squad, and you being the

15 commander of one of those squads, there were five to six members. Can you

16 provide us a bit more information as to how exactly it worked over a

17 24-hour period, how were those five to six members used?

18 A. Depending on the number of members within a squad, if there were

19 no fixed business hours, then we would create the schedule depending on

20 how tired people were, what their mood was. We would split the entire

21 day, the 24 hours of the day, so that all of the hours were covered. I

22 think we would split it in six hour segments, depending on the activities.

23 But mostly six hour segments when there were no numerous activities, and

24 if there were a lot of activities, then two people would work together.

25 And there were no fixed business hours. They would work until there was

1 work. So we would take turns, some people would go and rest and sleep,

2 which was quite normal.

3 Q. So I take it, then, that for any period of five to six hours, then

4 there would be one person that would be on duty? That would be correct?

5 A. One to two, because we had two devices, RRU1 and RRU800. In the

6 third shift, during the night, there would always be one person on duty.

7 Q. Thank you for that. I'm just trying to picture how the section

8 worked.

9 Now, you mention in your statement that sometimes you knew the

10 name of the participant and then that you would write it down. My

11 understanding is that that is when the name of the person was mentioned in

12 the conversation. Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And if a person used a false name or a wrong name in a

15 conversation, you would still write the name that you would hear?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You also mentioned that -- and I tried to quote your words, "If I

18 recognised the participant's voice, I would write it down."

19 Now, I just want, like to you clarify. When you say "recognise

20 the voice of the participant," that is because you heard the voice before?

21 Is that how you recognise those voices?

22 A. Quite naturally, I heard the voice. For example, let me explain.

23 If my wife were to call me on the telephone, she doesn't need to introduce

24 herself. I will know that that's her. So the voices that you hear

25 frequently, you recognise without a problem. That's quite natural.

1 Q. Let me clarify my question. If you're -- because you used the

2 exact example you just used, if your wife calls you, the first time she

3 calls you, you will recognise her voice. Is that so?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. But if it's a person that you don't know, it will take a few times

6 before you recognise the voice? If you can answer just for the sake of

7 the transcript.

8 A. The first time, when you hear a voice, you cannot recognise it.

9 But as you listen to that voice for a period of time, for example, if you

10 listen to that voice for an entire day, let alone for 22 or 23 months,

11 then quite naturally you recognise that voice without a problem.

12 Q. So that's what the purpose of my question, is that when you say

13 when "I recognised the voice," that recognition was based on hearing that

14 voice over and over again, and not on the fact that you knew the person?

15 A. Precisely so.

16 Q. Now, you also said in your statement that it was always necessary

17 to listen to a conversation several times. And just, if I go back to an

18 answer you also mentioned to my colleague the fact that there was lots of

19 stress and the fact that you had to listen to a conversation many times,

20 that was because it was not easy to fully grasp what those conversations,

21 the way they were recorded on that tape?

22 A. All of that depended on how it was recorded, depending on the

23 quality of the recording. In some cases, there was no need to listen over

24 and over again because the conversation was clear. And if there were any

25 dilemmas, whether what we heard was accurate or not, or whether something

1 was said quietly, then we would listen very carefully. Sometimes one of

2 the colleagues who were not present at work would be called in to help, so

3 that what was recorded in the notebook would be fully accurate.

4 Q. And I understand from when you had this meeting with my colleague

5 from the Prosecution, would I be correct in saying that sometimes you had

6 to listen to the tape as many as 20 times in order to transcribe the

7 conversation correctly?

8 A. Well, I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly how many times, but

9 sometimes it would be very many times.

10 Q. And when you called in a colleague who was not on shift to listen

11 to a tape to help you out, then after hearing both of you that tape

12 carefully, you would come to some kind of an agreement an as to what that

13 tape said. Would that be the normal procedure?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, when this procedure took place that you had to call somebody

16 else to give you some assistance, that was not indicated anywhere in the

17 transcript, whether it was one that you could listen the first time, one

18 that you could listen or transcribe after 20 times or one which you

19 required some help, that's not written on any of the -- of in your notes

20 in the notebook, is it?

21 A. No, it wasn't.

22 Q. And when after seeking the assistance of someone who was not on

23 shift or someone who was on shift, you were still not sure, then you

24 indicated in your statement that there was many ways that you could

25 indicate the fact that you could not hear what was on the tape. One of

1 those ways, and we'll go through the list of them, one of those ways was

2 you would put a question mark if it's a specific word that you could not

3 make out. Was that one of the ways?

4 A. A question mark would be placed only if we wrote a word but were

5 not fully certain of it. Only then would we place a question mark.

6 Q. And then, if you could not hear a person at all, sometimes you

7 would use -- you put dots?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was there any kind of a protocol concerning the number of dots, in

10 terms of the duration of the sentence or of the segment that you could not

11 hear?

12 A. We would put dots -- rather, there was no protocol. There was no

13 standard procedure, but based on the procedure that we were used to, we

14 would put dots only if we could not understand one to three words. If

15 there was a longer segment that was not audible, then we would write in

16 parentheses that that segment was not audible and then we would continue

17 transcribing what we could hear after that.

18 Q. And I also understand that in some cases, you simply left a blank.

19 Would that be correct to say?

20 A. I don't quite understand. What do you mean by "blank"? We would

21 always mark it in some way. We would either put dots or we would put in

22 parentheses that a certain section was not properly recorded or something

23 to that effect.

24 Q. Thank you. Now, having reviewed the intercepts that were

25 presented to us by the Prosecution, in some cases there are three dots, in

1 some cases there are more dots. And I'm talking about your own

2 intercepts. Was there a difference between three dots or five dots? Did

3 that make a difference to you?

4 A. The number of dots is completely irrelevant.

5 Q. So then it would be at least three words but could be more?

6 A. No. We would do it only if one to three words were not audible,

7 at least based on my experience.

8 Q. Now, just one last question in respect of this procedure: You

9 answered to a question of one of my colleagues that you thought that this

10 was a standard procedure but you could only tell for the people that were

11 on your shift. Now, I'd just like to know, did you ever verify what was

12 going on and how the others did the work or you simply gave the

13 instructions? I'll try to make my question more precise. Was there a

14 second verification with the notes produced by your colleagues on your

15 shift?

16 A. As far as I know, there was no second verification. All of us

17 there were volunteers.

18 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the intercept that was at tab

19 number 6, and I'll put the number. Tab number 6 would be Prosecution

20 Exhibit 1105 -- sorry, 1133. And I'd like to put on the e-court, if I

21 could, Exhibits C and B together, one side by side. Is that possible?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Can it be done?

23 THE REGISTRAR: It will be in a second, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

25 MR. BOURGON:

1 Q. Now, this was -- I would just like to direct your attention, if I

2 look at the one on the right, it is the conversation that was intercepted

3 at 10.30, and I compare that with -- on the left, a conversation at 10.30

4 is the first one on top and that is where you see the number 4841.

