1 Tuesday, 12 December 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar. Could you call the case,

6 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: I thank you. Everyone is here, seems to be here.

10 Yes, same composition as yesterday.

11 One minor, one a little bit more important, or more important. I

12 just want a confirmation from you for the record, Mr. Josse, that the

13 confidential motion you filed yesterday has been withdrawn.

14 MR. JOSSE: It has, Your Honour. Indeed, I was going to rise as a

15 preliminary matter and do that formally. The court officer has been very

16 helpful and advised me that I really needed to do it in this way. I'm

17 grateful to Your Honour. It's withdrawn.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Josse.

19 So you will recall that last Thursday an issue was raised in

20 regard to a number of photos; to wit, photos showing aerials and aerial

21 installations and different localities. And I had decided at the time, in

22 consultation with Judge Prost, who was here, that such like issues on the

23 admissibility of certain documents ought not to be decided during the

24 sitting itself, when one of the Permanent Judges is not present. We

25 believe that admissibility of evidence goes to the heart of the rules of

1 evidence, of the procedural requirements upon which the case would

2 ultimately hinge so we took that decision.

3 We are now going to address formally the matter as raised, plus

4 other issues that have been raised or reiterated since then relating to

5 documents that have not been included in the 65 ter list of the

6 Prosecution, issues that have been reiterated even up till yesterday and

7 we are going to rule on these issues.

8 So, please, I'm going to take you back for a moment to first

9 some -- one of the unresolved issues regarding the documents proposed for

10 admission by the Prosecution in relation to Witness PW-130. That's the

11 witness we had last week, end of last week.

12 The Defence objections to those exhibits were originally raised in

13 the absence of Judge Kwon, and as I have explained we have now had an

14 opportunity to discuss matter fully and are in a position to decide on the

15 matter.

16 With reference to Exhibits P02298, P02299, P02300, P02301, P02302,

17 P02303, P02304, P02306 and P02307, that is the photos that I have referred

18 to some minutes ago, despite the absence of a 65 ter number, the Defence

19 were given notice of the Prosecution's intention to use those photographs

20 and they had the opportunity to fully cross-examine on them. All these

21 documents, therefore, are being admitted.

22 As is also evident from our decision yesterday, with reference to

23 Exhibits P02315 and P02316, the handwritten notebooks which were subject

24 to the same objection, while they will be marked for identification

25 purposes only, this is on the basis of the general caveat relating to

1 intercepts and not for the other reasons advanced by the Defence teams per

2 Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Ostojic. The question of their admissibility will

3 eventually be governed by our general ruling. The remainder of the

4 intercepts for which objections have been raised on the basis of

5 translation issues, we trust and we are fully confident that there are

6 ongoing discussions between the Defence and Prosecution that hopefully can

7 resolve all pending issues in this regard.

8 Now we are handing down a -- what we consider to be an important

9 ruling for your guidance. For future reference, while we are following

10 the practice of dealing with objections to exhibits at the end of the

11 witness testimony, if there are issues such as alleged lack of adequate

12 notice or surprise, those issues should in fact be raised at the earliest

13 opportunity, that is in advance as much as possible, as has indeed been

14 done on several occasions but on some occasions this hasn't been the

15 practice. In this way, the matter can be addressed before the document or

16 whatever the document is, before the document is shown to the witness, and

17 at a time when there are various alternatives available to address any

18 problems that might arise. So please be guided by this rule in future.

19 Normal admissibility issues will be covered at the end of the witness.

20 However, if there are issues that are particular to a document in a way

21 that should be addressed before, preferably before the document is shown

22 to the witness, please come forward at the earliest opportunity so that we

23 avoid unnecessary controversies and perhaps injustices later on.

24 Okay. We left you yesterday with an exhortation and in the hope

25 that there will be some kind of rapprochement meetings between the two

1 sides with a view to resolving the issue of the exhibits that -- documents

2 that the Prosecution wishes to tender, which ones need to be translated

3 and which ones don't need to be translated and we will be going through

4 that again.

5 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Counsel, ladies and gentlemen.

9 We did undertake yesterday to identify those documents that

10 required additional translation beyond the translation that had been

11 provided, and we did identify very minor distinctions between the

12 translations that -- of one document versus another, particularly in the

13 areas where one translation was provided essentially for two documents. I

14 have made certain corrections and modifications, I would say, to the

15 tender list in toto which I have just discussed earlier with counsel for

16 Mr. Nikolic, who had raised the objection yesterday. We have not resolved

17 the issue entirely yet, and I don't want to waste any of the Court's time

18 so my hope was to revise the list, send a copy of it to opposing counsel,

19 discuss any issues that might be extant and then from that point simply

20 come back at some later point when it's convenient for the Court and then

21 offer the list of the documents to tender in that regard.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think that is a positive approach,

23 Mr. Vanderpuye, which has the support of the Trial Chamber, and we'll give

24 you all the opportunities and all the time you require to finalise this

25 exercise in collaboration with the Defence teams, for which we are

1 grateful.

2 Any further preliminaries? I notice Mr. McCloskey.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. In relation to that, Mr. President, and my

4 upcoming witness, the Prosecution will endeavour to identify what I'm

5 calling relevant changes from the notebook to the printout, and where we

6 find those changes, we will provide additional translations and so we'll

7 have -- each intercept will be either identified as no relevant changes

8 or, if it does, it will have a translation that goes along with it, and I

9 think that will hopefully clear up the issue.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

11 All right. I see Mr. Ostojic.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: I do have several objections with respect to

15 Rule 65 ter number witness 76, which is the one after this witness, and I

16 just want to let the Court know that, so whenever the Court would like to

17 address that before he testifies, Mr. Thayer from the Office of the

18 Prosecutor had sent me an e-mail last night about five to 10.00. I

19 responded to his e-mail, and I set forth some of my objections to him. I

20 wasn't sure if he was going to begin tomorrow or today, but I know there

21 is one witness before this one, so I just wanted to advise the Court on

22 that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Today we are number 82.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Who is after him?

1 MR. OSTOJIC: 76, I believe, Your Honour. Only witness that

2 remains.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so, yes. All right. How long do you expect

4 this witness, 82, to be testifying?

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hope less than a half an hour on direct.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's you. But the Defence have indicated four

7 hours in total.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: He's similar to yesterday's witness so perhaps a

9 similar thing will happen.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let me consult, please, with the other

11 two Judges whether we should hear the submissions from Mr. Ostojic now or

12 later.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could get Mr. Thayer here to take part in

15 that. I'm not sure if he's listening but that won't take long.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you repeat, Mr. McCloskey?

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry. If you want -- if that issue is going

18 to be dealt with I should get Mr. Thayer here.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now, we'll proceed with the first

21 witness now, and after the break, at the beginning of the second session,

22 get Mr. Thayer here, please, and in the meantime we would have had an

23 assessment of how long the various cross-examinations are going to last,

24 and we'll decide whether to hear your submissions then. But in that case,

25 they will be at the beginning of the second session. All right?

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

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we have this next witness.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, sir.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome to this Tribunal and to this trial. You're

7 a Prosecution witness. Madam Usher is going to hand you the text of a

8 solemn declaration that you are required to make before you can give

9 evidence before this Tribunal. It's a solemn declaration that you will be

10 testifying the truth. Please proceed with reading out that solemn

11 declaration and that will be your undertaking with this Tribunal.

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

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

14 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-137

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable. Take

17 a seat.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, come as near the microphones as much as

20 possible.

21 Very briefly I'm going to explain to you what's going to happen.

22 First of all, you will -- you have been granted some protective measures,

23 namely the use of a pseudonym, that is you will be referred to by a

24 number, you are Prosecution Witness 137, and also, we have decided to --

25 not to show your face to the outside world. So we have visual distortion

1 or facial distortion in place.

2 I think this has been explained to you. I just want to know

3 whether this is to your satisfaction.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

6 Mr. McCloskey will be the first one to ask you questions. He will

7 also be referring to a statement that you made to the Office of the

8 Prosecution sometime back, and then you will be cross-examined by the

9 various Defence teams.

10 Mr. McCloskey.

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

12 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:

13 Q. Good morning, Witness. If you could first take a look at what is

14 marked P02326, that's the pseudonym sheet, and can you confirm that that

15 is your name on that sheet?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. And can you confirm that within the last few days you

18 were in my office and had a chance to review a signed statement you gave

19 to the Prosecution back on 16 November 1999? Have you had a chance to

20 review that statement?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And is that statement true and correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And if you were asked to give that statement again, would the

25 information in it basically be the same?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. I am going to read a brief summary of that statement and

3 for part of it we should go into private session.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we go into private session straight away,

5 Mr. McCloskey? Because you didn't say which part.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Yes. If we could start off in private

7 session, then I think I can get out after about a couple paragraphs.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's go into private session, please.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Open session]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: The witness worked at the northern site through

3 the rest of the war and followed the orders and procedures of his command

4 in receiving, scanning, taping and transcribing radio communications and

5 all other aspects of his work at the northern site.

6 These procedures included listening to an intercepted

7 conversation, transcribing it into a notebook, which to do properly

8 required replaying the tape recording of the conversation several times,

9 and typing the conversation from the notebook into a computer and then

10 encrypting it. Sometimes he would dictate his notes to the typist,

11 thereby verifying its accuracy. If a portion of a conversation was

12 inaudible, he would place dots in the notebook.

13 In January 1996, he was demobilised and resumed civilian life in

14 Bosnia.

15 And if we could go into private session just for another couple of

16 questions.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back in open session.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY:

6 Q. During 1995, can you tell us, did you obtain a particular

7 certification as a ham radio operator?

8 A. Yes. Category B.

9 Q. All right. And in the last few days, have you had a -- were you

10 provided a packet containing 15 intercepted conversations, including

11 handwritten notebook entries and typed printout entries of those

12 handwritten entries?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Were you able to compare and look at -- or excuse me, were you

15 able to look at the handwritten entries of those 15 intercepts?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Of those 15 intercepts, how many of the 15 did you actually

18 recognise your handwriting?

19 A. 14.

20 Q. Okay. So is number 15 your handwriting?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Is there any doubt that numbers 1 through 14 were your

23 handwriting?

24 A. Without doubt, it's my handwriting.

25 Q. Okay. Now, just a couple of questions. We've -- and the Court

1 has seen quite an a bit of these intercepts, but can you tell us what are

2 the different ways that you can identify who is speaking in a particular

3 intercept?

4 A. Most frequently, it went through the switchboard operators who

5 were linking certain participants in the conversations. They would

6 introduce themselves at the beginning of the conversation. That was based

7 on that. And some of them, I recognised by their voice.

8 Q. Okay. Now, you spoke -- briefly in your statement, but I just

9 want to -- can you describe to the Court how you would generally, once you

10 had transcribed a conversation into a notebook, what was the process

11 whereby the notebook was put -- what was the next step after you

12 transcribed the intercept and were finished? What was the next step as

13 you took the notebook to the next step in the process?

14 A. The next step was to take the transcribed intercept to the crypto

15 protection service and then he would send the reports to the command.

16 Q. And how would you -- how would you do that with the crypto person

17 normally? Would you just leave it with him? Would you participate in

18 that? How did that work?

19 A. In most cases, I would read the intercepts to him myself. He

20 would note them down and then he would apply the crypto protection, and

21 then send that on to the centre.

