Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2442

 1                           Tuesday, 8 June 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning to everybody.

 6             Before we start with the first witness, the Chamber would like to

 7     raise three matters.  The first one relates to the last hearing of last

 8     week.

 9             At the end of our last hearing on the 2nd of June, 2010, we dealt

10     with two exhibits the Prosecution moved for leave to amend its

11     65 ter exhibit list with them.  As we were already over time that day,

12     the Chamber did not rule on that motion.  The Defence didn't object to

13     this motion.  Now leave is granted.  The documents P312 and P313 [sic],

14     marked for identification, should be added to the 65 ter exhibit list.

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In addition to that, it has come to the Chamber's

17     attention, in contrast to the material submitted with its Rule 92 ter

18     motion, the Prosecution now wishes to tender Witness PW-025's original

19     witness statements provided to the OTP as his Rule 92 ter statement

20     instead of his testimony in the Popovic case which was submitted to the

21     Chamber in connection with the Rule 92 ter motion.  The Chamber notes

22     that its decision on the 92 ter motion, which provisionally admitted

23     both, first the Popovic transcripts and, secondly, those exhibits which

24     had been admitted through PW-025 in the Popovic case, was based on an

25     analysis of the transcript of the Popovic testimony as the Rule 92 ter

Page 2443

 1     statement in this case, not the underlying witness statement provided to

 2     the OTP.  The Chamber thus considers that the Prosecution seeks what

 3     amounts to a variation of the Chamber's Rule 92 ter decision of the

 4     3rd of November, 2009.

 5             The Chamber considered it's potentially problematic that the

 6     Prosecution is seeking such a variation in a relatively informal and

 7     last-minute fashion.  In the future, such requests should be made in a

 8     timely written filing in order to allow time for the Chamber to consider

 9     the effect of such a substitution on its previous analysis of the

10     evidence proposed for admission in the Rule 92 ter motion and for the

11     accused to have adequate time to prepare for cross-examination.

12             With regard to the evidence of PW-025, however, the Chamber is

13     mindful of the benefits of admitting a more concise witness statement for

14     which there already exists a B/C/S translation, despite the lack of

15     notice to the Chamber and the accused.  Moreover, in light of the fact

16     that Mr. Tolimir has been on notice of the fact that the Prosecution

17     would be seeking the admission of the witness statement, albeit as an

18     accompanying exhibit rather than as a Rule 92 ter statement itself, since

19     the filing of the motion in February 2009, it would appear that there

20     would be no prejudice to the Defence if the Chamber were to permit such a

21     substitution in the instant case.

22             Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objections to raise in this regard?

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24             I will take your word for it.  If you believe there will be no

25     problems, then I will take that for granted.  Currently, I am unable to

Page 2444

 1     recall all of the arguments we put forth in our submissions when

 2     discussing this particular topic.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 4             Accordingly, once the witness attests that the underlying witness

 5     statement reflects what he would say if examined, the Chamber will admit

 6     it pursuant to Rule 92 ter, along with the 11 intercepts named therein,

 7     which it considers inseparable and indispensable from the underlying

 8     statement.

 9             The third point I would like to mention is the very urgent --

10     extremely urgent confidential motion we received yesterday from

11     Mr. Tolimir.

12             Mr. Thayer, would you like to comment on that?  Do you have

13     anything to say?

14             MR. THAYER:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning,

15     Your Honours.  Good morning, General Tolimir, my learned friends.  Good

16     morning, everyone.

17             We are in receipt of the proposal.  I don't know whether it's the

18     Trial Chamber's preference to have written submissions or oral

19     submissions.  I'm available now to address the issue in a shorter or

20     slightly longer fashion, depending on the Court's wishes.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would appreciate if you could deal with this

22     problem of this motion now, orally, because we have the witnesses

23     scheduled for today and tomorrow, so that it is -- an urgent decision is

24     needed.

25             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  I'll move, then, as quickly as I can,

Page 2445

 1     Mr. President.

 2             Having had an opportunity last night to review the proposal, I

 3     frankly see nothing presented there, either in fact or in law, which

 4     would necessitate or warrant this pretty radical proposal to just put the

 5     brakes on the intercept operators completely.