5 Now, I note from comparing these two that the first one does not

6 have the X, the first one being your handwritten one. It does not have

7 the X to indicate the person that is speaking. It does not have the

8 direction, and it does not have the frequency. Now, this was covered

9 already by my colleague, I'll just add another question on to that

10 difference, because you mentioned that you had no access to the typist,

11 and that was this morning on page 19, lines 4 to 9.

12 So I take it that given this difference and given the fact that

13 you had no access to the typist, my understanding would be, and I suggest

14 to you, that the typist had something more than your notes, than the

15 notebook, to produce the typewritten version. He must have had something

16 else in order to make it more complete. Would that be fair to say?

17 A. It seems that you didn't quite understand me when I said

18 previously, what I said. I did not have insight into his work. We

19 cooperated, but he was a member of another squad and he did his work.

20 Retyping the handwritten material was what he did and I was absolutely not

21 interested in his work.

22 We received frequencies in orders, and we would work on a

23 frequency until we received a new order. So, for example, we would work

24 on one frequency for as long as a month. So that in our version of

25 documents, in handwritten documents, we would only indicate the frequency

1 in the beginning and you can see it based on our documents, and following

2 that we would only be interested in channels because we already knew the

3 frequency. The frequency would be changed by way of orders so when a new

4 order would come we would change frequency and sometimes we would work on

5 one frequency for 15 days, 20 days or a month.

6 As for the difference in time, it is there because the recording

7 was taken off the tape at 10.27 and that means that within three minutes

8 it was retyped and forwarded. Based on that you can conclude yourself

9 that it was one of the very important intercepts, at least from our point

10 of view.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, looking at your statement, you mention in your

12 statement that: "When I began recording the conversation," now I quote

13 from the statement, "I would note the time, frequency and channel on a

14 separate piece of paper."

15 Was that separate piece of paper given to the typist or did you

16 keep it for yourself?

17 A. No. This piece of paper was not given to us. It was just there

18 to assist us. Since we would transcribe 2, 3, 4 intercepts

19 simultaneously -- or, rather, I apologise, we would record these

20 conversations simultaneously, and we could not record them in the

21 notebook, so all of us would have a piece of paper where we would note

22 something down, or, rather, we would note the timer on the tape recorder.

23 For example, we would say conversation number 1, the following

24 participants, from this number to this number, and then the next

25 conversation from this number to that number.

1 So this piece of paper was important to us only until we

2 transcribe the intercepts and recorded them in the notebook. Following

3 that it wasn't important at all.

4 Q. So that piece of paper was then discarded or burned or whatever?

5 But it was not given to the typist?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You mentioned earlier this morning that you would always sign the

8 intercepts after -- you put your signatures at the end of each intercept.

9 Now, I'd like to display on the e-court Exhibit 1102 Bravo.

10 And my question is simply: If an exhibit does not have your

11 signature, would that mean that it wasn't written by you?

12 A. In this portion that I can see, the intercept was not signed.

13 This is the intercept that I transcribed. This is my handwriting.

14 Now, as to why it wasn't signed, I can't tell you right now.

15 Perhaps I did this in haste. Perhaps I forgot to sign it. I really have

16 no explanation for this. All I can do is confirm that this is my

17 handwriting.

18 Q. So the fact that you did not sign it, as you mention, could be

19 because of haste or the stressful situation or because you were doing more

20 than one thing at the same time, and it would be normal in such a

21 stressful situation that sometimes you can forget a word or two?

22 A. No. That wasn't normal.

23 Q. Now, I'd like to take a look at tab number 5, and that is

24 Exhibit 1105, and if we can put on the ELMO 1105 Alpha and 1105 Charlie.

25 I said the ELMO, I'm sorry, I meant e-court.

1 THE REGISTRAR: We can have one on the ELMO and one in e-court

2 since we have two different documents.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Like we did last Thursday.

4 MR. BOURGON: So it's not possible to put them side by side on the

5 e-court, the A and the C, so if we can put maybe the Alpha on the e-court

6 and then the C, or Charlie, on the ELMO.

7 Q. Now, these are two versions of the same -- of the same intercept

8 and both of them are in English, so I will read the one that is on the

9 ELMO for you so that you can understand in your language.

10 It reads as follows. First it says the participants are X and

11 Lieutenant-Colonel Krsmanovic. And then the text of the intercept is:

12 "Conversation between unidentified participant X and Lieutenant-Colonel

13 Krsmanovic. X told him that he has only two buses. He can requisition

14 some without papers and an order. They have problems with fuel. They

15 don't have enough."

16 My first question, sir, is this appears to be -- to me to be a

17 summary of a conversation and not what the people said. Would you agree

18 with me?

19 A. This is the typed version, so I cannot really talk about that.

20 This is not my part. I would like to talk about only those intercepts

21 that are in handwriting.

22 Q. Then let's display 1105 Bravo, which is the handwritten version.

23 Okay. So on the -- you have the version that I just read to you,

24 and then you have beside the one that is handwritten. My first question

25 is simply that the handwritten version, this appears to me that you are

1 not quoting verbatim what was heard on the tape but that this is more a

2 description of a conversation. Would you agree with me?

3 A. I agree, in principle. This is just a summary. A part of the

4 conversation that lasted, I don't know how long, I can't really say, but

5 this is the interesting part, a small part of it was interesting. There

6 was no need to literally transcribe everything. There is just a brief

7 summary indicating specific details. The rest of the conversation did not

8 contain important information, as far as we are concerned.

9 Q. Thank you. Now maybe you can help me out because the two

10 translations that I have are not identical, and maybe you can tell me

11 which one corresponds to your handwritten version because in the first one

12 it appears we have one participant X and in the second it appears that we

13 have "they," as being more than one person. Which one corresponds to your

14 handwritten version?

15 A. The version without the participants is in my handwriting. This

16 is the part that was summarised. So you can see that there are no

17 specific participants but the other intercepts indicate how the

18 collocutors were marked. In the summaries, this isn't there. But again I

19 repeat I can only speak about the handwritten intercepts.

20 Q. The second thing I'd like to draw your attention to with respect

21 to your handwritten version is the fact that it would appear to say

22 that "they," whoever the participants are, cannot requisition buses

23 without having the proper papers. Is that what your handwritten version

24 says?

25 A. My version literally says: "Some cannot be requisitioned without

1 the papers, without the orders, they are having problems with fuel."

2 So some cannot be requisitioned without an order. Not all, just

3 some.

4 Q. Now, I won't ask you that question but I will simply draw the

5 attention of the Court to the fact that on the other document that we

6 have, which is a translation of the typed version, it says here: "He can

7 requisition some without the proper papers."

8 Now I'll just leave it at that and I'll keep it for further

9 arguments.

10 The other question I have for you, sir, is that in your

11 handwritten version, I take it says that there is none, like to say there

12 is no fuel. Is that the case?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm uncertain as to whether my learned colleague

15 is asking the witness to point out discrepancies in the translation. I

16 assume that that's the basis of it. I think that's a perfectly

17 appropriate thing to do, but the fact is that there are discrepancies in

18 the translation, as the witness has already testified to, and I don't know

19 that the witness is in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the

20 translation of the documents he prepared in person.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's -- Mr. --

22 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, the process was it went from

23 something that is listened to on a tape that is put into a notebook, that

24 then goes into a typed version, and then that it goes to a translation.