22 Q. Okay. And so as you were reading it to this person, were you

23 looking over anything that he was doing or were you just reading it?

24 A. I would be just following on the monitor, whether he made a

25 mistake, compared to what I was reading to him.

1 Q. Okay. Now last night did you have a chance in my office to -- in

2 working with an interpreter from our office, to have that interpreter read

3 the printout version while you followed along and read your handwritten

4 version?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And had I asked you to identify any mistakes that may have been

7 made in the printout version that might have potentially changed the

8 meaning of the -- some part of the intercept?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. And in three different intercepts, we identified small

11 mistakes; is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. Let's go to one intercept. It's intercept number 3 in the

14 packet. It's from 16 July at 7.06 hours, and if we could -- I think we

15 can put up the English and the B/C/S on the screen. That's 65 ter 1183.

16 Okay. And the first thing I want to ask you about is that we --

17 I'm not sure if you can read that. Is it possible to make the -- just the

18 top half of it bigger?

19 We see when we look at this intercept that in the top of it, under

20 participants, it says, Vinko Pandurevic/X, but that as we look at the text

21 of the intercept, we don't see Mr. Pandurevic's name mentioned, his last

22 name mentioned, that is. Do you know how it was that you were able to

23 identify Vinko Pandurevic as a party to this conversation?

24 A. It's standard practice at the beginning of the conversation, they

25 would generally introduce themselves, so then I was able to establish that

1 it was Pandurevic. But here you cannot see that it's transcribed because

2 in most cases I didn't note down that introductory part, but it's there on

3 the actual recording.

4 Q. Okay. Now, let me go to the B/C/S version, if you could look at

5 the printout, and if you could go about ten lines down. And do you

6 remember that a word that was in the notebook, it was missing in the

7 printout at this -- at this point? Do you remember which one that was?

8 And I can refresh your recollection, if -- I don't want you to

9 have to go through the detailed comparison again, but we can if that's

10 required. And I can tell you that on that line in the notebook, there is

11 the word "gore" present. Do you remember reading the word "gore" in the

12 notebook and identifying that it is not in the sentence on the printout?

13 A. Yes. That is correct, yes.

14 Q. Okay. And in this case, that would be referring "gore" --

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, means something to the effect of "up

16 there" in the English version. The term "up there" was left out of the

17 section.

18 MR. MEEK: Mr. President.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.

20 MR. MEEK: I'm going to have to object to Mr. McCloskey

21 testifying. He's brought this witness here and let the witness testify.

22 I strongly object to this.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I'm thinking you're perhaps right, but it's

24 de minimis.

25 But go ahead, Mr. McCloskey, please, and let's allow the witness

1 to deal with these matters rather than you yourself.

2 JUDGE KWON: Actually I had difficulty which "gore" you meant.

3 There are several "gore" in the handwritten note, and I see a "gore" in

4 the printout as well.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I asked him to refer to the 10th line in the

6 printout. It's my understanding that there -- on that sentence in the

7 handwritten section, there is a "gore" but it is not in the printout.

8 Q. And, Witness, if you could confirm that take a look at the

9 printout --

10 JUDGE KWON: 10th line from where?

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I start at X, where it says "a ti si sefe." But

12 we can have the witness confirm that.

13 JUDGE KWON: Mm-hmm.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: It's basically the first line of the transcript

15 proper, no? If I am reading you well.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

17 Q. Witness, can you read the -- from your notebook the sentence that

18 begins "imao sam" and just read it slowly and we'll see if we hear a

19 word "gore" in that, and if we can try to follow along in our non-B/C/S

20 heads, could you just read that slowly? In the notebook where you see it

21 says "imao sam." It should be about line 10 as well.

22 A. "I had self-propelled guns up there deep in the rear and now they

23 took them."

24 This is what is written in my notebook.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat. There was no

1 microphone.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we turn the witness's microphones on?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher. All right. I think the microphones are on,

4 from what I can see from here. We can proceed.

5 But you need to repeat your answer, Witness, because the

6 interpreters didn't catch the entirety. So the question was -- the

7 interpreter said if he could repeat. What I have here is: "I had

8 self-propelled guns up there in the rear and now they took them. This is

9 what is written in my notebook."

10 But then you said something else.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We can try it again and get all the puzzles in

12 place now.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY:

15 Q. Could you just again read slowly that sentence that you just read

16 and we'll get a translation of it so we'll be clear.

17 A. "I had these two self-propelled guns up there deep in the rear and

18 now they took them."

19 Q. Okay. Now if we look over in the 10th line of the printout, we

20 don't see the word "gore"; is that correct?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. So that would change this conversation that Mr. Pandurevic was

23 left -- that his self-propelled guns that were taken were not up there in

24 the -- they were -- that -- the "up there" is mentioned in the handwritten

25 version but not in the printout; is that correct?

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. All right. Let's go to another intercept, and if we could -- that

3 is intercept number 5, which is a 17 July intercept at 12.00 noon, and if

4 we could -- it's 65 ter 1215.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could have the printout and the notebook

6 brought up. And for the Court and witnesses, the English line that I'll

7 be asking about says, "I have regular communications is being established

8 now with 2nd Battalions, I have radio."

9 Q. Okay. So, Witness, if you could look at the -- well, we'll get to

10 the 12 -- the conversation at the bottom of this page that begins at 1200

11 hours, if you could look at the -- both the handwritten version on the --

12 on the left, and the typed version on the right, I would point your

13 attention to the second word in the second line. Can you slowly read us

14 the second word as it is in the handwritten version?

15 A. My written version, it says "has been established." In the typed

16 version, it says "is being established." Meaning that it hasn't been

17 established yet. But I have it as it has been established. So it's

18 already -- it's in the past tense.

19 Q. Okay. So we've got the same verb, we just have a tense different.

20 What is the correct tense? Which one is correct?

21 A. What is written is the correct version, the written version is

22 correct.

23 Q. Okay. Let's go to the last -- the last one that we've identified.

24 And that is in conversation number 12, which is 65 ter number 1291, at

25 21 July, at 1030 hours, and if we could get the handwritten as well as the

1 printout version, and we are going to go to the last four or five lines of

2 this conversation. And, Witness, I'd ask you to look at the last -- as we

3 get it up there on the screen, the last few lines, and for the English,

4 I'll read the English translation of the area that I'm concerned with.

5 It says: "And now they have come here and they say that yesterday

6 they were to go and that there are -- that Risto Avdo is supposedly, hold

7 the line and I'll report. Please stay on the line."

8 Now, could you take a look at what's been marked in yellow. On

9 the printout, we see Risto, which we have heard before in this Court is a

10 first -- is a typical Bosnian first name, and we see in your handwritten

11 word, the word "pristo Avdo." So could you read that sentence in your

12 handwritten book using what you had written down just so that we can

13 understand the -- what you heard and what you wrote down?

14 A. "And now they got here, they said that they were cut off yesterday

15 from going, that there are, that Avdo has agreed it seems to

16 negotiations."

17 Q. Okay. So the word "pristo" means to have agreed and that's of

18 course different from the first name of Risto.

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Okay. Aside -- all right.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any further questions.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

23 Yes, the Popovic Defence team, per Ms. Condon, will go first.

24 Can I have more or less a revised assessment.

25 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, I will definitely be finished within

1 half an hour with this witness.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And the Beara Defence?

3 MR. MEEK: Perhaps 15 minutes, Your Honour, no more than one half

4 hour.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: The Nikolic Defence?

6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Up to half an hour at the most, Your

7 Honours.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: The Borovcanin Defence?

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 15 to 20 minutes, our estimate

10 is, Your Honour --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: The Miletic Defence?

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] About 15 minutes, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: The Gvero Defence?

14 MR. JOSSE: Almost certainly nothing, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And the Pandurevic Defence?

16 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear what the counsel

18 said.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: No questions, so no need for interpretation.

20 All right. Do you have the next witness here?

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. Thayer and the witness are ready to go.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we can start with the

23 cross-examination by Ms. Condon, of course, and it's almost 100 per cent

24 sure now that soon after the break, Mr. Ostojic, we will hear your

25 submissions on the next witness. All right?

1 Ms. Condon.

2 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honour, may we go

3 into private session just briefly.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for a short while,

5 please.

6 [Private session]

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

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 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 [Open session]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.

6 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Tell me, Witness, you also referred to having had equipment

8 shortages while you were working at the unit that you were at. What sort

9 of equipment shortages did you experience?

10 A. Could you please rephrase your question? It's not quite ...

11 Q. All right. I'll remind you of something again that you said in

12 your statement. What you said was: "It was possible for up to five

13 operators to listen to conversations at once, but given equipment

14 shortages it was more common for there to be two or three."

15 Is that correct?

16 A. In the beginning, yes, but later we received additional equipment.

17 Q. All right.

18 A. And then four and even five operators could work at the same time.

19 Q. All right. Well, when you talk about four or five operators

20 working at the same time, do you mean four or five operators listening,

21 all listening to conversations at the same time?

22 A. I said that they could do that, but mostly two or three of them

23 worked at the same time because the equipment was on scan mode all the

24 time.

25 Q. Well, I want to ask you about that. In the shifts that you were

1 working in, how many people were working in your shifts?

2 A. Mostly in twos, sometimes it would be three, depending on the

3 frequency of the conversations. If there was more work, then extra people

4 would come.

5 Q. All right. Well, in relation to those two and three, what

6 specifically all two or three of you were all scanning for the

7 conversations at the same time, what were -- what roles were each of the

8 two and three of you performing specifically?

9 A. We would put the equipment on scan mode. If conversations started

10 up, it would stop automatically. We would start recording on the UHER and

11 then sometimes there would be nothing so we wouldn't be recording. That

12 was it.

13 Q. All right. In July 1995 at the unit you were at, how many tape

14 recorders did you have that were functioning?

15 A. I don't remember exactly, but each set had at least four or five

16 UHER machines, at least.

17 Q. So you say at this time you had four or five reel-to-reel tapes

18 that were actually functioning; is that right?

19 A. Yes, yes.

20 Q. All right. What about the state of that equipment? Was it in

21 good repair? Did it break down?

22 A. As far as I can remember, no, it didn't break down. UHERs were

23 second-hand; but as for other equipment, it was of a later date.

24 Q. Well, just in relation to the roles that each of you would play,

25 what you've said is that normally you would have two or three hours of

1 listening to a conversation and then you would break.

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And is that because obviously in the process of listening to the

4 conversations, you're concentrating as much as possible; is that correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And then what would your procedure be? I'm not asking you about

7 any of the other two operators. After you'd listened to two or three

8 hours, would you then spend time transcribing the conversations into the

9 notebooks?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And while you were listening to the actual tapes, the

12 conversations that you considered to be important you wrote down some

13 information on pieces of paper; is that correct?

14 A. Could you please repeat the question?

15 Q. All right. There has been evidence from other operators that

16 while they were actually listening to the conversations, they would use

17 pieces of paper to note down the frequency of the particular conversation,

18 the time of the conversation, and the participants. Did you do that?

19 A. Yes, yes, I did.

20 Q. And in July of 1995, you were using the pieces of paper as well,

21 were you, before you used the notebook?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So once you -- you spend two or three hours listening and then you

24 spend time listening again, writing down the conversations into your

25 notebook; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Tell me, how many hours would that process take in relation to,

3 say, for one conversation, that you want to get as accurate as possible,

4 how many hours would that take to get that conversation down into your

5 notebook?