 6             I should say at the outset that the Prosecution, of course, has

 7     absolutely no objection should the Defence desire/intend to adduce expert

 8     testimony on any issue, particularly in connection with the intercepts,

 9     as we're dealing with them now.  Frankly, we had expected to see these

10     kinds of motions pre-trial or earlier.  We had been encouraging the

11     Defence to do so.  We've been trying to persuade the Defence to put its

12     case, as I think you've heard us on a number of occasions, to the

13     witnesses so that we can really clarify what the issues are that are to

14     be joined in this trial, particularly when we have these almost

15     20 intercept operators who are about to come in.

16             I think one thing that this urgent proposal raises, one issue it

17     brings up, is precisely how important it is for the Defence now to be

18     up-front with the Chamber and with the Prosecution about what its theory

19     is, what its case is, with respect to these intercepts.  And that is

20     important for a number of reasons.  The primary two reasons, I think,

21     are:  One, fairness to the witnesses themselves when they come here to

22     testify under Rule 90 -- I think it's 90(G).  I'll check, but it's

23     somewhere in Rule 90 where a party is expected to put its case to the

24     witness.  And if it is the Defence's case in this case that these

25     intercepts are fraudulent, they're manufactured after the event, with the

Page 2446

 1     necessary implication/accusation that these witnesses were part of that

 2     or, in fact, a continuing part of that, since they're coming here to

 3     testify about their contemporaneous notations and transcriptions of these

 4     intercepts, then under Rule 90 and under any fair trial rights concept of

 5     which I am aware, that should be put to the witnesses so that there is no

 6     doubt about what the Defence's case is.

 7             On the other hand, if the Defence's case is that it accepts this

 8     process, generally speaking, that this interception was going on, that

 9     these note-books were used at the time, but that at some point after the

10     war portions were inserted in between entries, then that should be

11     presented to the witnesses so that the witnesses understand what they are

12     being essentially accused of, so we can join the issues, and so that they

13     can be framed in a clear manner and not lying in wait for further down

14     the road, in which case we may be forced to bring these witnesses back if

15     they're not properly confronted with these issues.

16             So from -- secondly, from a trial efficiency perspective, I

17     believe it's very important that this issue be raised now, that we have

18     an idea what the general's case is with respect to these intercepts.

19             On the third hand, if his position is, I accept the authenticity

20     of these intercepts, at least in certain circumstances, and we do see

21     occasions when General Tolimir appears to accept the authenticity of the

22     intercepts when it suits him; for example, in his pre-trial brief he

23     relies heavily on a number of intercepted conversations that he believes

24     are in his favour, then we need to know that, too.  And from our

25     perspective, he can have it all three ways, if he wants.  There's no

Page 2447

 1     and/or here or one or the other.  He can have it all three ways, but we

 2     need to know what his case is going to be.

 3             And, again, we have no problem with expert testimony in this

 4     issue.  I think, and I'll have to consult with Mr. McCloskey, but I don't

 5     see a problem, for example, if he can get it together quickly enough,

 6     that we would have that testimony come in in the Prosecution's case in

 7     chief.  In that way, we could have the full scope of this testimony at an

 8     earlier stage, and the Trial Chamber would be perhaps in a position to

 9     deal with it sooner than later and have this intercept issue resolved,

10     which may benefit, again, the clarity and efficiency of the trial.

11             As for the mechanics of any expert testimony, we have to liaise

12     with the Defence to make the proper arrangements.  We need to know who

13     the expert is, what kind of tests we're talking about, what kind of

14     experts we're talking about.  The accused is in the same position as any

15     other party in terms of expert testimony.  We need to know and have

16     proper notice of what that's going to be.  And in terms of maintaining

17     the proper chain of custody and the physical integrity of the evidence

18     itself, in this case the note-books, we need to liaise to some degree on

19     that before we can, I think, take the next steps, if the Defence is

20     serious about presenting expert testimony on this issue.