25 Now, we have two translations. A translation of the notebook and

1 we have a translation of the typed version. And they're different. So I

2 just want to make sure that I can correct with the witness, he can tell us

3 what he wrote down simply.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We have, as you may have noticed,

5 discussed this in a couple of seconds. We do agree that you should

6 proceed along the same lines that you have been doing, Mr. Bourgon.

7 MR. BOURGON: I'll keep it as short as I can, Mr. President.

8 Q. So my question, sir, was simply: Does your handwritten version

9 say that there is none, in terms of that there is no fuel?

10 A. My version says: "They have problems with fuel, there isn't any."

11 MR. BOURGON: So again, Mr. President I just note that the next

12 document the translation that we have of the typed version says that they

13 don't have enough and not that there is no fuel, and I will move on to my

14 next question which has to do with tab number 9.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. I think I can anticipate what

16 Mr. Vanderpuye is going to say.

17 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour, I think the issue is, if my

19 colleague wants to put the question to the witness, is to ask the witness

20 to compare what's in his notebook with what's in the printout since these

21 are the subject of independent translations, and if there is a discrepancy

22 between what's in the notebook and what's in the printout then that

23 perhaps would be more enlightening than asking the witness to compare

24 what's in his notebook with what's in a translation of another document.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President, if I could just add a

1 little background to this, it may be helpful.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: We -- and I may have said this before but we have

4 many times just translated -- because the printouts and the notebooks are

5 so close, many times there is only one translation. Sometimes there are

6 two. And CLSS is doing this and they don't always match and so we have

7 always provided the Defence with all versions of translations, just so to

8 be on the safe side.

9 But that's where the problem is. We are trying to reduce that

10 problem, and we appreciate the Defence, especially those that speak the

11 language, to identify those things for us. But that's the problem we are

12 having. And as this all these things get closer to a final product, we

13 hope to reduce those translation differences because it's just -- it's

14 just natural that there are.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I thank you, Mr. McCloskey. But on the same

16 score, wouldn't the information that the witness can provide be equally

17 helpful?

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And I think Mr. Bourgon's questions in that

19 regard have been helpful and I don't think we have a real problem with

20 that as long as we keep the translations, the CLSS translations, to what

21 they are.

22 So I don't think we have a problem with Mr. Bourgon's approach on

23 this in -- a particular problem, but it's easily turned into a CLSS issue

24 to make it more complicated.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Obviously, as you can imagine, to the Trial Chamber,

2 particularly when facing or confronting a witness with a document that

3 allegedly is attributed to him, that would be the document that you should

4 be addressing yourself to primarily. Of course, it is of paramount

5 importance that we are not left in the dark if the -- any of the parties,

6 I mean it's not just the Defence teams but also the Prosecution, if you

7 feel that there is a shortcoming in any other document we may have

8 available, which purports to be a translation of the document that you are

9 referring to.

10 I mean, so you can, of course, ask the witness to at least confirm

11 to us what he has allegedly written in that notebook because that would

12 make us, put us in a position where we can then see whether there is some

13 valid arguments which relates to the translations that we have been

14 provided with. Which I am sure, if that would be the case, it's a matter

15 that will be attended to in due course.

16 But I think the way you have been proceeding is correct, but do

17 always also please keep in mind that the notebook is the fundamental

18 document.

19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I also acknowledge with

20 my colleague the suggestion of my colleague.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE PROST: Just on the point that's been raised by the

24 Prosecution, Mr. Bourgon, it would be helpful to me to hear the witness's

25 comments on the typed version, with reference to his handwritten version,

1 because that will be a comparison in the same -- in the two languages --

2 in the same language. So it would be helpful for me to at least to have

3 that comment which is different from the translation issue. It's whether

4 the notebook varies from what was typed up.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Basically we have two issues that possibly and

6 preferably you would address. One if it's -- the witness can himself

7 offer us some kind of evaluation on a comparative analysis basis between

8 the two documents that Judge Prost has referred to, and then of course,

9 the questions of translation, if they at least exist in your mind.

10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. In this case, I don't

11 think that the problem is one of translation. I just think it's two

12 different translations. And I like the suggestion, Your Honour, about the

13 fact of looking at the typed version. I did not think that I had the

14 exact typed version of the translation I was referring to, but I see that

15 I do have it, and that is on 1105 D, for Delta, and I have the exact one

16 which was translated. So if I can have this one on the ELMO, 1105 Delta.

17 Sorry, I said ELMO again but I meant e-court -- or --

18 Q. Now, sir, this conversation is towards the bottom of the document,

19 at 9.22, if we can scroll down, 1105 Delta, and go -- yes, the one that is

20 just at 9.22 where it says "Krsmanovic."

21 Now, we have both -- can you read this specific typed version and

22 let me know whether it matches what was in your notebook? Maybe you could

23 read it out loud so that the interpreters can give us --

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: That -- just sorry to interrupt, that adds a new

25 intercept to the match so it's -- unless they have a -- unless they have

1 one that they can read to then we are going to get a third version of the

2 intercept.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed. Let's proceed with the way suggested by

5 Mr. Bourgon. If then we get into a fix, obviously we will find some kind

6 of a solution, but for the time being, I think it's perfectly okay to go,

7 to proceed the same way.

8 Have a look, please,. Did you understand the question from

9 Mr. Bourgon?

10 MR. BOURGON:

11 Q. If we can just, sir, just read, please, the paragraph that is in

12 the middle of your screen right now, which is a typed version. If you can

13 read this out loud?

14 A. "Conversation between unidentified participant X with

15 Lieutenant-Colonel Krsmanovic. X tells him that he has only two buses.

16 They cannot requisition some without papers."

17 I cannot see all the way until the end but in the next line it

18 says: "Order. They have problems with fuel. They do not have enough."

19 Q. Thank you. Now, I've already asked you the differences and I will

20 stop here, Mr. President, but the --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just wanted to point out maybe for the benefit

23 of the court at least on the screen in front of me there is a word that's

24 cut off from the right side of the document in relation to this particular

25 intercept, and I don't know whether or not the witness can see it or that

1 was part of what he read.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know because I can't see what the witness

3 can see but -- it's on the ELMO, okay. All right.

4 So I just want to confirm one thing. One previous question that

5 was put to you, sir, by Mr. Bourgon was what you had precisely jotted down

6 in the notebook, and in answering that question, you had stated in

7 relation to fuel: "They have problems with fuel, there isn't any."

8 This is what you had answered.

9 Now, going through the transcript as we have it, instead of the

10 words "there isn't any" or there is none," at least the interpretation

11 that we have is "they do not have enough." Is that what appears in this

12 document that you have next to you, or does it actually say the same thing

13 as you stated earlier? Because the two things are not exactly -- not

14 exactly, they aren't the same. There isn't enough is not tantamount to

15 saying there isn't any. So ...

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree absolutely.