6 A. It depends on how long the intercept was. I can't tell you now

7 exactly. But it didn't take long to transcribe it, because one could hear

8 the participants very well, so we didn't have to replay it five to six

9 times. And if that was the case, if it wasn't clearly audible, then, yes,

10 we would have to replay it and then the process was slower.

11 Q. All right. But there has been evidence here that it would take up

12 to 20 times to listen to a conversation before the transcription was

13 correct. Would you agree with that, that sometimes it would take up to 20

14 times? You agree with that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Even for relatively short, say, five- or ten-minute conversation,

17 that process could take up to an hour and a half? You agree with that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So and not only that, your particular practice, it seems, was to

20 then -- once the conversation was written in your notebook, you would then

21 dictate what was in your notebook to the typist; is that correct?

22 A. Once my shift was over, I would take all the intercepts and my

23 notebook and read it one after one, unless there was something

24 interesting, in which case I would react immediately.

25 Q. Well, when you say "react immediately," does that mean that you

1 would physically hand over the notebook to the typist and they could type

2 it from your notebook?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Tell me, was this process that you engaged in outside your shift

5 of dictating your notebook to the typist, was that something that other

6 operators at the unit did as well or was that something you just did

7 yourself?

8 A. Some people may have. Some maybe not. I really wouldn't be able

9 to tell you. I don't remember that.

10 Q. So it's fair to say that each of you had individual ways of

11 transcribing what was in the notebooks to the typists, is that fair?

12 Different ways of doing it.

13 A. No. There was one way to do it. We would take it. And when I

14 had time I would go to the typist in order to help him, you know, to read

15 it to him and so on. Otherwise, the procedure was the same: When the

16 shift was over you would take the notebook to the encryptor and that was

17 it. If I had time I would stay on to help them. People were not able to

18 do as they pleased.

19 Q. When you would dictate what was in your notebook to the typist,

20 would the two of you -- would the typist have their own input in relation

21 to the conversation? Did that ever happen?

22 A. The encryptor wrote down what I read out to him. [French coming

23 over the English channel].

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to -- I thank you, Ms. Condon, and I

25 appreciate your patience, but we've heard all this in French, having

1 the --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry again.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Having the head phones next to our ears wouldn't

4 allow us to be able to hear what's going on in English, too, so we need to

5 have everything repeated, please.

6 MS. CONDON:

7 Q. I'll ask you --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you need to repeat your question and the

9 witness will then --

10 MS. CONDON: I will, Your Honour.

11 Q. Perhaps what I'll -- just so that I can clarify this with you,

12 Witness, you would say that it was outside the normal procedure for you to

13 dictate from what was in your notebook to your typist; is that correct?

14 A. That's not how I would describe it. I simply helped the encryptor

15 in order to have the job completed as quickly as possible.

16 Q. In relation to the notebooks themselves, now, there has been

17 evidence that the pieces of paper that the operators used were burnt. Is

18 that -- you -- does that accord with your experience, that the pieces of

19 paper that were used to note down the frequency, the participants and the

20 time of the conversations were then burnt?

21 A. I don't remember, and I can't give you an answer to that. I

22 simply don't remember what happened to those papers. I threw them in the

23 bin after copying the information into the notebook, and I truly don't

24 remember any longer.

25 Q. Okay. But I mean, there was obviously no order or instruction

1 given from your command to keep those pieces of paper. That's clear?

2 A. Could you please repeat the question?

3 Q. I'll just go straight to the notebooks. In relation to the

4 notebooks, what particular orders or instructions did you receive in

5 relation to keeping the notebooks?

6 A. To write in the date, time, frequency, participants and that was

7 it.

8 Q. That wasn't my question, Witness. The question is this: In

9 relation to the notebooks, what particular orders or instructions did you

10 receive about keeping the notebooks, maintaining the notebooks at your

11 unit?

12 A. The commander was always with us there. He would take the

13 notebooks and place them in a designated location. I don't know where it

14 was, but I'm sure that he knows about it.

15 Q. We'll get to him. In relation to the use of your notebooks in

16 your shift, how many -- between the two or three operators that were

17 working at the same time, how many notebooks would be used amongst the two

18 or three of you?

19 A. Everybody had one.

20 Q. Okay. Just so we make this clear, you all -- you weren't sharing

21 one notebook? Each individual operator had their own notebook; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Just a minute, please. There were two actually, but everybody

24 would write in their own notebook. We knew the date, we would write down

25 the frequency and this would be taken to encryptors and then they would

1 forward it on. But generally, yes, we did have.

2 Q. Well, Witness, that answer is a little unclear to me. In the

3 scenario where you have three operators at the same time, do I understand

4 it that there were two notebooks that were in operation, not that you all

5 individually had your own notebook. Is that the case?

6 A. Well, this is how it was. Let me clarify. There was one notebook

7 for conversations which were current, that I was taking down. And, for

8 example, my colleague, in order not to wait for me to complete my work,

9 had his own notebook where he could record his own conversations without

10 having to wait for me to complete my work.

11 Q. All right. But when you say "his own notebook," this is one of

12 the notebooks that you've been shown in your proofing session with

13 Mr. McCloskey, the books that were used at the unit; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. So there is a situation that would happen where you

16 would have two notebooks that were operating at the same time, being used

17 at the same time; is that correct?

18 A. Yes. That could be the case, but one notebook was used most

19 frequently, and the other one was used as needed. However, it was there

20 on the desk.

21 Q. Now, you mentioned before in relation to the order, or the fact

22 that your commander would take care of the notebooks, did the notebooks

23 have to be filled before they would be handed over to your commander? As

24 in completed, finished with?

25 A. Well, yes.

1 Q. And you've indicated that you weren't aware, within the unit,

2 where the notebooks were kept; is that right?

3 A. I'm not sure. I know that the commander would take them. Now --

4 Q. Were you aware whether or not any of those notebooks were ever

5 burnt in the same way that the pieces of paper may have been disposed of?

6 A. That shouldn't be the case but I really can't answer because I

7 don't know.

8 Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you about a comment that you made

9 in your proofing in 1999, whereby you indicated that -- or first of all I

10 should establish this: Now it was the case that at the unit that you were

11 at, there was a Ministry of Interior secret service unit operating as

12 well, wasn't there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you refer to them in that proofing note as the AID, and what

15 you said was they were involved in the same kind of work as you were and

16 on occasions he, being you, he would only be able to hear one part of a

17 conversation but by comparison with AID, they were occasionally able to

18 complete the loop.

19 Now, do you recall telling that to one of the investigators, to

20 the ICTY, in 1999?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And is that correct? That's what used to happen?

23 A. Very seldom.

24 Q. All right. Well, but the fact is you would share information with

25 that service in relation to clarifying conversations that you might not

1 understand; is that correct?

2 A. Well, I will clarify. As far as I can remember, it happened

3 perhaps just once, and I have very poor recollection of that. If I didn't

4 hear the other participant well, then I would ask them whether they heard

5 that voice clearly but I think that that happened only once. I don't

6 really remember but that was all. I had no insight into their work, into

7 what they were intercepting.

8 Q. Now, Witness, I'm not asking you about what the target of their

9 work was, just on these occasions that you would complete the loop, that

10 was the expression you used, was it the case that they would come in and

11 have an input into the conversations that you transcribed? Is that what

12 would happen?

13 A. I have very little memory of that, really.

14 Q. All right. Did your commander, was he aware of this -- just say

15 it happened on one occasion, was your commander aware of the fact that the

16 secret service were assisting you in this regard or did he not know about

17 it?

18 A. Most likely he did, but I really don't remember this well.

19 Q. Now, what about the tapes that you used? What you indicated is

20 that tapes were not in short supply in 1995. You recall making that

21 statement?

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. But you also indicated that the decision was made at your unit to

24 reuse some of the tapes; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. So it wasn't the case that all tapes were sent on to the command.

2 That's not -- wasn't your experience, as you understood it; is that right?

3 A. All tapes were sent. They would take all the tapes. And I guess

4 they did something, they erased something, and then we would receive the

5 tapes again. That's all I know.

6 Q. Perhaps can I remind you, because, Witness, that's not, in my

7 submission to you, consistent with what you've said in your statement.

8 What you said at page 3 was: "Tapes were in short supply and were reused

9 unless the commander felt the conversation was so important it had to be

10 sent to the corps command."

11 Now, is that correct?

12 A. Yes. That's how it was in the beginning, initially. The tapes

13 were in short supply. But later on we had enough.

14 Q. All right. Well, in relation to the tapes themselves, can you

15 give any evidence about whether or not the tapes were numbered in any way?

16 Marked? Some sort of identification?

17 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you that.

18 Q. Now, I want to show you, please --

19 MS. CONDON: If the witness could be shown on e-court, Your

20 Honour, this is behind tab 7, and this appears at 1220. Could we bring

21 up, if it's possible, 1220B and 1220E at the same time?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't be able to confirm that but I will soon

23 tell you. Yes, it can be done. Thank you.

24 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes.

25 Q. Now, that's B on the right.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Condon, I hate to be abrupt the way I'm going to

2 be but something has cropped up that requires us to go downstairs to

3 discuss something very urgent. If you could stop for the time being and

4 then we continue immediately after the break.

5 So after the break, of course, Ms. Condon will finish her

6 cross-examination, and then we can do the -- in the absence of this

7 witness, obviously. All right. We'll hear your submissions first, then

8 you continue with your -- thank you.

9 Half an hour, yes, please.

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

11 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Once more my apologies, or our apologies to you,

14 Ms. Condon, but we had an urgent matter relating to something completely

15 different that we needed to attend to with some urgency before, certainly

16 before 11.00.

17 Mr. Ostojic, I understand from what you said earlier that you wish

18 to address the Trial Chamber in relation to the next witness, that's

19 witness number 76, who will be Prosecution Witness 133.

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

21 Your Honour, the submission has multiple parts to it. Initially

22 the first request we want to point out is that we are getting the

23 summaries late and we are not getting them as agreed in a timely manner.

24 As I mentioned previously, we received them late last night for the first

25 time. This witness also doesn't have prior witness statements, and we are

1 still hoping to get the NIOD statements from the Prosecutor when the time

2 is appropriate.

3 However, my objection goes to the heart of two issues. First of

4 all, it's the impermissible use of purported intercepts that were

5 transcribed by third parties, not by this very witness. The OTP, based on

6 their summary, and it's my submission, is proceeding to seek to utilise in

7 contravention of the Court's rulings both oral and written, as well as to

8 circumvent the rules of procedure by doing so, the Court's ruling with

9 respect to the evidence which addresses the acts and conduct of the

10 accused should not be unilaterally ignored by the OTP or by anyone in this

11 Tribunal. This clearly, in our submission, prejudices the fundamental

12 rights and guarantees offered to the accused in this Tribunal. The

13 Defence would be prevented from challenging and cross-examining these

14 other purported intercept operators which are being unfairly used simply

15 for two reasons. One to bolster the credibility of this witness, and to

16 impermissibly substantiate his current testimony.