21             And what we've seen so far, I think, is a -- and I don't mean

22     this ini a necessarily pejorative way, but we've seen, I think, a certain

23     coyness on behalf, rightly speaking, of the Defence with respect to its

24     case.  You may recall in -- during the testimony of the witness who just

25     completed his testimony, there was some questioning by the accused on

Page 2448

 1     this issue of the date on the note-book and so forth, but the actual

 2     theory, the challenge to the witness that this witness was part of

 3     manufacturing/fabricating these note-books, was not put directly to the

 4     witness.  And particularly when we have witnesses coming in here who were

 5     sitting down -- they will testify about sitting down, having their

 6     headphones on, recording the conversations, transcribing them themselves

 7     in these note-books, working with the cryptography, being involved in the

 8     whole process, it's particularly important for that case to be put to

 9     those witnesses if for no other reason for out of fairness to the

10     witnesses.

11             I think one of the most important issues that I saw in the

12     proposal is why the -- why the sudden urgent need to shut down the

13     testimony.  Why now, when everybody has known from the beginning of this

14     trial, in its pre-trial stages, that this testimony was coming?  There is

15     no surprise at all about this testimony.  The accused cannot credibly

16     claim that he was surprised in any way by any of this testimony or the

17     disclosure that he refers to in his filing.  He knows -- the Defence

18     knows that these issues were raised in the examination of Prosecution

19     witnesses in the last case; he knows that they were raised specifically

20     in the Defence's pre-trial brief or briefs in the Popovic case; counsel

21     for Beara cross-examined witnesses on these issues; the Beara and

22     Vujadin Popovic team both raised these issues in their final briefs; and,

23     again, the accused, himself, again, depending on whether it suits him or

24     not with respect to how he views the authenticity of these intercepts,

25     the accused himself raised this issue in his response to our 92 bis

Page 2449

 1     proposal almost a year ago.  And, again, he was being coy in the

 2     response.  If you read the response, he said, I'm not going to tell you

 3     what my theory is because I don't want the Prosecution to be able to

 4     tailor its examination and give away my cross, but I've got -- basically,

 5     he says, I've got issues with the authenticity of these note-books.  So

 6     he's known for a long time that this was going to be part of his case.

 7     So why we have the urgency now all of a sudden is not present in the

 8     proposal, and I don't think there is a legitimate reason that this has to

 9     be -- that this needs to stop these proceedings.

10             The accused can put the proposition of his case, whatever the --

11     whatever his theory is, he can put that proposition, without having his

12     expert report in his hand, to any intercept operator that comes.  We can

13     assume -- let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that his expert

14     report concludes, yes, that there was multiple handwriting or that these

15     note-books were manufactured after the war.  He can put those

16     propositions to these witnesses without having to wait and delay the

17     trial proceedings.  He's already done that, as I said, in a coy way.  He

18     questioned the last witness on that very issue.  So I see no reason to

19     suspend these intercept operators from testifying.  We've got them here,

20     and, in fact, the first three intercept operators are MUP intercept

21     operators who didn't even use note-books.  So that's just not even an

22     issue on the table for these witnesses.

23             I think I'll stop there.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Thayer.

25             Mr. Tolimir, do you want to comment on this and add something to

Page 2450

 1     your written motion of yesterday?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             Greetings to all those present.  A prayer follows.

 4             I wanted to say the following:  When the Prosecutor was speaking

 5     about the submission I filed, stated that I put forth my own Defence

 6     thesis; however, I'm not doing that.  I only want the truth to surface

 7     here.  I examined a witness for a whole day who was the boss of all these

 8     operators who collected intercepts.  In his presence, while examining

 9     him, I asked him whether these reports could be treated in real time.  He

10     said they were able to do so in spite of the fact that even the most

11     up-to-date services were unable to do that.  He said he needed only two

12     hours to do so, whereas the most modern services and equipment requires

13     at least four.  I also asked him whether they exchanged data.  He said

14     they did not.  Thirdly, we found the note-book, which speaks for itself.

15     We shouldn't discuss any Tolimir's thesis here, but we should only

16     consider what is the truth.

17             We have already asked for an expert, which needs to be approved

18     by the Registry.  This expert will do his own part, and Tolimir wishes

19     for nothing but the truth.  If the Prosecutor has the same intention as I

20     do for the truth to surface, then they shouldn't oppose anything that

21     would go against that.  I see no reason for that.  We should all know the

22     truth.  The Prosecutor is not to be blamed for any untruths presented

23     here.