17 The end of these two versions is different. In my version, in the

18 original version, it says, clearly, "They have problems with fuel. There

19 is none." While the typed version, the version that is not mine, and

20 which I did not see, it says, "They have problems with fuel. There isn't

21 enough."

22 I don't know why this is so. Again, I note that I had no access

23 to the typed version, and this was done by someone else.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes. I think we have cleared that in a

25 definitive manner, I suppose, and you can proceed with your next question.

1 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I've highlighted in what

2 my view were three differences between the two, and those will be the

3 object of arguments later on.

4 For now I'd like to move to tab number 9, and that is

5 Exhibit 1147. And I would like, if possible, to have both Alpha and Bravo

6 on the e-court, if that's possible.

7 THE REGISTRAR: 1141?

8 MR. BOURGON: 1141, maybe. Yes, it's a 1.

9 Q. Do you see the conversation where it's at 1141 -- not there yet,

10 okay. That's the English version. And Bravo is 1553, that's the

11 handwritten, that's Charlie. If you look at 1553 -- it's not there.

12 Yes, the one on the right, which begins with Milanovic. Do you

13 see the typed version on the right, sir?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And my question is simply: Is that one of those conversations or

16 intercepts that you transcribed as a summary of a longer conversation and

17 in which you only kept the essential part but there is nothing verbatim in

18 that intercept; is that correct?

19 A. I would like to ask you, if possible, to show me the handwritten

20 intercept, please.

21 Q. Handwritten is 1141 C or Charlie.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put that on the ELMO, please.

23 MR. BOURGON: That's my last question, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not foreclosing on any one of you. I mean, this

25 is why basically we had agreed in the first place that all these witnesses

1 should come and be available for cross-examination.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's true, it's a summary probably

3 of a longer intercept, a summary with information that was important to

4 us.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: It's important that this is not being shown on the

6 monitors. All right.

7 MR. BOURGON:

8 Q. Now, my last question to you, sir, simply this type of summary, to

9 use your word probably of a longer intercept, was that a procedure that

10 was used only by you or by the others also? And was that part of the

11 verbal protocol that was given to you?

12 A. I cannot really tell you that specifically. I know that I did it.

13 I assume, I cannot remember, specifically that others did that too. We

14 sometimes had intercepts or conversations that went on for half an hour.

15 For example, many of them knew each other, so they exchanged a lot of

16 private, personal information that was not important to us. They would

17 then just process the parts that were important for us. There was no need

18 because of all the problems we had with tapes, notebooks and so on, to

19 transcribe everything. So at least I, but we, would usually just make a

20 summary of things that were of importance for us.

21 Q. Thank you, sir. I will just end then with one question, simply

22 that if I considered these intercepts and procedures that you were

23 following, would you agree with me that if I want to have something that I

24 can really rely on today, it would be for me -- the proper route would be

25 to have those tapes and to listen to those tapes myself? Would that be

1 correct?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, what's your objection, Mr. Vanderpuye?

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would object to it because first it's framed in

4 terms of a hypothetical, and the question actually presumes an answer that

5 I think is uncalled for under the circumstances. The witness doesn't have

6 the capacity to know what would be reliable to my esteemed colleague.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't see any validity in your objection,

10 Mr. Vanderpuye. It's a question he can safely answer. Knowing especially

11 now that he has seen the various documents, whether he would agree with

12 the proposition made to him by Mr. Bourgon.

13 So please go ahead and answer the question.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the laws, but I know

15 one thing: What I have written is correct. We didn't compile this

16 material for the purposes of this institution where we are right now.

17 This was material that was interesting to us. It's material once it was

18 typed and once it was sent out --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I think this is beyond what you

20 actually asked him, Mr. Bourgon.

21 The question that was put to you was the following: If one were

22 to consider these intercepts and procedure that you were following, would

23 you agree with us that if we really wanted to have something that we can

24 really rely to then, then the best thing to have would be the tapes

25 themselves. Would you agree to that proposition? He can tell us yes or

1 no and leave it at that.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, yes.

3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have no

4 further questions.

5 Q. Thank you very much, Witness.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank. Who is next? Mr. Stojanovic, we will have a

7 break at 12.30, how long do you expect your cross-examination to last?

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are counting on

9 15 to 20 minutes.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Go ahead.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. Since you already have

14 this intercept before you, let us continue where you left it off with

15 Mr. Bourgon. Would you please read this conversation, the sentence

16 beginning with the words "following that" or "after that"? Would you

17 please read out from your handwritten text, the rest of that sentence?

18 A. "After that, he asks from the person on duty, Zlatar,

19 Lieutenant-Colonel Blagojevic, a typist."

20 Q. You have the text in front of you, the transcribed text, typed

21 text. Would you please read what it says there, after that?

22 A. "After that, from Zlatar on duty, Lieutenant-Colonel Blagojevic, a

23 typist. Colonel Vikic will come to fetch her."

24 Q. Do we agree that the typewritten text doesn't reflect in its

25 entirety the handwritten text and that the word in B/C/S, "trazi" is

1 missing there?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: What would "trazi" mean? Because to us, knowing

4 that it is missing, is one piece of information, but it's not all the

5 information that we would require. What does "trazi" mean? If the

6 interpreters can help me. "Trazi."

7 Looking for? Okay. Looking for. All right.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Requests, looking for,

9 seeks, anything of that, depending on the context. But the sentence is

10 extremely ambiguous.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, did you receive the

12 translation and may I continue?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The translation that we received, and I can

14 state it, is that the interpreters consider the line to be ambiguous and

15 it means requests, looking for, seeks, anything of that, depending on the

16 context but the sentence is extremely ambiguous. This is what we have.

17 This is why I asked what is the meaning of the word.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] But your leave, I will continue

19 with my questions.

20 Q. In order to simplify this, can we agree that the text that you

21 wrote does not fully correspond to the typewritten text in this portion?

22 A. Yes, correct.

23 Q. Let us now look at another discrepancy. The sentence beginning

24 with the words "they are not there, his warrant officer replied." Will

25 you then please read what you wrote down?

1 A. "Loader or bulldozer."

2 Q. So we will agree, won't we, that the first word is "loader";

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, let us look at the typewritten text. Will you please read

6 out what it says there, after the word "requests." What does it say

7 there?

8 A. It says "backhoe excavator or bulldozer."

9 Q. Can we agree that a loader and a backhoe excavator are not

10 identical pieces of machinery?

11 A. In principle, they are not.

12 Q. Can we agree that there is a discrepancy here as well, a

13 discrepancy between what you heard and wrote down in your own hand and

14 what was typed here?

15 A. Yes. What was typed here by somebody else. I fully agree.

16 Q. Can we agree that in Paket communication, to your superior

17 command, you sent the typewritten text, it was either typewritten or

18 computer processed, so that was the version that was sent, not your

19 handwritten version?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. Can we also agree that in the previous example, the superior

22 command received the version containing the words "there isn't enough"

23 rather than "there isn't any"? And that this information is quite

24 different from what you heard?

25 A. Yes. It's different from what I heard and wrote down.

1 Q. Do you personally know of any additional problems of this nature,

2 when the typewritten text did not fully correspond to what you heard,

3 transcribed and wrote down in your notebook?