17 At issue with this witness are three intercepts: One involves my

18 client; the other two -- or all three involve General Krstic. OTP in

19 their summary claim that there are other intercepts that this witness

20 purportedly went in a different site in a different notebook, and they

21 claim that now this witness confirms that he supposedly had overheard this

22 conversation and the contents. They speculatively and impermissibly

23 conclude that in fact based on their summary, that it was the same

24 conversation. On its face it's not. I don't need to debate it with the

25 witness. And what they are trying to do, Your Honour, is to come through

1 the back door, if you will, and have us then challenge that testimony and

2 bring in that evidence, which is not, number 1, our burden of proof or our

3 duty to do.

4 So we are asking this Court to restrict the Prosecutor from using

5 this type of tactic when they know the rules are clear, if they want the

6 intercept operator from the other sites to come in and testify in order to

7 substantiate any theory they may have, then they should in accordance with

8 this Court's ruling, in accordance with the rules, bring that intercept

9 operator forward so that we can have the opportunity to cross-examine that

10 witness as we were given with PW-133.

11 That's our first submission.

12 Secondly, Your Honour, we have an objection to the use of the

13 Blagojevic transcript in this case. In the summary, clearly the

14 Prosecutor is using the summary of Blagojevic as a further tactic to --

15 against the Defence and specifically my client. The three intercepts at

16 issue involve General Krstic. It would be probably prudent, I would

17 suggest, with all due respect that the Krstic transcript be utilised and

18 not the Blagojevic transcript. The Blagojevic Defence team in my view

19 rightfully did not challenge and the evidence adduced by this witness in

20 the Blagojevic trial was unchallenged, rightfully so.

21 The issue, they were not in the transcript, they were not in the

22 intercept so they did ask several and a few questions. Interestingly

23 enough, the Krstic transcript goes into detail on two separate occasions,

24 both in 2000 as well as 2001 involving these intercepts. In fact, in the

25 Krstic case, the Honourable Judge Riad and the Honourable Judge Wald both

1 questioned this witness on critical matters, which the other Judges or

2 Defence counsel or Prosecutor did not in the Blagojevic thing; namely the

3 dating of the intercept. So I think if we want to have a fair process, if

4 we want to protect the rights of the accused, the Krstic summary should be

5 utilised and the Krstic transcript should be utilised as opposed to the

6 Blagojevic transcript.

7 This is a tactic by the Prosecutor to pick and choose their

8 evidence and they then expect the Defence to during cross-examination to

9 highlight or to explain away all these issues and points. It's

10 impermissible to do that, I suggest to the Court. It's not the

11 guidance -- or there's no rules to suggest that that's the manner in

12 which they should proceed.

13 Third, Your Honour, I would like to revisit the issue of a

14 pseudonym for this witness and other witnesses. Although from time to

15 time we did acknowledge and stipulate that the Prosecutor should in their

16 discretion set forth if they believe that the witness should not have --

17 should not be revealed his identity, then he should be placed with a

18 pseudonym.

19 However, two things come to mind when we discussed this, and we

20 raised it, I think, a couple weeks ago. One, the witness does not work in

21 an area currently which would necessitate him to have any type of

22 privileged or protected measures. It's clear from his background, which

23 we won't have to go to into detail, what is the basis that this witness

24 thinks that he deserves or is entitled to having a pseudonym? I don't

25 find it there. It's important for us because other witnesses may come

1 forth with evidence against this witness to go and attack his either

2 credibility or his veracity as he may testify.

3 Finally, Your Honour, I submit that the Prosecutor in some of

4 their summaries have been quite inaccurate and have left it to -- the

5 burden -- shifted the burden, actually, to the Defence to highlight or to

6 try to explain those very inaccuracies. For example, in this summary

7 there were several inaccuracies in the statement that the Prosecutor drew,

8 yet they didn't make the comparison to the other transcript; namely, the

9 Krstic transcript. This practice, I think, is putting an unfair burden on

10 the Defence, and I think that is should be, with all due respect, stopped.

11 But I'd like to just highlight for the Court that my first two

12 submissions are the most critical. If the Court -- and if we had

13 stipulated to the pseudonym, we understand that it could even constitute a

14 waiver. We don't necessarily have a large objection to that, but I would

15 like to emphasise that the third party intercept operators should not be

16 allowed to be discussed with this witness as the Court has, in my view,

17 restricted us from using other intercepts with witnesses, specifically the

18 one where -- I think it was Exhibit 40, IPC, I think, 40, 41 and 42, and

19 the second submission clearly with respect to the use of the Blagojevic

20 transcript and the use of the Krstic transcript in its stead.

21 Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

23 Mr. Thayer?

24 Let's take them one by one. The first point raised by Mr. Ostojic

25 relates to the -- what he suggests is an untimely handing of the

1 summaries. That's the first point. Not only as it relates to this next

2 witness but also to the recent ones, as I understand it. Let's deal with

3 that first.

4 MR. THAYER: Very well, Your Honour. Good afternoon to you and

5 Your Honours.

6 Yes, things are moving a little faster than we had thought they

7 might. I had a summary prepared yesterday morning. I wanted to wait

8 until I was able to proof the witness in the afternoon, have him actually

9 read this or have the summary read to him in a language that he

10 understood. I notified counsel of that yesterday morning and then

11 furnished the summary after I made a couple of corrections last night.

12 Unfortunately, that's the hour it was done, necessitated by our proofing

13 schedule.

14 With respect to any inaccuracies in the summaries --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, let's take them one by one because there

16 is more to it than that.

17 It's also being suggested by Mr. Ostojic that, hope springs

18 eternal, they are expecting from you the NIOD statements of this next

19 witness. Have you made them available, when do you expect to make them

20 available? Or have these been disclosed already?

21 MR. THAYER: No. We are in a very complicated process with NIOD

22 trying to simplify it. This witness, as far as I'm aware, was not

23 interviewed by NIOD, so that is not an issue with respect to him.

24 The -- what we are trying to simplify with NIOD is a process in

25 which they want to have contact with all the witnesses themselves, have

1 the witnesses execute waivers, have the waivers sent back to NIOD, then

2 have the statement released back to the witness so that they can make the

3 decision about whether or not to release, as it were, this -- what's being

4 considered Rule 70 material.

5 I've been working very hard trying to shorten that procedure.

6 They are not being particularly responsive. That's also been complicated

7 with some absences over at NIOD. We are working on it; myself and an

8 investigator on our team are working on it. We have had one person on our

9 team personally contact every DutchBat officer for which we believe there

10 was a NIOD statement, as well as the intercept operators that have

11 testified to let them know that this procedure is under way, to cooperate

12 as quickly as -- and as efficiently as possible so that we can move this

13 along.

14 That is the status of that endeavour, Your Honour. We are doing

15 our best, but NIOD - and I must say rightfully so - seeks to protect the

16 way it perceives was a confidential relationship that it had with some of

17 its witnesses and at the very least wants to make sure that its witnesses

18 or that the people that it interviewed understand what's going to happen

19 possibly with the statements that they are furnishing to the witnesses.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understand it, you feel almost 100 per cent

21 sure that this witness did not give any statements to NIOD?

22 MR. THAYER: Yes. And I can reconfirm that, Your Honour. After

23 this session, I can just run out, but that is my understanding.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Does any of the Defence team have conflicting

25 information on this?

1 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't believe so, Your Honour, but there is the

3 first time we've heard that they were not. As we have seen with some

4 other witnesses, that they have given testimony, both open and under a

5 pseudonym with NIOD.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Then there is the question of the proposed use of

7 intercepts made by or carried out and transcribed by third parties. I

8 think that's the first major issue raised by Mr. Ostojic. Perhaps you can

9 address that.

10 MR. THAYER: Certainly, Your Honour.

11 I think as everyone can see from the exhibit list that we have

12 furnished in anticipation of Witness 76's testimony, the list is radically

13 simplified and reduced in size compared to what had initially been offered

14 back or suggested back in October. That is precisely because I do not

15 intend to offer through this witness intercept testimony that comes from

16 other locations. We will be calling those witnesses in their own right.

17 They will testify concerning those particular intercepts.

18 So with respect to this issue, frankly, Your Honour, in terms of

19 what I intend to lead the witness on, that issue has been mooted.

20 Now, certainly, he was questioned about those intercepts in the

21 Blagojevic case. That is where the intercepts came to light after they

22 came to light some of them in the rebuttal case in Krstic. One of the

23 reasons we decided to use Blagojevic is it's the most current testimony;

24 that seemed common-sensical to us. It is one transcript as opposed to

25 two, which would have been the case had we sought to use the Krstic

1 testimony.

2 The -- again, the evidence through this witness will be limited to

3 the three intercepts which are contained in his packet, two of which I

4 intend to discuss with him, and one which I do not intend to lead

5 affirmative evidence upon.

6 So all in all, Your Honour, I think that issue is frankly mooted.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think in relation to this Blagojevic as

8 opposed to Krstic previous testimony, I think there are other matters that

9 you need to address. The suggestion on -- by Mr. Ostojic is that it's the

10 testimony in Krstic and the testimony in Blagojevic and Jokic present two

11 rather separate scenarios. His first proposition or objection is that it

12 should, preference should have been made to refer to the Krstic testimony

13 rather than the Blagojevic one. That more or less you have answered

14 already.

15 But what is your position in relation to the possibility of having

16 both testimonies introduced? Because if I understand Mr. Ostojic well, he

17 seems to be suggesting that in one case, certain issues were discussed

18 during the testimony of this witness which were not discussed in another

19 testimony, and if I read him well, although his suggestion is to prepare

20 one rather than the other, if I read his submission well, if you want a

21 complete picture of this gentleman's previous testimony on the whole gamut

22 of areas he testified upon, you should have the two previous transcripts

23 and not just one, or one rather than the other.

24 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think practically speaking, while

25 there may have been some areas that were gone into more so in Krstic and

1 frankly more so in Blagojevic than in Krstic on others, I think the

2 Blagojevic testimony most fairly encompasses the scope of this witness's

3 testimony and fairly encompasses the vast majority of the Krstic testimony

4 as well. I think frankly it would be confusing and burdensome to try to

5 meld two entirely different trial transcripts into sort of one master

6 summary versus just sticking with one transcript, and if Mr. Ostojic feels

7 that there are areas that were not included to the degree he would have

8 liked in the summary, then he's free to cross-examine.

9 That said, Your Honour, I also intend to lead with this witness a

10 couple of limited areas which were gone into detail more in Krstic than in

11 Blagojevic. So to that extent I do intend to possibly cure some of that

12 objection, but I frankly disagree that that is a compelling enough reason

13 to try to mold together two separate trial transcripts when we have one

14 that I think fairly captures what this witness's testimony was and will

15 be.

16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic can tender the Krstic transcript, if

17 necessary.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. In addition, because this is a very

19 valid point that is being raised by my colleague Judge Kwon.

20 In addition to that, there is also the submission that the way you

21 have proceeded, and please don't misunderstand me, I do not in any way

22 wish to contest the right of the Prosecutor to choose the evidence that it

23 wishes to bring forward, but there is the suggestion, which I think is

24 quite a valid one, that in doing so, in choosing Blagojevic only, and we

25 have only heard now that you will also be addressing some parts of the

1 Krstic testimony, you are increasing the load that the Defence teams have

2 to carry, they being aware of the contents or the entire contents of this

3 gentleman's testimony in Krstic.