24             Secondly, I didn't want to accuse anyone.  I'm not the Prosecutor

25     here.  I am the accused.  I can only put questions to witnesses.  I

Page 2451

 1     cannot accuse them of anything.  I can only ask them whether they did

 2     something or did not.  I wasn't coy at all.  I spent days analysing the

 3     reports of those services who created intercepts before we even had an

 4     armed force.  This should not become personal.  Everything I do is aimed

 5     at discovering the truth.

 6             I filed my submission in such a fashion because I believe the

 7     expert we are requesting could be -- could deal with this rather quickly.

 8     This is his profession, and it is only up to the Registry when this

 9     person would be allowed to do so and when he would be able to receive the

10     material in question.  Nothing is up to Tolimir.  I'm not trying to

11     obstruct anything.  I accept anything this Court decides, irrespective of

12     whether this contributes to the truth or not.  I am trying to make the

13     truth known, but the ultimate decision is yours.

14             This is all I wanted to say for now.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Before your decision,

17     I wanted to state another fact.

18             The Prosecutor stated that I accept certain things when they are

19     in my favour, whereas I don't accept them in other situations.  It is not

20     up to me to accept or not any reports.  I never invoked any particular

21     reports of these witnesses or any intercepts that can be found in the

22     note-book.  Please do bear in mind I even allowed them to include those

23     elements pertaining to me.  I don't want the truth not to be made known

24     for something having been omitted previously.  I want everything out.

25             Thank you.

Page 2452

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The Chamber, after having considered all

 4     arguments, finds itself in a quite complicated situation.  The Chamber is

 5     of the opinion that we have to make clear that the rights of the accused

 6     have to be preserved.  We must guarantee a fair trial, but, on the other

 7     hand, also an expeditious trial.

 8             The motion received yesterday in the late afternoon comes at a

 9     very late stage of this procedure.  Nevertheless, the parties and the

10     Chamber was able to consider the reasoning of the motion and took into

11     account nothing about the truth.  If these documents are real -- if these

12     note-books are real documents produced at the time or not, this is to be

13     decided at the end of the trial.

14             The Chamber is of the opinion that the accused has every

15     possibility to challenge the evidence, as Mr. Tolimir did with the first

16     two witnesses, intercept supervisors, during cross-examination.  The

17     accused has every possibility to call witnesses, including expert

18     witnesses, in the Defence case, and if there is any reason, after having

19     received the expert report of the expert witness about these note-books,

20     then it might be the case that the witnesses we have heard about the

21     note-books should be recalled, if there is a reason at that stage of the

22     trial.

23             And as the Prosecution offered, it will do its very best to

24     assist an expert witness with the material to be checked.  And in the

25     end, the Chamber is of the view that there is no limitation -- no

Page 2453

 1     violation of the rights of the accused if the Chamber is continuing the

 2     hearings with intercept witnesses.

 3             But to make it very clear, it is up to the Chamber, at the end of

 4     this trial, after having heard witnesses and after having received

 5     evidence, if these note-books can be accepted as evidence or not.  The

 6     Chamber gives weight to all evidence, including documents, at the end of

 7     the whole case.

 8             To summarise that, the Chamber is of the view that the stay of

 9     the hearings, which would result in the cancellation of several days of

10     hearings, is not the proper way to deal with this motion.  The Chamber

11     will deny -- is now denying this motion but especially will preserve the

12     rights of the accused to have a fair trial.  This is very clear.

13             After this decision, the Chamber is prepared to start with the

14     next witness, and the witness should be brought in.  I think there are --

15     just a moment.

16             Mr. Tolimir.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I

18     apologise.

19             It seems that you're rejecting my proposal.  Does it mean that

20     you are also rejecting my proposal for the engagement of an expert in

21     these proceedings?  I proposed that with a good intention.  I proposed

22     that other witnesses be heard before the expert provides his opinion

23     about the testimony of those witnesses.  Please bear that in mind.  I

24     could not send my request sooner because only yesterday I received

25     materials from the Prosecutor that formed the base for the submission of

Page 2454

 1     my motion.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think, Mr. Tolimir, the Chamber's decision was

 3     very clear.  It was only dealing with your request not to hear the

 4     intercept witnesses today and the following days of our hearings and to

 5     have, in fact, a cancellation of hearing days.  This motion is denied.