4 A. No. I wasn't aware of that at all until I came here and received

5 documents to that effect here. I have already said several times that I

6 had no control, in fact I had no insight, into the work of the typist who

7 typed these texts.

8 Q. All right. Thank you. I have just a few more things to ask you

9 now.

10 You were there working as an officer practically?

11 A. Yes. One could say so, although the relationships that existed

12 there were quite different. It was mostly of a friendly nature. That was

13 the kind of relationship that existed between us.

14 Q. Did you have a military rank at the time, in July of 1995?

15 A. I don't think so. Or perhaps I did. Perhaps I was a corporal but

16 I'm not sure. I really am not positive as to what I was at that time. A

17 sergeant perhaps.

18 Q. When you came to your workplace, I don't want to mention the name

19 of that location, I don't want to go into private session, was it your

20 task to organise the work and to supervise the members of your squad, or

21 were you also someone who, as a rule, worked in shifts and listened to

22 conversations?

23 A. In addition to some other duties, I always, as a rule, worked.

24 Well, it's difficult to say as a rule. But at least in 80 per cent of the

25 cases, I also worked in shifts. They counted on me as one of the persons

1 working in a shift.

2 Q. So that doesn't mean that you were there to replace somebody, but

3 as a rule you were scheduled to work in certain shifts?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You said that as you listened to intercepts, you began to

6 recognise voices, timbre of voices and other features of people who you

7 listened to in those conversations.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you make any notes about that, about features of certain

10 voices?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Does this mean that you are not aware of any records that were

13 kept recording certain features of persons that you were listening to,

14 that there were no such archives?

15 A. In the group that was under my supervision, we had no such

16 records. Now, as to other groups, I wouldn't be able to tell you.

17 Q. As you listened to these intercepts, did you recognise those who

18 were in those conversations and do you remember who those people were?

19 A. Well, it would be difficult for me to tell you. It's been quite a

20 long time. And I don't even remember the real names of the people that I

21 worked with at the time because as I said, many years have passed and I

22 saw those people only then and never since. At least some of them. At

23 the time when we were doing this work and listening to intercepts on a

24 daily basis, it was very easy to recognise voices.

25 Q. When you served in the army, you had training for a signalsman,

1 and you were trained to work on a teleprinter; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Are you familiar with the concept and the term of "operations

4 masking"?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did your superiors ever caution you to pay attention to this false

7 representation and names of people participating in conversations?

8 A. No.

9 Q. I would like to ask you to look at an exhibit. We will need to

10 see it in e-court. Could we please see tab 10 which is OTP

11 Exhibit P01149, 65 ter list -- could we please see the following numbers,

12 1149C?

13 1149C on the 65 ter list, thank you. That's the text I'm

14 interested in. Could we see the English version as well so that we can

15 all follow in the courtroom, and this will be my last question. Thank

16 you.

17 Witness, we had occasion to see this intercept; correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Will you please look at the upper corner, at the time when you

20 listened to this intercept?

21 A. 20.10.

22 Q. Can we see the date?

23 A. Not in this portion here.

24 Q. Can you tell us now what date it was?

25 A. Not right now, but if I were to see the notebook from which this

1 was extracted, it would be very easy for me to specify the date.

2 Q. Thank you. We won't be needing this. I don't think it will be

3 contentious, I just wanted to clarify the context.

4 Now, would you please look in the middle section of this

5 intercept, the following sentence, where it says: "D. Do you want me to

6 come there to Cerska from where you are calling?"

7 Do you see that portion?

8 A. Just a minute. Yes, I see that.

9 Q. Is that your handwriting?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Will you please tell us where Cerska is?

12 A. Cerska, I think that it is in Podrinje canton. I myself never

13 visited that place, either before or after the war.

14 Q. Could you please specify in greater detail, because there are many

15 people here who do not know what territory is covered by Podrinje canton.

16 Would I be correct in saying that it's correct -- close to Zvornik, Milici

17 and Konjevic Polje?

18 A. Yes, that would be right. This is all in the general Srebrenica

19 area.

20 Q. Why am I asking you this? I would like to know how you interpret

21 this conversation now. Who is D, I suppose that D stands for Deronjic, is

22 addressing when he says, "Do you want me to come down there to Cerska?"

23 A. You probably read this entire intercept. When we read it in its

24 entirety, we see that there is an unknown participant in the conversation,

25 who is a mediator or intermediary between Karadzic and Deronjic, and his

1 code-name is Badem.

2 Q. In your view, who is located in Cerska at that point in time?

3 A. I can't know that. Just a minute. Let me read this intercept.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I do have a little bit of a problem here

5 understanding properly.

6 B in the notebook, the letter capital B, is only shown once there

7 in the third line from the top. Or -- and then subsequently two lines

8 later. You saying that B stands for Badem. On what -- yeah, yeah. And I

9 see that on the top. But on what basis do you come to that conclusion?

10 In other words, what is there in the transcript itself that indicates that

11 there was one person in this conversation that was calling himself Badem?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Badem is one of the secret codes.

13 When the call is made, it is made between two switch boards, and two

14 secret names. When I started intercepting this conversation, you can see

15 that I didn't start from the very beginning. Once I started intercepting

16 it, I heard one of the participants introducing himself as Badem and I

17 didn't know how the other participant introduced himself. This is why we

18 have this letter B at the beginning.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: But, yes, okay. I accept that, and I understand

20 that, and that is the reason why we don't have the word "Badem" in the --

21 appearing in the transcript that you made on that day, because it's

22 something that occurred before you started jotting down on the notebook?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand the question.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: The reason -- if you look at this page on the

25 notebook, you don't see the word "Badem" except at the top near the time

1 and the frequency, and then you have B equals Badem. Right? But the

2 reason why we don't see that word again anywhere on that page is that you

3 had heard the word "Badem" or one of them describing himself as Badem,

4 before you started jotting down the transcript on your notebook?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. However, Badem is mentioned in

6 the following ones. For example, it says: "B, Badem, yes." And then he

7 says: "Hello, Deronjic, we have contact." And then following that,

8 Badem became the person talking to Badem. That is to say, Deronjic.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: One other question. Thank you. But I was referring

10 to what we have on the screen now.

11 Is there a reason why the top line next to the channel and the

12 time of the transcript, in addition to B, Badem, there isn't an indication

13 of D being Deronjic and another person who is supposed to be the

14 interlocutor or intermediary? Why is there only a reference to B, Badem,

15 and not also to D, and possibly an X or a Y or a Z?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Listen, unidentified speaker is

17 marked either with a dash or a letter X. That's how we did it. And in

18 fact we didn't even reflect those who were unidentified. We only marked

19 those who were identified, whose identities we knew. The other ones who

20 were unidentified remained as X or epsilon or something like that.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But I think I'll cut it short here. But the

22 question was if you had identified Deronjic, why didn't you put, insert

23 his name, on the top line, the first line, where you're indicating who the

24 persons taking part in the conversations are?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, based on this

1 conversation, Deronjic was calling from the secret code Badem, and later

2 on, when he started speaking, I simply transformed that secret code into

3 his last name.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you.