4 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, the -- in Blagojevic, just to stick to

5 the actual facts as they came out in Blagojevic, there was substantial

6 cross-examination, first of all, on I would say the vast majority of the

7 issues that were raised in Krstic. I don't think that there is any burden

8 that's being shifted to the Defence unfairly in that case. We --

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So your position is that in addition,

11 this is not a dirty tactic that you sort of have adopted but --

12 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, if I may say so, the -- for example, my

13 learned colleague raised an issue of the dating of the intercept not being

14 discussed in Blagojevic and that's just not the case. The dating of the

15 intercept was gone into in the Blagojevic case, and I think that when we

16 see the testimony, when we see ultimately the cross-examination, and my

17 direct, we'll be comfortable that the Blagojevic transcript fairly

18 encompasses this witness's testimony.

19 We are happy to introduce the Krstic transcript on its own in

20 total, but it seems to me that respectfully that that would vitiate the

21 time saving endeavour that we were hoping to have engaged in in creating a

22 two-page summary for this witness.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. The issue of the pseudonym, what was the

24 position in Blagojevic? Did he have protective measures in place?

25 MR. THAYER: Yes, Your Honour, in both Krstic and Blagojevic.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's all we needed to hear on that.

2 And finally, there was a point made by Mr. Ostojic in relation to

3 inaccuracies that, again, you are unduly burdening the Defence teams with

4 identifying these when they could be included or pointed out in the

5 summaries.

6 MR. THAYER: Frankly, Your Honour, I was trying to follow some of

7 the examples that were laid out by my learned colleague, and I don't know

8 whether he's reading a different summary, but I could not find what he

9 purported to refer to in my summary.

10 We stand ready as we always do. If there are perceived

11 inaccuracies, those can be resolved ahead of time, and they can certainly

12 be resolved during the testimony. I will read it. I will ask the witness

13 to confirm whether there are any inaccuracies in it and he can be

14 confronted with it.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: We think it can be dealt with rather briefly,

18 starting with the protective measures issue. I think we are governed

19 first and foremost by the rule that we have that the protective measures

20 already put in place in another case are carried forward, and when we

21 decided to give him the two protective measures that you have there, we

22 were doing nothing else but implementing the previous decisions, there

23 being no new circumstances pointed to us which would make it important to

24 refer to and decide upon.

25 In relation to the first point, we would appreciate if you do your

1 utmost, Mr. McCloskey, the whole Prosecution team, to make sure that the

2 summaries are not only adequate but that they are also made available to

3 the Defence teams in a timely fashion. We do acknowledge, as I hinted out

4 when I first addressed you, that you have the right, which we will not

5 interfere with, not even in this case, in this instance, to choose the way

6 you wish to proceed and the evidence you wish to bring forward in relation

7 to each witness, provided that is according to the law. You have dealt

8 with the question of the possible use of transcripts made by others in a

9 satisfactory manner, giving us also assurance that any transcripts made

10 use, to be made use of now and hereinafter, you will bring over the person

11 who made those transcripts, making him or her available for possible --

12 all possible cross-examination.

13 The question about the Krstic transcript, we cannot of course

14 impose it on you, because if you feel that the testimony of this -- the

15 previous testimony of this person is thoroughly and satisfactorily covered

16 in the Blagojevic trial and you wish to rely on that, then obviously we

17 have to leave it at that, and then it will be up to the Defence teams in

18 addition to what you may question the witness in relation to his other

19 testimony, to cross-examine him on that. We of course leave all doors

20 open. If it will become necessary to have the transcript of this

21 individual in the Krstic trial introduced in the records of this case, we

22 leave that option open.

23 I think we have covered -- I think we have covered everything. I

24 think we have covered everything. I think what is material anyway of

25 substance.

1 Yes. So that be it.

2 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We need to indicate as soon as

4 possible about our possible remarks or objections in relation to the

5 exhibits that are being submitted by the other side. So to that aim, I

6 would like to say that Mr. Popovic's Defence would like to object to the

7 exhibit that is on the list of the Prosecution for the

8 examination-in-chief of the next witness, and that is exhibit marked

9 as 1387G, and that's the 65 ter number. That exhibit is an audio exhibit.

10 It has a number that has been assigned to it, but it's not indicated

11 whether this is a tape, a CD, or a DVD.

12 The second thing -- or the second reason why we object, and I

13 would like to state this in advance in order to avoid any kind of

14 misunderstanding that we believe that the -- this is not an authentic copy

15 of the original. So as not to repeat my objection, that objection will

16 apply to all the audio taped intercepts that the Prosecution are going to

17 submit.

18 I would also like to say that we don't know who made these copies,

19 when they were made, and on which media they were made.

20 This is the essence of our objection, Your Honours. Thank you.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. I just would like to have

22 a clarification from the Prosecution on this point. In relation to a

23 previous audio that we heard in this courtroom, I think last week, there

24 was an indication made by, either by you, Mr. Thayer, or by Mr. McCloskey,

25 that the originals, quote/unquote, are in the vault, and that you are

1 prepared to make them available as and when required. That is also

2 applicable to this audio?

3 MR. THAYER: That's absolutely correct, Mr. President. In fact,

4 my understanding is that this audio to which my learned colleague refers

5 is on the same reel-to-reel tape to which Mr. Nicholls referred last week

6 with respect to his witness who had the audio tape. We stand ready to

7 make that available if anybody who wants to hear it. It just requires an

8 actual reel-to-reel tape to play.

9 The medium on which it has been disclosed to Defence counsel and

10 which we intend to play here is ultimately a CD which has been piped

11 through our e-court system, and that's the evidence.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: And will you be adducing evidence, testimony, in

13 relation to these audios?

14 MR. THAYER: It was not my intention with this witness to

15 establish any type of chain of --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: If -- I'm not necessarily referring to this next

17 witness. I'm just referring to evidence which will go to prove to the

18 chain of custody of this audio recording from stage one to wherever they

19 have arrived now.

20 MR. THAYER: I think the bulk of that testimony has come in

21 through Captain -- the previous -- one of the previous witnesses. With

22 respect to this particular item, I don't think we've shown how it fits in

23 to that witness's specific testimony, but this would be one of the items

24 that he discussed during his testimony about - it's PW-131, by the way,

25 for the record - how these pieces of evidence came into OTP's custody.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think we've heard enough. Ultimately this

2 will be a matter that will need to be addressed and decided upon after we

3 have heard all the evidence relating to the possible authenticity problems

4 attached to such audio or audios, and I think if there are no further

5 submissions, we can -- but I wish to thank you, Mr. Zivanovic, for having

6 adhered to what we stated in the beginning of this sitting, to come

7 forward in a timely fashion when you are objecting in a particular manner

8 to some document that the Prosecution seeks to tender.

9 Yes. Do you need to bring down the curtains while the witness is

10 coming in?

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Witness, we are going to continue. Ms. Condon

13 will proceed with her cross-examination.

14 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Now, Witness, I just want to establish that the protocol in

16 relation to the notebooks was that you would write down the participants,

17 the frequency, and the time of the conversation; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And when I use the word "protocol," you understand that that was

20 as a result of specific orders that you received from your commander as to

21 how you were to note down the conversations in your notebook; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, if you take a look at the document that's on the right, you

25 have two documents in front of you, on the screen?

1 A. You mean my transcript or what?

2 Q. No. On your -- the monitor that's on your right, there should be

3 two documents in front of you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher, could you make sure that what he has --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see one document.

6 MS. CONDON:

7 Q. Well, perhaps -- is there a document there that you recognise your

8 handwriting? Does that make it easier?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, at the top of that document, you'll see that there is a --

11 this -- there is a notation, channel 3; do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And there are 12 -- it looks like 1249 H; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And there is no notation there as to the frequency of this alleged

16 conversation, is there?

17 A. Yes. But as written in the previous conversation, definitely.

18 When the frequency is the same, then all you indicate in the next

19 conversation is the number of the channel.

20 Q. All right. Now, I want you to focus your attention on the line

21 that appears ten lines down from the bottom, where it says, X, and then do

22 you see that sentence there beginning, "I" and my pronunciation will be

23 terrible. Do you see that, "i odma," those words there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, I want you just to read out, please, that sentence, from the

1 beginning.

2 A. "And to have Goran go right away."

3 Q. And we just got the translation there. So Goran, tell me about

4 that. That's a male name, is it?

5 A. No. It says here "goram," not Goran, with an N.

6 Q. Yes. But what does "goram" mean?

7 A. The words "goram" means "gore," which is up there. That's a

8 typical localism for that area. Instead of saying "gore," up there, they

9 say "goram."

10 Q. So, in particular, and then this -- what you say is that it means

11 go up there; is that correct?

12 A. It says here: "To go goram." That's what that man uttered.

13 Q. Mm-hmm.

14 MS. CONDON: Now, and then we'll see this is more for the benefit

15 of the Trial Chamber, Your Honour, that in the document that is in

16 English, at 1220A, the interpretation of that same line is: "And have him

17 come here or/come/here/immediately."

18 Q. Now, in relation to the question of voice recognition, Witness,

19 can I ask you, did you ever have any formal training in voice

20 identification?

21 A. No.

22 Q. No? So, in particular, you were asked in the course of this

23 investigation by -- in -- I can -- in November of 1999, you were asked

24 whether or not you were able to recognise the voices of VRS officers. Do

25 you recall being asked that question?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And how did that come about? Was particular officers's names

3 suggested to you or did you volunteer them?

4 A. Nobody suggested anything to me.

5 Q. All right. So in response to that question about whether or not

6 you recognised voices of VRS officers, you said you were able to recognise

7 several names, one of which was Popovic; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. All right. Now, it's obvious, isn't it, that unless a person

10 identifies themselves in a conversation, you are relying on what you say

11 is recognition of that person's voice. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Only if I was not sure would I put X or Y. If I was hundred

13 per cent sure, then no. They mostly introduced themselves, but sometimes

14 we would recognise their voices at the time because we heard them often.

15 Q. But that actually wasn't my question. The scenario where a person

16 identifies themselves, it's obvious that you can with 100 per cent

17 certainty identify the participant. You agree with that proposition?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. But in the scenario where a person doesn't identify themselves

20 you're relying upon what you say is recognition of that voice over a

21 period of time. Do you agree with that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You also agree, don't you, that you did not personally know any of

24 these people that you say you recognised their voice? You agree with

25 that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you also agree, don't you, that while you indicated that you

3 could recognise the voice of Zivanovic, there was at least one occasion

4 where you described his voice as being unintelligible? Do you agree with

5 that?

6 A. Not that it was unintelligible. It was overmodulated and barely

7 intelligible in one conversation.

8 Q. All right. You say "barely intelligible." I say -- I'm not going

9 to get into an argument with you about that.

10 What I'm suggesting to you, Witness, is that the process of you

11 saying you recognise a voice is guess work on your part. Do you agree

12 with that proposition?

13 A. I wouldn't fully agree.

14 Q. You would agree that without a person identifying themselves in a

15 conversation, you can't be 100 per cent sure who the participant in that

16 conversation is, can you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, in particular, you say that you recall conversations where

19 one of the participants was Popovic. I want to --

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. I don't see that in any of his

21 conversations.