 6     We were not dealing at all with your request for -- to have an expert

 7     witness about the origin of these note-books.  We are not dealing with

 8     that problem at the moment today.

 9             Mr. Thayer.

10             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, while the witness is being brought

11     in, I have two quick housekeeping matters, just to keep the Court

12     informed.

13             We have two --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  While the witness is being brought in the screens

15     should be closed because he must have the possibility to come in and to

16     take a seat.

17             MR. THAYER:  Yes.  We have two English translations -- here

18     we go.

19             We have two English translations for P00159 and P00160, and they

20     are now up-loaded in the e-court.  We understand that the Chamber wishes

21     to be advised when these are made available, so they are there now.  And

22     they were previously MFI'd, so now they're received in the English

23     translation and they're up-loaded.

24             With respect to the Chamber's --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could we perhaps deal with that first?

Page 2455

 1             MR. THAYER:  Sure.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  These two exhibits will be exhibits and no longer

 3     marked.

 4             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             With respect to the Chamber's second issue today with respect to

 6     the Prosecution's informal and last-minute fashion, for which I take full

 7     responsibility - that was my informality and last-minuteness - there are

 8     two subsequent witnesses for whom, as the Trial Chamber noted, we are

 9     doing the same thing.  Does the Trial Chamber wish written filings with

10     respect to those two witnesses, or do I have a pass for those two

11     witnesses?  We're certainly -- we'll certainly file a written notice if

12     that's what the Court wishes.

13                           [The witness entered court]

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, please be patient for a moment, and the

15     screens should be opened.

16             Dealing with your last question, the Chamber dealt with these

17     three witnesses already.  That was our decision.  But in future that

18     should be made clear in a more formal way.  That would assist the Chamber

19     and the accused in the preparation of the evidence of the witness.

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

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

22             And I take the opportunity to mention that this morning the first

23     matter I raised, there was a mistake.  I was not dealing with -- in fact,

24     with the document P313, but P314.  I was just told that there was a

25     mistake.

Page 2456

 1             Now, sir, excuse me that we dealt with some procedural matters.

 2     You are welcomed to the Tribunal.  Would you now please read allowed the

 3     affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 5     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6                           WITNESS:  PW-025

 7                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Please sit down.

 9             You know that there are protective measures in place for you so

10     that you will not be addressed with your full name, and --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- your voice and your face will not be known

13     outside this courtroom.

14             Please, the parties should switch off the microphones while the

15     witness is answering questions.

16             Mr. Thayer, do you have examination-in-chief?

17             MR. THAYER:  I do.  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           Examination by Mr. Thayer:

19        Q.   Good morning to you, Witness.

20        A.   Good morning.

21             MR. THAYER:  May we have 65 ter 6288, that is, P305, up in

22     e-court.

23        Q.   Witness, you'll see a document appearing on your screen shortly.

24     When you were here last, this document was handed to you in hard copy,

25     but now we're going to look at the computer for it.  I just ask you to

Page 2457

 1     confirm whether you see your name on this document.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will not be broadcast.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it.

 4             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender P305.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The witness said he sees it.  Could the witness

 6     state that this is his name?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my name.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  This will be received under

 9     seal.

10             MR. THAYER:

11        Q.   Witness, do you recall providing a signed witness statement to

12     the Office of the Prosecutor in January of 2007?

13        A.   Yes, I recall having provided that statement.

14        Q.   And, Witness, did you read that signed witness statement in your

15     own language when we met I think it was a week ago yesterday?

16        A.   Yes, I did read the statement.

17        Q.   And, Witness, can you attest before this Trial Chamber that that

18     witness statement accurately reflects what you said during your interview

19     with the Office of the Prosecutor in January of 2007?

20        A.   Yes, this is the statement that I provided in 2007, which I

21     signed, and which I subsequently read a few days ago.