5 Mr. Stojanovic, okay.

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, those were

7 precisely my questions. And I would simply like to ask the witness to

8 reply to my earlier question.

9 Q. Would you agree with me that as you read this text, one of the

10 participants, Karadzic, intermediary, Badem, Deronjic, are located in

11 Cerska? Would that be your position?

12 A. Can you please allow me to read it once again?

13 Based on what you said I would agree that you, that unidentified

14 participant in the conversation was located in Cerska.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed my

17 cross-examination.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Who is next? Madam Fauveau, I think we can have the

19 break now.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, sir. That would be best.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: We can have a break of 25 minutes instead of 30.

22 Thank you.

23 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau. How long do you think --

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, ten

2 minutes.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: And can I ask Mr. Josse?

4 MR. JOSSE: Nothing, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Haynes or Mr. Sarapa?

6 MR. SARAPA: Nothing.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So do you have the next witness here?

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: We do, we have trying to -- we saw that this might

9 happen even though it's a little different than our estimate but we'll try

10 to see if we can catch up with our e-court documents and have him ready to

11 go, or we can bring him tomorrow morning, whatever is -- I have mentioned

12 both options and I think the Defence is fine with him in the morning but

13 obviously we'll do what needs to be done.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: We will see how long this is going to take and then

15 we'll decide accordingly.

16 Madam Fauveau.

17 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you stated that the frequency was determined

19 by way of an order. Is it fair to say that you would listen to various

20 frequencies through the RR 1 and the various frequencies also through the

21 RR 800?

22 A. I don't know in what sense you're asking, but we were listening to

23 different channels, to different frequencies, depending on the order. In

24 this specific case, for example, when we were working on this problem, we

25 all did that on one frequency and a certain number of channels, on the

1 same frequency.

2 Q. Do you mean to say that you would listen to one single frequency

3 on various channels?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. However, depending on the circumstances, you would encounter

6 situations where you had two conversations, consecutive situations, and

7 they were transcribed in the notebook with various answers, right?

8 A. I don't know that I was able to see that anywhere. It could

9 happen in case there was a conversation with the RRU800 and one with

10 the RRU1, but I would have to see it actually in order to tell you exactly

11 what it was about.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

13 Exhibit 1133C?

14 Q. Sir, these are three conversations, three various conversations,

15 with -- they are consecutive and with no frequency. Can you determine

16 whether they were listened to through RR 1 or through RR 800, simply by

17 looking at them?

18 A. RRU800.

19 Q. And how do you know that?

20 A. Because of the channels.

21 Q. Does this mean that RRU1 did not have any channel?

22 A. At the moment, I cannot remember if the RRU1 had channels. But

23 according to the channels and the direction, you can tell that this was

24 the RRU800.

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown P2320,

1 page 106. Sorry, page 36, sorry.

2 Q. Sir, in this page, there are two different frequencies. They

3 follow one another. Could you tell me whether they are from the same

4 device or from two different devices?

5 A. These are frequencies from different sets. The first intercept is

6 the RRU800 frequency. And now I can see, I can refresh my recollection,

7 that the second intercept would then be from the RRU1 frequency.

8 Q. Therefore, it could happen that there would be two conversations

9 on two different frequencies and that they would follow one another?

10 A. Yes. Because we had generally one notebook into which we entered

11 the intercepts.

12 Q. Therefore fair to say that if the frequency was not noted in the

13 page, that the person typing the document was not able to determine the

14 frequency?

15 A. That is not true. They could establish the frequency that it

16 was -- the work was being done on if they had the channel.

17 Q. Is there anything in the document that makes a difference between

18 RRU1 and RRU800, apart from the frequency?

19 A. Nothing else. I don't know if you know, but the RRU1 works on a

20 frequency, as far as I can remember, because I haven't been active for a

21 long time, from 190 to about 300 megahertz, and the RRU800 operates on a

22 frequency from 600-something up to 900 megahertz. So based on that, you

23 can establish what was done on the RRU1 and what was done on the RRU800,

24 especially because the RRU800 is already set to channels.

25 Q. Do you therefore mean to say that RRU1 did not have any channel?

1 A. From what I can see, I think that it did not have.

2 Q. In your statement, you provided in November 1999 to the OTP, you

3 said that -- not you personally but members of your team would write the

4 dates at the -- at the beginning of a day in the notebook. Would you

5 allow for the possibility that dates were not written in every day?

6 A. During my preparations, I saw that the date was not entered every

7 day. However, it should have been entered every day. It doesn't mean

8 that you couldn't establish the date of a given intercept on the basis of

9 previous or subsequent dates.

10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No further questions. Thank you,

11 Mr. President.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

13 Is there re-examination, Mr. Vanderpuye?

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there is not, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. There are no questions, no

16 further questions for you, neither from the Prosecution nor from the

17 Bench, which means that your testimony concludes here. Madam Usher will

18 escort you out of the courtroom very soon, and on behalf of the Tribunal I

19 should like to thank you for having come over to give testimony, and you

20 will be receiving all the assistance you require to assist you in your

21 journey back home. And on behalf of everyone I wish you a safe journey

22 back home. Thank you.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's deal with the tendering of documents.

1 Let's start with the Prosecution documents. Has this list been

2 circulated amongst the Defence teams? It has?

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe it has, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So let's try to economise on time.

5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vanderpuye, I'd like to check both English

6 translations of handwritten note as well as the typed version are tendered

7 as exhibit. Is it the case or not?

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, yes.

9 JUDGE KWON: For example, take a look at 1149. This document says

10 what are tendered is A, B, C, D, with only one English translation.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is correct. The singular English

12 translation is what we have available at this time. That's not to suggest

13 obviously that other translations or further translations can't be made

14 but that is what we have available to start.

15 JUDGE KWON: But I remember I saw two interpretations at the

16 previous --

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Referring specifically to tab number 9?

18 Number 10?

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is Your Honour referring to the -- I believe that

21 related to number 6, tab number 6.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think so. I think they are related to what

23 we have behind tab 10.

24 JUDGE KWON: Yeah, tab 6 as well.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And tab 6 as well.

1 JUDGE KWON: Do you have two English translations of tab 2 --

2 tab 6?

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just bear with me for one moment, I'm sorry.

4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I'm sorry.

6 [Prosecution counsel confer]

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. For tab 6 there is only one.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can put up the curtains again, or do you

9 need them down for the next witness? Usher? We need them down for the

10 next witness. All right.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. There is only one for tab 6.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mm-hmm.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay? There are two for tab 9. Is that right?

14 Yes, that's right. Two for tab 9. That's indicated as well, right? And

15 two for tab 7? There is two for tab 7.

16 JUDGE KWON: Pausing there, take tab 9. What is tendered is the

17 only translation of printout, not the handwritten note.

18 I'm mistaken. I beg your pardon. They are there.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, they are on the list. I was just mistaken

20 as to what tab I was referring to. And I apologise for that.