22 MS. CONDON: I accept that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

24 MS. CONDON: I'll rephrase.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Please rephrase your question.

1 MS. CONDON:

2 Q. That when you were asked the question about the voices that you

3 recognised, you said that you were able to recognise the voice of Popovic.

4 What about in July of 1995, Witness? Were there particular conversations

5 that you say you recall whereby he was a participant?

6 A. Don't remember. Right now I don't remember.

7 Q. All right. Were you -- let me ask you this: In the course of

8 this investigation, were you shown notebooks from July 1995, that you had

9 used?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And in the course of being shown those notebooks, you did not see

12 any notebooks that you had -- sorry, any conversations that you had

13 transcribed whereby you could identify a Popovic as having been a party to

14 any of the conversations; is that correct?

15 A. Could you reformulate that, please?

16 Q. What you've said is that you have a specific recollection of

17 recognising the voice of Popovic. You accept that?

18 A. Yes, that year, yes.

19 Q. Yes. And what I'm asking you about, in July of 1995, when you

20 were shown the notebooks that you used, you did not see any conversations

21 that you had intercepted during that period, where Popovic was a party,

22 did you?

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. CONDON: Pardon me a moment, Your Honour.

25 [Defence counsel confer]

1 MS. CONDON: I have no further questions of this witness, Your

2 Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Condon.

4 Is the Beara team going next? Yes, Mr. Meek.

5 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:

6 Q. Good morning, Witness. How are you?

7 A. Good morning. Thank you for inquiring. How are you?

8 Q. I'm fine. I'd like to follow up on my colleague's question about

9 specific recollections of intercepts.

10 Now, you spoke with an investigator from the Office of the

11 Prosecutor in 1999 by the name of Alistair Graham. Do you remember that,

12 sir?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And didn't you tell him then specifically in May of 1999, four

15 years after the events which transpired in July of 1995, that you did not

16 recall any particular conversations of note?

17 A. Perhaps.

18 Q. Well, you were telling him the truth then, were you not?

19 A. Naturally, yes.

20 Q. You testified earlier today that you had instructions in relation

21 to the notebooks and that you were to write in the date, time, frequency,

22 participants, of the conversations that you intercepted; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did you follow that protocol and write the date each time that

25 you listened to a conversation that was intercepted, sir?

1 A. The date would normally be recorded in the morning when the first

2 conversation was recorded, and later on we would report -- record

3 frequency and channel, so there was no need to enter the day every time.

4 We would just do it with the first conversation and then we would know

5 that everything else was done on that day.

6 Q. You just a moment ago testified when my colleague asked you

7 whether or not you were suggested by the investigators for the Office of

8 the Prosecutor any particular persons in regards to recognising their

9 voices, you I think testified no, nobody suggested anything to you. Was

10 that your testimony, sir?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So can I take it, then, that when you came in to give a statement

13 to the Office of the Prosecutor on 16 November 1999, that you just sat

14 down and started talking?

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that's argumentative.

16 MR. MEEK: I beg to differ, Your Honour. It's not argumentative.

17 If nothing was suggested to him, I want to know if he just started

18 talking.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's either flippant or argumentative. It's not

20 the kind of question that's designed for an honest answer.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a storm in a tea cup. Let's move on to the

23 next question, Mr. Meek.

24 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this

25 witness.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

2 Madam Nikolic.

3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

4 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. I'd like to put several

6 questions to you about the topic that you covered with Ms. Condon; namely,

7 the identification of participants in the conversation.

8 You testified today, and you explained to the Court and to us that

9 you identified the participants when they introduced themselves, and when

10 they did not introduce themselves then you weren't 100 per cent sure who

11 they were. Would you please explain to me, in cases where you did not

12 recognise the voices, and in cases where the participants did not

13 introduce themselves, how did you identify the participants? How did you

14 mark them?

15 A. In all cases where I wasn't sure about the identity of the

16 participants, I would mark them with an X or a Y.

17 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown tab 2,

18 please? P2 -- 2327 A and 2327 B. Those are two versions, English and

19 B/C/S.

20 Q. [Interpretation] I think that you can see the B/C/S version on the

21 right-hand side. This is one of the intercepts that you transcribed.

22 Under the frequency indicated, 784, you marked the participants, Basevic

23 Nidzo; correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In the further text of this intercept, please look at it slowly,

1 we see that none of the participants introduced themselves.

2 A. In this particular case, they introduced themselves at the

3 beginning of the conversation, which I did not transcribe. Or the

4 switchboard operator, when making the connection, identified the

5 participants, but I did not transcribe that initial portion of the

6 conversation.

7 Q. All right. Thank you.

8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

9 tab 12, document 1291, C and B. Rather, C and D. I apologise, C and D

10 because B is not a complete document.

11 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated].

12 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the problem?

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1291 D needs to be on the ELMO. They

14 cannot both go in e-court at the same time.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Partly on e-court, partly on the ELMO.

16 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be good if we saw

17 the English version in e-court so that those who follow in English can see

18 the document.

19 I don't have it on my screen.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have it now? Do you have it now?

21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I don't have it. I

22 just have e-court, the English version, but for some reason I don't have

23 what I need in order to discuss this with the witness.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher what we have on the screen, on e-court, at the

25 moment is the English translation, starting 259.675 megahertz, 10.30

1 hours.

2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the right document, and

3 the witness should have the B/C/S version on the ELMO in front of him.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's being placed on the ELMO now. Let's

5 see the heading -- yeah, okay. No. This is not the same.

6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we scroll down, please.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That is when it starts. It's the last

8 part, the last third part of the page that we are interested in.

9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Sir, would you be so kind and please look over these intercepts,

11 which were recorded by you. They start with the names Lelek, Colonel

12 Djurcic. This conversation goes on, on to the second page. Once again,

13 none of the participants introduced themselves, nor did you indicate that

14 you recognised the voices. Wasn't it logical for you to mark them with an

15 X or a Y?

16 A. No. No, it wasn't, because these conversations went through the

17 switchboard operator, and the names of these people were given before I

18 started transcribing it.

19 Q. So you did not transcribe this portion of the conversation either?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Would you please look at the conversation on the same document

22 that precedes it, beginning with 255850, Mitar Jevdjo. Once again, this

23 is an intercept transcribed by you; isn't that right?

24 A. I don't know because I don't have the version in my handwriting.

25 Q. In order to cover this as speedily as possible, I have that

1 handwritten version.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Can you for the time being also put on the

3 ELMO superimposed on the other, the handwritten version, please?

4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit 1291A.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to put it further down, yes. No, no,

6 that's too much. Yes. Stop there, please.

7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. This intercept, we already commented on, so could we scroll up a

9 little bit so that the witness can see whether this brief intercept that

10 was recorded -- so that he can see if that's his handwriting?

11 A. Yes, it's my handwriting.

12 Q. The participants didn't introduce themselves either?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So you didn't listen to this -- you didn't transcribe this entire

15 intercept?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. So there are exceptionally many intercepts that you did not

18 transcribe yourself, but you put the participants more or less

19 approximately according to their names?

20 A. No, it wasn't approximate. They would introduce themselves at the

21 start of the conversation, that part was not important to me, and what you

22 see is what I transcribed.

23 Q. Why was this part important to you?

24 A. I don't have an answer for you on that question.

25 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I have no

1 further questions.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Nikolic.

3 Who is next? Mr. Stojanovic.

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir.

6 A. Good day.

7 Q. I would like us to stick to the time and we are going to go

8 through the documents. And we also need to speak slowly, I'm afraid,

9 otherwise we will overlap, and we are talking about many nuances here.

10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please now show the

11 witness on e-court the intercept from tab 1? This is the 65 ter number

12 1161, A and C.

13 Q. [Interpretation] And while we are waiting, this is an intercept in

14 which you participated, Zivanovic and Jokic. I would like to put a couple

15 of questions to you about that.

16 If I can just ask for 1161C to be shown at the same time or it can

17 go on the ELMO.

18 This is your handwriting; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. At the end of this intercept, you put in a remark that you

21 mentioned earlier today, General Zivanovic talked quite in an

22 overmodulated way and quite incomprehensibly. Do you remember saying

23 that?

24 Can we scroll down a little bit, please, so that we can look at

25 the bottom of this page? Can you now look at the last sentence, please?

1 Is that your handwriting?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. It says there: "General Zivanovic spoke overmodulatedly and quite

4 unintelligibly."

5 Can you please tell us what does that mean, overmodulatedly and

6 incomprehensibly?

7 A. The remark probably was prompted by the reason that the telephone

8 used by General Zivanovic -- he was either speaking very loudly into the

9 telephone, I don't know what was the matter with the telephone, but it was

10 quite recognisable that he was speaking at that moment. Overmodulated

11 could mean that he was speaking too loudly, that the phone was faulty in

12 some way, so it was too loud, and quite unintelligibly meant probably that

13 in that part it was difficult to understand what he was saying. Usually

14 the conversations were quite well articulated.

15 In such cases, I would call one or two of my colleagues to help.

16 We would play it back a few more times, to make sure about what was

17 actually being said.

18 Q. Did you have notes about the characteristics of certain speakers

19 that would crop up in the intercepts?

20 A. No. We didn't. Actually, I myself did not.

21 Q. Are you aware if any of your colleagues had a file with voice or

22 speech characteristics, accent, specificities, words that they would use,

23 of certain participants in the intercepts that you were listening into?

24 A. No, I'm not aware of that.

25 Q. Can you now look at the first line of this text that you jotted

1 down, the one that you're seeing on the ELMO, where it states: "Z: I

2 cannot get through."

3 We have now moved it but -- all right. Very well. I think it's

4 all right now. It's in the middle of this text, somewhere in the middle,

5 it says: "Z: And then I cannot get through." Then there is a word

6 inserted: "Gore, up there." "There are some of them up there," and so on

7 and so forth.

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Except it says here: "Is there anybody there, up there."

10 Q. My question is: Do you see this word that is added, "up there"?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you put that word in?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. And do you see dots underneath that word?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Am I correct if I say that while you were listening or

17 transcribing, as the term here is used, you were not able to hear the word

18 well, so you put those dots there; is that correct?

19 A. No, that is not correct. Because I assume that the dots were

20 there in the beginning but then later -- I mean, it was most often the

21 case that if some word was not quite clear, two or three of us would

22 listen, we would play it back a few times, all of us listening, and then

23 that's how it came about that I actually put that word in.

24 Q. So you will agree that you couldn't hear the word right away and

25 that you put the dots there?

1 A. I heard the word, but I wasn't quite sure what the word was until

2 we played it back several times.

3 Q. And then you inserted the word?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. Do you know that sometimes, when listening back to the intercepts,

6 somebody else who heard the word better would add to the original text a

7 word that he managed to decipher?

8 A. No, no. That wasn't possible.

9 Q. You were the only one who could have done that?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. Now I would like to ask you to look at tab 6, and if possible,

12 maybe we can look at 65 ter number 1219A on the e-court, and 1219B. And

13 while we are waiting, I just wanted to ask you something.

14 When you came across nicknames, how would you note them down using

15 capital letters or lower case letters?

16 A. Well, it should have been put in in capitals.

17 Q. If somebody's nickname is Bor, how would you write that?

18 A. Like Bor, with the first letter B. The first letter would be

19 capital, capital B.