22        Q.   And just so the record is clear, Witness, can you attest that

23     that statement is a fair and accurate representation of what you told the

24     OTP in January of 2007?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2458

 1        Q.   And, Witness, during that interview, were you shown a booklet or

 2     packet of 11 intercepts?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And, again, when we met last Monday, did you again review those

 5     11 intercepts in connection with your testimony today?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And were you able to determine whether or not you personally took

 8     part in intercepting, recording, transcribing, and transmitting those

 9     intercepts, those conversations?

10        A.   Yes, I did take part in that.

11             MR. THAYER:  And with the assistance of Madam Usher, I'm going to

12     hand you an exhibit.

13        Q.   Sir, I just ask you to look at the first 11 tabs in that booklet.

14     On the side, there are 11 tabs.  I ask you to kindly leaf through those

15     11 tabs and tell the Trial Chamber whether or not you can confirm again

16     that you took part in intercepting these 11 conversations.

17        A.   Yes, I've reviewed the 11 reports and can confirm that they are

18     my reports.

19        Q.   And I know it's been a week since you saw them, sir, but can you

20     confirm whether or not those are the 11 intercepts you were shown during

21     your interview in 2007?

22        A.   Yes, they were shown to me.  They are the ones.

23        Q.   And, Witness, finally, with respect to your 2007 witness

24     statement, can you attest before this Trial Chamber that if you were

25     asked the same questions today that you were asked back then, during your

Page 2459

 1     interview, would your answers be the same?

 2        A.   Yes, of course.

 3             MR. THAYER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender the

 4     witness's witness statement under seal - that's P292 - as well as the

 5     11 intercepts which have been identified by the Registry by P number 293

 6     to 303.  Just to save a little bit of time, I did not show him the actual

 7     witness statement, but he did confirm that he had reviewed it.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  First I would like to clarify one date.  This is

 9     P299.  In your list or in the Registry's list - I'm not sure about

10     that - it is stated the 22nd of July, 1995, 2335 hours, but, in fact,

11     this is a document of the 23rd of July, with the same time.  And the

12     witness referred to it in the statement also as a document on number

13     0320-1509 to -- 0320-1509 of the 23rd of July, 1995.  Just to be very

14     clear which document you are referring about.

15             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm just taking a look at

16     it right now.

17             I think I see where that notation came from, and it's -- maybe we

18     can just ask one question of the witness and clarify that for the record.

19        Q.   Witness --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It would be helpful.

21             MR. THAYER:

22        Q.   If you would turn to tab 7 of your booklet, please.

23             MR. THAYER:  And we can look at P299.

24             Again, this is under seal, so it shouldn't be broadcast, but on

25     e-court it's 299.

Page 2460

 1        Q.   Witness, just so we know we're looking at the same document, do

 2     you see an eight-digit number in the upper right-hand corner of this

 3     intercept report?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Do you see --

 6        A.   Yes, I can see the number.

 7        Q.   And does it end in 1508, 1508?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   When we look at report number 832, if you can locate that one at

10     the bottom of the page, do you see an intercept with the time of

11     2335 hours?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And what is the date of this particular report number 832?

14        A.   The 23rd July, 1995.

15        Q.   And if we look above at report number 831, which is the report

16     immediately preceding report number 832, do you see an intercept, a

17     report, of 2305 hours?

18        A.   Yes, I can see that.

19        Q.   And what is the date of that report that's listed there, sir?

20        A.   22nd July, 1995.

21        Q.   Do you have any idea or explanation or can you tell the Court

22     whether the dates on these two reports appeared to you to be correct or

23     not?  And if you can't draw any conclusions, that's fine, too.  We're

24     just asking for your help.  We have one document here with two dates and

25     two times which are fairly close together, so we're just asking for some

Page 2461

 1     clarification.  If you can supply that for the Trial Chamber, please.

 2        A.   To be honest, at this moment I can't tell you exactly what

 3     happened.  This report here was late, and the typing and sending could

 4     have spilled over to the next day, which did happen if a report was

 5     received late in the evening.  I really can't remember what happened in

 6     this particular case.  It may be an error as well.  I don't know.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Well, let's look at the next intercept in your packet,

 8     which is at tab 8 of your booklet.