21 JUDGE KWON: The reason I was confused is that they are not

22 included in this packet, the physical printout.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's actually news to me, and I apologise to

24 the Court. I wasn't aware that they didn't make it into that packet.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's go back to the list. I have only

1 one English, yes.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 If I suggest we go tab by tab instead of doing the ten tabs

6 together, because for each tab there are different submissions to be made.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's start. You have the list. Is

8 there any particular document that -- from that list that the Prosecution

9 seeks to tender that you object to?

10 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

12 MR. BOURGON: For the same reason that was explained by my

13 colleague with the last witness, the handwritten notebook, P02319, 2320,

14 2321, 2322 and 2323, all of those we have an objection that they -- that

15 these documents would be admitted.

16 Now, as far as the -- for the others, once we go into the various

17 documents going from 1099 until 1149, those are the ten tabs, then I have

18 submissions different for each of those tabs, depending on whether or not

19 there is a translation available or not.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's start with the last five, the

21 handwritten notebooks.

22 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would submit that those notebooks go actually

24 to the heart of the witness's testimony, to the extent that the witness

25 indicated that he had actually compared the entries in the notebooks which

1 are originals to the photocopies that are being tendered in tabs 1

2 through 10.

3 Moreover, I believe he was asked certain questions on

4 cross-examination to which he indicated if he had an opportunity that he

5 could readily verify certain information that was put to him that are

6 actually contained in the notebooks, and so on those grounds, I think they

7 are appropriate for tender.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

9 Mr. Bourgon, for the record at least, could you, since you've just

10 intimated an objection without indicating the basis for that objection, I

11 know that you referred to the same or identical objection tabled during

12 the testimony of the previous witness, but if you could repeat that for

13 the record, it would help us then reach our decision here and now.

14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Our objection is as

15 follows. First of all, these documents were never included on the

16 Prosecution's Rule 65 ter list of proposed exhibits; that is the first

17 thing. The second is that for these five documents, there does not exist

18 a request by the Prosecution to amend its Rule 65 ter list of exhibits.

19 The next reason is that not all of these exhibits have been shown to the

20 witness when he testified. The next reason is that we have the excerpts

21 from those notebooks along with translations and that is enough. Getting

22 the full notebook will only confuse the issue. And finally, if should

23 there be a will by the Trial Chamber to admit these documents, then we

24 would respectfully submit that the complete notebooks have to be

25 translated so that we have side by side the full notebook and the full

1 translation.

2 So for all these five reasons, Mr. President, we say that those

3 five exhibits should not be admitted.

4 Thank you, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

6 Do you wish to add anything in this regard, Mr. Vanderpuye?

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would only point out that to the extent that

8 the Defence has challenged the authenticity, reliability of the

9 intercepted material it seems to me appropriate to establish the

10 reliability or authenticity of that material to the extent that they exist

11 within the notebooks. It would be impossible, frankly, to admit a page or

12 an intercept, an original intercept, from the notebook without admitting

13 the entire notebook, and certainly we are not tendering the notebook with

14 the hopes that the Court would consider every aspect of the notebook

15 unrelated to the given intercept to which it relates.

16 So I'm not entirely clear as to the genesis of my esteemed

17 colleague's objection. I understand it on procedural grounds, and I think

18 it is a relevant objection. I think, however, substantively the Defence

19 has been on notice of the intercepts that were going to be offered or

20 tendered into evidence this case, and there is, for all practical

21 purposes, no substantive difference between the material that is actually

22 in the notebooks from the material that Defence has been on notice of and,

23 as I understand it, for a substantial amount of time.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, I saw you being tempted to intervene

25 and I'm not quite sure whether you wish to.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: I wish to, although I was trying to study the

2 response.

3 In any event, we concur obviously with my learned colleague from

4 the Defence. But the other important issue is, Your Honour, if the

5 Prosecution gives us 20 exhibits, let's say, and they don't use all 20

6 with the witness and the Court allows that, it puts the Defence at a

7 disadvantage. Similarly we can add in our exhibit list 50 documents and

8 only use one. And although I'm guessing, but I don't think the Court

9 would allow or the Prosecutor would allow all our exhibits could be

10 entered into evidence, even though we list them in our exhibit list merely

11 because we list them as inadequate. If the Prosecutor wanted to ask

12 specific intercept material or documents of a witness, then he should have

13 walked through that same list he gave us.

14 The Defence should not be given multitude of documents, they don't

15 ask about those documents, we constrain our cross-examination based on

16 that, and we expect to be treated in the same fashion as the Prosecutor

17 is.

18 Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I see there Mr. McCloskey would like to

20 join in the debate.

21 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.

23 Just the next witness, my plan was to ask him if the 14 intercepts

24 that he took down whether he recognises the handwriting in the notebooks

25 and maybe a couple of questions and leave it at that. If we go through

1 with every intercept on every notebook, we'll be here forever, and so this

2 particular line of questioning is -- I don't think it's appropriate, nor

3 necessary for me to go through every intercept that every intercept

4 operator has dealt with, whether it's acts or conducts or not. The

5 important thing is that they have the ability to cross-examine on these

6 documents and the witness is present, but especially for 92 ter I

7 really -- and of course we would be very happy to hear the Court's ruling

8 on that because I will adjust my direct testimony, if necessary. But I

9 don't see -- you're going to be hearing lots and lots more information on

10 these intercepts from the people that were actually speaking on them and

11 from documents and other things. So this is -- this is really the idea of

12 going over every intercept is not necessary, in my view.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Basically two things. We'll adopt the same

16 procedure that we adopted on previous occasion. These are being entered

17 and marked for identification purposes. It's also the understanding of

18 the Trial Chamber, and correct us if we are wrong in this understanding,

19 that in seeking the admission of these notebooks, you are not seeking to

20 enter into evidence all the contents of the -- contained in each of these

21 notebooks.

22 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: We wanted the Court, as had previous courts,

24 showed an interest in the whole notebook, especially when the witness

25 makes a reference to I need to see the whole notebook to figure out the

1 date. But the other intercepts that we are not talking about, that's

2 not -- we don't need that to have that technically as part of this.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: That corresponds exactly to what we have been

4 thinking, but of course we understand that other witnesses have come or

5 may still come that will be referring to parts of these notebooks, and I

6 think that is understandable. And we'll leave it at that.

7 So, now, I thought we would have simplified this exercise but

8 obviously we are not. Let's start with the first one. P02317. This is

9 the witness's previous statement to the Office of the Prosecutor.

10 Any objection to having this admitted? None? This will be

11 admitted with that number under seal.

12 The pseudonym sheet, which is 2318; again I would imagine no

13 objections there. It's admitted under seal.

14 And then we start with 1099, which would correspond to what we

15 have behind tab 1.

16 So this first set of documents, I understood from what you said

17 earlier, Mr. Bourgon, that you have some objections?

18 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Mr. President. Concerning this 1099, I have no

19 objections concerning A and B.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment because I have to follow.

21 MR. BOURGON: Bravo being the translation of the document Alpha.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Or vice versa, no?