20 Q. If we can now look at 65 ter, both English and B/C/S versions. Do

21 you see this in front of you now?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is this your text?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Could you please read this second sentence, actually, the second

1 line?

2 A. You mean participant X?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. "Tell me, is Pop there?"

5 Q. And the answer is, if you can read it?

6 A. "No."

7 Q. In our language, is the word "pop" something that can mean priest

8 as well?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Are we talking about a priest here?

11 A. I cannot give you an answer. I don't know what the participant

12 wanted to ask. I wrote it down but I don't know what he was asking. I

13 can't know that.

14 Q. So when you hear someone say, "Tell me, is Pop anywhere around,"

15 you are telling us here today that you cannot know whether he was looking

16 for some priest or somebody whose name was Pop; is that correct?

17 A. Well, I assume so.

18 Q. Is priest, in our language, written with a capital letter or not?

19 A. No, it's written out in lower case letters.

20 Q. I cannot really see that well. Did you use a capital letter here

21 or not?

22 A. I used a capital letter here.

23 Q. And to finish with this intercept, you marked that one of the

24 participants was X and the other participant was Trbic; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Would it also be correct here that you identified this speaker, or

2 participant, in the part of the conversation that you did not transcribe?

3 A. Yes, precisely.

4 Q. Thank you. I would now like us to look at tab 9. And if we can

5 see on e-court 65 ter document 1238A and 1238B.

6 And while we are waiting for these intercepts, I just wanted to

7 ask you something. How often -- and now I'm speaking about you -- how

8 often was it the case that you did not transcribe that section of the

9 intercept where the persons identified themselves? Was that a rule of

10 your work or an exception?

11 A. Well, it wasn't a rule, but I considered that to be an unimportant

12 part. I believe that it was important for them to introduce themselves

13 and for me to note it down. Had I known that that would be a -- at issue

14 here, then I would have noted that down as well.

15 Q. But you would agree with me that your instruction was to literally

16 record what you heard; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In such cases, as far as I understand you, you did not do that,

19 but you skipped the part of the conversation where someone introduced

20 themselves or was introduced by the intermediary centre?

21 A. Could you please rephrase that for me?

22 Q. I will. In these cases, you did not act in accordance with the

23 instructions, but you skipped over noting down the part of the

24 conversation in which the speakers introduced themselves or were

25 introduced by someone else?

1 A. Yes, more or less.

2 Q. And were you told to do this or did you do this for practical

3 reasons so that you would write less?

4 A. We did it because that part was not interesting to us.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think this issue has been laboured and belaboured.

6 I think we've heard enough on this, Mr. Stojanovic. I suggest you move to

7 something different.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am

9 going to be finishing soon.

10 Q. [Interpretation] I just wanted to look at this intercept. Can we

11 look at the bottom section where it says that the participants in the

12 conversation are Strbac, and then it says, Colonel Cerovic, and then --

13 that Cerovic is in parentheses with a question mark.

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I do. Should I clarify why the question mark is there?

16 Q. Yes. That is precisely what I wanted to ask you. When you read

17 this part of the intercept, you have one participant who is introduced?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And so why is there a name here in parentheses with a question

20 mark?

21 A. Because it's not 100 per cent certain, but while replaying the

22 word seemed to resemble this particular word the most. That's why there

23 is a question mark there.

24 Q. Which part of the conversation that you were listening to most

25 resembles that word Cerovic?

1 A. Just like in the previous intercepts, it's at the beginning of the

2 conversation. We possibly didn't transcribe it.

3 Q. Thank you very much.

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

5 questions.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Stojanovic.

8 Madam Fauveau.

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:

11 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you were talking about recognising voices.

12 Would you -- or were you, rather, able to -- can you tell us how many

13 times did you have to hear a voice before you were able to recognise a

14 person?

15 A. Several times, naturally. I don't know the exact number of times.

16 Q. Is it right to say that it depends of the person, that for some

17 people you were able to recognise their voices but for other people you

18 had to listen to their voices many times in order to recognise them?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Sir, you talked about various intercepted conversations with the

21 Prosecutor before you came to this courtroom, and you've identified three

22 mistakes. Those mistakes that you identified, was it the Prosecutor who

23 showed you those mistakes or did you identify them yourself?

24 A. I myself identified them.

25 Q. Did you examine carefully all the conversations?

1 A. Yes.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

3 Exhibit 1161B, please? And in English, it is 1161A. I would like the

4 second part of the page to be shown, the lower part of the page.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, can you see the sentence that begins with,

6 "Ili da odu na Djurisice," to go to Djurisice?

7 A. Yes, I can see it.

8 Q. When you read this sentence, Djurisice,, is that a name of a

9 village or is that a name of a person? Could you explain this to us?

10 A. Probably -- I wouldn't know what to answer. It's hard. Probably

11 it's a place.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

13 Exhibit 1161C? It's on page -- it's the document that ends with the

14 page 808. It's the following page.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, do you see the sentence in which we can

16 read, "Or they should go to Djurisice."

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Is it exact to say that this sentence is not the exact same

19 sentence that we just saw in the typed version?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In the typed version, the sentence talks, rather, of a place, and

22 here we have the feeling that it is referring to a person; is that right?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

25 Exhibit 2327C? The English version is 2327A.

1 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, do you see the name that is written down in

2 the conversation that belongs at 619. The name is Bacevic; is that right?

3 A. Yes, that is right.

4 Q. This is a name that is normally written with two Cs, and both Cs

5 have an accent; is that right?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

8 Exhibit 2327B?

9 Q. Sir, the same name is written down here with two Ss, but in

10 Serbo-Croatian it would be an S with an accent on top; is that right?

11 A. Yes, that's right.

12 Q. Can we then conclude that both names, the name that appears in the

13 handwritten version and in the typed version, that those two names are not

14 identical?

15 A. Actually, it is the same, but it's just a typographical error.

16 Q. I understand, sir. I believe that it is a typo. But if we talk

17 about those two names, it's two different names. One name is Bacevic and

18 the other name would be Basevic.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: He's already told you that it's the same person,

20 Madam Fauveau. He seemed to acknowledge also that it's a typographical

21 error.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, but to change a

23 letter in a name can designate another person, and this can bring to

24 confusion.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think there is room for any confusion at

1 this point because the witness has already confirmed to you that it is the

2 same person.

3 I think we need to have a break now. We'll have a 30-minute

4 break.

5 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't repeat the same question. Move to something

10 different, please.

11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Sir, can you tell us what is the real name of the person that you

13 wrote down as being Bacevic? Is it Bacevic or Basevic?

14 A. No.

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

16 Exhibit 1214B, please? The second intercepted conversation took place at

17 11.15. That's the one that I would like to see on the screen.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, are you able to find the sentence that

19 states that a person talked to a certain Kovacevic?

20 A. Yes, I can.

21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

22 Exhibit 1214D? It's the second page, please.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, in the second line of this document, we

24 can see that there is a person who is talking to another person called

25 Kovac; is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So there is a mistake here as well with regard to the name?

3 A. Most likely the mistake is in the printed portion, not in the

4 handwritten portion.

5 Q. When you were transcribing conversations in your notebook, were

6 they written down in a chronological order?

7 A. In most cases, yes.

8 Q. And when you say "in most cases," were there cases where the

9 chronological order was not respected?

10 A. Sometimes some intercepts were transcribed in the other notebook.

11 Sometimes that would happen. But in most cases, they followed a

12 chronological order.

13 Q. When a conversation was transcribed in a notebook, let's say it

14 says 2200 hours and the next one is 8.00 a.m., does that mean that

15 the 8.00 a.m. conversation was written down the day after the conversation

16 of the 2200 hours one?

17 A. Could you please repeat the question?

18 Q. When two conversations follow, if one takes place at 2200 hours,

19 10.00 p.m., and another one at 8.00 a.m., does that mean that the

20 conversation that was transcribed at 8.00 a.m. was actually heard the day

21 after, following the conversation that took place at 10.00 p.m. the day

22 before?

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: If there is an actual notebook that this is a

24 reference to, I think that would be appropriate as opposed to just a

25 hypothetical which wouldn't be real relevant unless it is.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct. I think that would also make it easy for

2 the witness who is giving me the impression that he is not exactly clear

3 in his mind as to what you are asking.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] That's right, Mr. President. Could

5 the witness be shown Exhibit P2330, please.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, on this first page, is it right to say

7 that we see 16th of July, 1995? I presume that this is the month of July

8 1995.

9 A. Most likely, yes.

10 Q. Does that mean that the first conversation transcribed in this

11 notebook took place on the 16th of July, 1995?

12 Could we please show page 4 of this notebook.

13 Sir, this is a conversation that is written in this notebook, the

14 first conversation that was actually transcribed. Can we conclude that it

15 was transcribed on the 16th of July, 1995?

16 A. I don't know that.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: From the notebook itself, I don't think he can tell

18 you the date unless the date is indicated, which I -- I'm not seeing any

19 date indicated there, at least from what I have on the monitor. So he

20 would need to see the typed transcript in order to be able to tell you

21 whether the date is the correct one or not. How is he going to tell you?

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau. You may proceed.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, but there is a date

25 on the first page of this notebook, so I just assume that he can tell us

1 if this conversation could have taken place before the 16th of July or on

2 a date following the 16th of July.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: That is -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: If he's allowed to look at the entire document, I

5 don't think at this point, you know, making guessing games or at least

6 provide a foundation.

7 JUDGE KWON: He answered he doesn't know. Let us proceed.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I heard that.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, he said he cannot. He said that. And I

10 pointed out that of course he cannot. The date is not indicated against

11 this transcript. He can't -- it will be sheer guessing or he must be a

12 genius.

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would be more than

14 happy to show the notebook to the witness, because there is one particular

15 conversation that appears in the document, which is typewritten on the

16 21st of July, and then there are ten dates that fall -- that took place

17 before. So as of the first page of the document, one could conclude that

18 the first conversation could not have happened between the 16th of July,

19 so there is a big discrepancy between this document and the typewritten

20 document. I cannot demonstrate what I mean otherwise than just to show

21 the witness this notebook.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we shouldn't have any further discussions.

23 Let's show the witness the notebook and then refer him to any specific

24 parts from that notebook and put the questions that you need in order to

25 possibly establish the date of this particular transcript that we see on

1 the screen and any further questions that may become relevant or

2 important.

3 So who, Madam Usher -- the notebook.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sure we can find it, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope so.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: But that's not something we have a physical copy

7 of right now.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. If I understood Madam Fauveau well, she

9 is interested first in the cover. So let's see the cover and proceed

10 accordingly.

11 Then do you know the page -- okay. So yes. Can we see the next

12 page, please? And the next. Yes. And the next. Yes, go on, please. Is

13 there a way in which we don't have to go --

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It would be good if we could stop at

17 page 6, please. A conversation took place at 2300 hours [as interpreted],

18 53, so 10.53 p.m., and on the following page, another intercept took place

19 at 1148, so I assume even though we don't know the date of the first

20 conversation, that this conversation took place the day after the previous

21 conversation. And then I would like to go to page 9, please.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it just your assumption or are you putting a

23 question to the witness?

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm asking the question to answer --

25 I'm asking the witness to answer my question.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you agree, sir, that the transcript that you

2 see on top of this page with a time of 11.48 goes back to a time later

3 than the previous transcript that you saw on page 6, which had a time

4 of 22 or 23.50 something?