23 MR. BOURGON: Alpha being the translation of document Bravo.

24 Noting, however, that there is of course some additions that were put in

25 place by CLSS but that would be the object of further representation, if

1 need be, at a later time.

2 With respect to C and D, for those, Mr. President, unless we have

3 translations that are made of these documents, then we do not want these

4 documents admitted on the record unless we have a chance to see a

5 translation of exactly what is in the typed version, and we have two

6 different typed versions, and that's for the reasons that we during the

7 cross-examination that we highlighted the differences.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: But I understand -- as I understand you, as

9 regards A and B there is no objection.

10 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. Please be brief because we have got very

11 limited time.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand that A is a translation of B.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: The question is when are we to expect the

14 translations of C and D, because usually we would mark these documents for

15 identification purposes only and they would be upgraded to full documents

16 once this has been provided.

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Well, we will undertake to

18 do that as soon as possible.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait, because I think Mr. McCloskey has got some

20 other ideas.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I'm sorry,

22 Mr. Vanderpuye.

23 In dealing with these intercepts over the years with CLSS, getting

24 translations for everything has not been possible. We can attempt that.

25 It's a very long and tedious process. The danger we face is that instead

1 of using the -- one of the originals, they get a whole different

2 translation and we get a third translation that isn't related to the

3 others. If we were very careful and we make sure they have the previous

4 one, then it helps. But in many cases it's only the difference in a word

5 or two, or three words, and we can attempt to do that and we are trying to

6 identify those intercepts where there are differences so that is clear,

7 because as we saw it was important, we had no gas on one and enough on

8 another. And those sorts of things we want, of course, everyone in the

9 court to be aware of. And we can attempt to get translations for

10 everything but that will be a long process, and we are trying to at least

11 identify the key issues. Like this in the cross-examination actually

12 helps us identify what is of interest.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But still, if you seek, according to me, at

14 least, I speak for myself, but if you seek to tender C and D, which are in

15 B/C/S, the Defence teams have -- and plus the accused, have every right to

16 have them translated into one or more of the official languages of the

17 Tribunal.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's our view that they are, that the translation

19 is in most of the cases identical or practically identical. I can try to

20 turn the Tribunal into an identical 100 per cent situation. It's just

21 practically difficult. And as I mentioned, when you give a translation it

22 comes back with other things that aren't really different. For example,

23 we did this on one intercept that we wanted to clarify it on, and the

24 original intercept had cowboys and that came back as livestock drivers.

25 And this kind of problems will create more issues than help.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon, again, please as briefly as

3 possible.

4 MR. BOURGON: Very quickly, Mr. President.

5 We are not talking about translating the same documents.

6 Cross-examination has shown that the documents are different; therefore,

7 they each require their own translation.

8 Thank you, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: And you are perfectly correct.

10 So our position is as follows: If you have no intention to

11 translate C and D, then I think the only option that you have is not to

12 seek to tender those two documents and restrict yourself in relation to

13 tab 1 to A and B. Otherwise, if you continue to seek their admission they

14 need to be translated, as they are, and for that reason, A and B are being

15 admitted. C and D are temporarily at least marked for identification

16 purposes only.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: On this, Judge Kwon has come up with a brilliant

19 suggestion that I think in the spirit of cooperation that has been

20 prevailing throughout, since we started this trial, if in relation to

21 these untranslated documents you feel that they don't need to be

22 translated because there is no significant difference between what has

23 already been translated, then please do come forward and communicate this

24 to the Prosecution so that we will try to avoid unnecessary translations.

25 However, where you request the translations, it must become -- it must be

1 considered as a sine qua non.

2 All right. Yes, next set, 1100.

3 Mr. Bourgon.

4 MR. BOURGON: The same applies, Mr. President. A is a translation

5 of B, and we have no problems with that. But C and D require their own

6 translations.

7 Now, that being said, I note that both C and D have identical

8 text, and for this purpose only one of the two needs to be translated.

9 Thank you, Mr. President.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Which one? No, which one doesn't need to be

11 translated?

12 MR. BOURGON: Either C or D. Because they are the same text. As

13 long as we have the translation of the same text, then we have no problem.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: So A and B are admitted. The rest are marked for

15 identification.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm being reminded that basically we have agreed

18 that since the question of admissibility of intercepts in general is going

19 to be dealt with in due course, that we are admitting intercepts on that

20 caveat, that they are being marked for identification, but the difference

21 will be -- the reason would be different.

22 Okay. Madam Registrar, in order to economise on time, what's in

23 bold lettering, bold characters will be under seal, all right? Okay.

24 As regards 1102.

25 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, there are no problems with A, B, C

1 and D. A being a translation of B.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

3 MR. BOURGON: C being a translation of D. However, once we get

4 into Echo, Foxtrot, and Golf, E, F, G, then there are no translations, and

5 I did not have the time at this point to see if they are three of the same

6 or not.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the same position, all marked for

8 identification. Last three, of course, in addition pending translation.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: With respect to that particular exhibit, it does

10 occur to me that actually all three of them are textually identical. And

11 in that case, would it satisfy the Defence if one of the three is

12 translated as opposed to all of them.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Try to deal with that once the sitting is

14 over. Let's try to go through this as quickly as we can.

15 1103.

16 Mr. Bourgon.

17 MR. BOURGON: There is no problem with A, which is a translation

18 of B; so A and B is okay. And then when we move to C and D, it's also the

19 same thing, so C and D is the same. And then once we get into E for Echo,

20 this one requires a translation, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So same position as before. 1103E in

22 addition would require translation before it is admitted.

23 Yes, 1105.

24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 This one has -- so A is a translation, it's not possible to tell

1 which one, if A is in fact a translation of B. Because of the number at

2 the end, we cannot see the number at the bottom, which is 0006, and that

3 doesn't match the numbers for the other documents. So for this one, we

4 don't know what A is a translation of what, just looking at the number at

5 the bottom of the document. So this one has to be sorted out completely,

6 Mr. President.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Why don't we do one thing because we are

8 running short of time in any case. Could we invite you to go deeper,

9 somewhat deeper, in the examination of all these documents and agree

10 amongst yourselves what needs to be translated and that what doesn't need

11 a translation, come back to us tomorrow morning, and we'll take it up from

12 where we are leaving it today. Agreed?

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Agreed, thank you.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. In the meantime, I think we can postpone

15 also tendering of any Defence documents. I doubt if there are any but I

16 suppose aren't.

17 So we can stop here for today. Tomorrow we'll start with a new

18 witness and also finish the tendering process related to this witness we

19 finished today. Thank you so much.

20 Mr. Bourgon, yes.

21 MR. BOURGON: Excuse me, Mr. President, there was Prosecution

22 Exhibit 1467 and 1468, the two maps. I don't know if you have them on

23 your list, but these were not shown to the witness or used. They do have

24 a 65 ter number.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think --

1 MR. BOURGON: Maybe my list is not updated.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's probably on the list of exhibits but not on

3 the list to tender.

4 MR. BOURGON: My mistake, sorry.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much. Have a nice afternoon and see

6 you tomorrow morning.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

9 December, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25