5 I didn't hear his answer. I think his microphones are switched

6 off, at least one is.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we do have the book.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then perhaps we can hand him the book

9 and Madam Fauveau can refer him to the various pages that she has in mind

10 and we can then ask him the questions. And as you go along, we'll try to

11 have the pages on the screen as well for us to be able to follow.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown -- or,

13 rather, would you like me to start from the beginning or to start with the

14 page that we were at?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I would go straight to what you are trying to get

16 the witness to confirm. So I think you said initially the whole purpose

17 of this exercise was to try and establish that the first transcript that

18 you showed him preceded a certain date.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In part, that's what I would like to

20 establish. But the second part that I would like to establish is the

21 following: Is that the conversation that appears on the document typed on

22 the 21st of July, if you follow the logic that the witness described,

23 according to which they were following a chronological order, then it

24 would be the previous day.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Which page are you referring to? This transcript of

1 the 21st of July.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, the witness also said that it was

3 not perfect, that they would sometimes write "other" in, so I don't know

4 where this takes us.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: But let's not testify for him because he said that

6 already and leave it at that. If Madam Fauveau is contesting that there

7 is some indication in this notebook -- please tell your client to keep

8 quiet because we will need to take certain measures otherwise.

9 Yes, Madam Fauveau. Which page do you wish to refer this witness

10 to in relation to the intercept of the 21st of July?

11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] The page I would like to refer the

12 witness to is 00801510, and there is a date of the 21st of July that I

13 contest.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Usher, please, you need to go and help him

15 find the page on the notebook that he has in front of him.

16 JUDGE KWON: It seems to be page 53 of that book.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 56, Your Honour. 00801510.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Here on the e-court it shows page 53.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It's the right page, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So. All right. Witness, have a look at that

21 page, you will notice that halfway down the page there is an intercept,

22 the beginning -- which at the beginning indicates the date, that being

23 21st of July of 1995.

24 Now, your question, Madam Fauveau.

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

1 Q. My question is as follows: On the first page, on the cover page,

2 of this notebook, we were able to see a date, the 16th of July, 1995, and

3 before that date, the 21 of July, 1995. So before that date, there were

4 at least ten other days that can be identified, if we look at intercepted

5 conversations. So I'm just wondering how is this possible?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: The three of us are not understanding the question.

7 JUDGE KWON: A problem of the translation, maybe.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: It may well be a problem of translation, but to us

9 the way it has been translated means how is it possible that there is an

10 interval of -- I mean, perhaps you can explain your question better.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to foundation. If she can establish he

12 knows about who or why or what the first page means or who did it, if he

13 knows anything about that, that question may be able to be answered, but

14 until that's established this is -- again it's a quiz.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: But apart from that, Mr. McCloskey, I think we first

16 need to understand what the question was.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] My question is the following: There

18 are at least ten different days in this notebook that can be identified if

19 we look at this notebook and the date that appears here. On the 21st, it

20 would have been the fifth conversation as of the 16th of July, so it's not

21 very logical for me. So this is why I was asking the witness to explain.

22 If he doesn't know what it means as of the 16th of July, 1995, he of

23 course cannot answer my question.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Explain what? What do you want him to explain?

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] How is it possible that between the

1 16th of July and the 21st of July, 10 days could have gone by?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you understanding the question, Witness?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that will become a submission.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, I cannot do it

6 differently. I cannot testify instead of the witness. In order to show

7 this, we would have to go through the notebook to show that there are days

8 that follow each other and that when it says the 21st of July that's not

9 logical. The date does not appear to be logical.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness cannot help you. He's told you straight

11 and plain that he doesn't know. He's not even understanding your

12 question, and to be honest, neither am I.

13 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have to go back to the supervisor that spoke

15 about this, if you recall, the dates that got put on the front page.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't --

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I won't give you the information.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: This is why I'm saying it should become a

19 submission.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau, the only logical way we can go about

22 this, if you want to pursue it, is to identify the 10 days that you are

23 maintaining can be gleaned from the preceding pages in this notebook and

24 then put the question again to the witness. But otherwise I simply cannot

25 follow, and I'm not surprised that the witness cannot follow.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. This is

2 exactly what I wanted to do because that was the purpose of showing the

3 notebook to the witness.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, so let's start with these ten different days.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for counsel.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 00801461, it's on page 4 on e-court.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: If it would help, I would trust Ms. Fauveau to

9 have added up the days correctly as opposed to going over each of them.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: You see, this is -- I don't think we are going to

11 get far, but this is why I said that this is a matter of a submission

12 rather than putting it to the witness, who is not answerable for

13 everything that is included in or shows up in this notebook in any case.

14 JUDGE KWON: Move on. At least the witness would be able to

15 identify the dates.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You've seen the first one.

17 And, Usher, if you show the witness how to move through the

18 pages.

19 Witness, you have to look at the last four digits on the top of

20 the page. You see in this page, it is 1461, the last four digits are

21 1461, and Madam Fauveau will be moving you through this notebook and

22 asking you questions.

23 Yes, next, Madam Fauveau.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Sir, taking into account that there is a date that's written on

1 the first page of this notebook, do you agree with me that this

2 conversation, which is the first conversation transcribed in this notebook

3 could not have been written down before the 16th of July, 1995?

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's a misstatement of the evidence

5 before this Court.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think this question needs to be answered. It's

8 also a means available for Defence of controlling previous evidence that

9 we have on the dates which appear on the cover of notebooks.

10 So, Witness, you've seen the date on the cover which if I remember

11 well was the 16th of July of 1995.

12 And it's being put to you that this first transcript that --

13 intercept that you have on page 4 couldn't have happened before, couldn't

14 have been taken before the date which appears on the first page, on the

15 cover of the notebook. Would you agree with that?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Your next question, Madam Fauveau.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Sir, on page which ends with numbers 1461, you have there the

20 first intercept in the notebook. There are no dates above this intercept,

21 but I presume that it is on the 16th of July that it was transcribed. Do

22 you agree with me?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And this intercept took place at 1941 --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, could it have been the 17th of July?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I truly don't know. I can't help

2 you there.

3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Could you please take 1463? This intercept took place at 2253, so

5 this is the last conversation that took place on that first day, and for

6 the purposes of this cross-examination, let's call it the conversations

7 that took place on the 16th of July.

8 And then if you take the next page, which is 1464, an intercepted

9 conversation took place at 1148. Now do you agree with me that we are

10 talking about the following day, which is now the 17th of July, 1995?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, can you please go to page 1468. Or, rather, go to 1466,

13 please.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So this intercepted conversation was recorded at 14.25. We are

16 still talking about the 17th of July; is that right? And then if you take

17 page 1468, the first intercepted conversation was written down at 1300

18 hours 18, 13.18. So is it logical to say that this conversation took

19 place the day after, on the 18th of July?

20 A. Logical, yes, looking at this notebook.

21 Q. The following conversation took place at 16.22. It's on the same

22 page, and when we go to the next page, the page which ends with 1469, we

23 see that an intercepted conversation was written down at 16.15. So this

24 conversation took place the day after; is that right?

25 A. Most likely.

1 Q. So it would be the 19th of July; is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So please go to page 1472. We see an intercept that took place

4 at 22.06. This is the last conversation of the 19th of July since, if you

5 go to page 1474, the next conversation took place at 8.57 a.m. So do you

6 agree with me that we are talking about the 20th of July now?

7 A. It's possible.

8 Q. And if we go to page 1484, you have an intercept which was jotted

9 down at 23.41, and this is the last conversation of the 20th of July. And

10 then there is another intercept which begins at 6.25 a.m., and that

11 intercept should have been taken on the 21st of July, but in this notebook

12 it says 19th of July. Can you explain this to us? How is it that we see

13 the 19th of July on this page?

14 A. I don't know. I can't explain it.

15 Q. So can we conclude for the purposes of this cross-examination that

16 this date should have been the 21st of July?

17 Now if you go to page 1496, you will see that an intercept took

18 place at 23.30, and this is the last intercept of that day, of the 21st of

19 July; is this right?

20 And then on the next page, the following intercept took place

21 at 21.48, and this could be on the 22nd of July. So if you go to the next

22 page, which is 1498, you have a conversation that was taken down at 22.47

23 and the following conversation takes place at 8.11 a.m.?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Putting the issue to the witness and

1 more prejudicial than probative. The time consuming factor versus the

2 probative value of this is something --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Which is what I tried to convey to Madam Fauveau,

4 that at the end of the day this is not a notebook that has been completed

5 from beginning to end by the witness and even suggesting the dates as if

6 they couldn't be otherwise and as if there is no other explanation is

7 leading us no where. This is why I said in the beginning that this will

8 become a matter, subject matter of an ad hoc submission. But we are going

9 to get no where with this witness.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But I think the message that you wanted to convey is

12 also very clear that looking on the face of it at this notebook if one

13 were to accept the -- that messages or intercepts were entered in a

14 chronological order, then you would be advancing dates much beyond what

15 sometimes appear on particular intercepts. But, again, I mean, getting a

16 confirmation of this from the witness doesn't help you in the least, or it

17 doesn't help your argument in the least.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I fully agree with

19 you that it was -- it is perhaps not necessary to continue, but I wanted

20 to show nevertheless that it was really important to show that the dates

21 that we see in the notebook do not really fit the previous dates and the

22 following dates. So I have no further questions.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks. I take it there are no questions from the

24 remaining two Defence teams.

25 Yes, is there re-examination?

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Which means that we finish here with your testimony,

3 sir. On behalf of the Tribunal, I would like to thank you for having come

4 over to give evidence in this case. Madam Usher will escort you out of

5 the courtroom and the rest of the staff will assist you as needed to

6 facilitate your return back home.

7 On behalf of everyone here, I wish you a safe journey back home.

8 Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's go through the documents. You have been

12 handed out a list, I suppose. All right. With the caveat that all

13 intercepts are being admitted as indicated earlier on, are there any

14 objections? I hear none.

15 Madam Registrar, the first two will be under seal. The ones which

16 are highlighted will all be under seal. Matters of translation will be

17 taken care of as agreed this morning.

18 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to clarify one point. One of the -- number 2

20 in this tab is an intercept that we did not have a 65 ter number for, and

21 actually I'm putting on Mr. Bourgon's hat. That will be the subject to a

22 motion to get a 65 ter number for it. We have nine such intercepts that

23 we have -- that missed the first cut of 65 ters and that will be the

24 subject matter of a motion. In other words, I have a large list of the

25 intercepts, but I don't need to go through that. It's 1 through 14. Not

1 number 15 in the packet because he didn't identify that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.

3 Yes, Madam Nikolic.

4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just for the sake of clarity, and I

5 assume that the complete notebooks will be the subject of a submission,

6 since originally they were not part of the 65 ter list because all the

7 notebooks with all the intercepts did have a 65 ter number and they were

8 part of the Prosecution submissions before the trial.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we've gone through that debate. We had

11 the same position.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that has already been dealt with.

13 All right. So these documents are admitted as are -- with the

14 caveats that I have explained earlier.

15 The Defence teams, are you tendering any documents?

16 Madam Fauveau.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we can leave it at that.

19 We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning when we will proceed

20 with Witness number 76. I thank you so much. Have a nice afternoon.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day of

23 December, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

24

25