 9             We just looked at reports 531 and 532.

10             MR. THAYER:  And, Your Honour, for e-court purposes, this is

11     P300, and it's --

12        Q.   Again, we just looked at reports number 831 and 832.

13             Do you see report 833 on your screen or in your booklet, sir?

14     Again, this is P300.

15        A.   Yes, I can see it, yes.  I can see that, yes.

16        Q.   And what is the time on this intercept?

17        A.   00.35, 23rd of July.

18        Q.   And, again, having seen the subsequent report coming out shortly

19     after midnight, and I note for the record that this intercept is dated,

20     as you said, 23 July 1995, report number 833, does that help you at all

21     in explaining to the Trial Chamber whether you can determine whether the

22     date on report number 832, the one that precedes this, is correct or not?

23        A.   It is possible that there was a mistake in the date or, rather,

24     in the time.  There may have been a mistake in the way the time was

25     recorded.  Or just bear with me for a moment, please.  Or perhaps a

Page 2462

 1     mistake was made in recording the date.  The reports always followed each

 2     other in sequence, unless a report arrived very late and was typed late,

 3     and then it was sent the following day, whereby the correct date was

 4     recorded on the report with the time indicated, the time from the

 5     previous day.

 6             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Sir, unless there are any further inquiries

 7     from the Chamber, I think we'll leave it there and move on.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  The documents P292 to P303 will be

 9     received under seal, and the document -- the pseudonym sheet will be

10     P305, under seal.

11             Please carry on.

12             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             I will have a few extra questions for this witness, but first I'd

14     like to read the summary of the witness interview.  And I think we can

15     remain in public session for the entirety of the summary.

16             The witness was interested in radio since elementary school

17     because his brother was involved in a local Ham Radio club, then became

18     active in Ham Radio clubs himself as a teenager and received his

19     B Category Ham Radio license in 1998 -- that's -- pardon, 1988.  He began

20     working for the MUP in 1990 in the communications section of a public

21     security sector.  From 1992 to 1995, the witness worked in the MUP as a

22     signalsman, typing, encrypting, and transmitting documents to other MUP

23     stations.

24             In June of 1995, he was temporarily assigned to the State

25     Security Sector, which was short two men, so he and a colleague were

Page 2463

 1     loaned to that unit at the northern site, where he worked as an intercept

 2     operator for more than six months.

 3             The witness described the procedure used when intercepting,

 4     taping, and transcribing VRS radio communications as follows:  He would

 5     monitor the channels on frequencies which they had selected.  When he

 6     began recording a conversation, he would note the date, time, channel,

 7     and frequency on a piece of paper.  Afterwards, he would transcribe the

 8     conversation onto paper.  If any portion was inaudible, he would indicate

 9     it with three dots.

10             The most important aspect was to achieve 100 per cent accuracy.

11     They would listen to conversations many times, if necessary, and

12     sometimes several of them would listen to the same conversation.

13     Sometimes the typist would be asked to listen to the tape with headphones

14     on to assist in an accurate transcript.  Sometimes the operator and the

15     typist would both listen to a tape on a speaker.  Sometimes the witness

16     would dictate intercepts he had taped directly to the typist.

17             They did not always transcribe the entire conversation which they

18     had typed -- I beg your pardon, which they had taped, if portions of it

19     were unimportant, that is, if passages were not of any military interest.

20     If the information was urgent, they would sometimes transcribe directly

21     from the tape into the computer.

22             The witness and his colleague worked as a team and helped each

23     other in all aspects of intercepting and transmitting these

24     conversations, performing all aspects of the job.  Most of the time, the

25     witness worked as the intercept operator and his colleague worked as the

Page 2464

 1     typist because his colleague was a faster typist and the witness had more

 2     radio experience, but they took turn doing these tasks.

 3             The witness reviewed 11 intercept print-outs and recognised them

 4     as his and confirmed that he intercepted and recorded them.

 5             And that ends the summary.

 6        Q.   Witness, I just wanted to follow up on a couple of areas to

 7     expand on your statement a little bit and your prior testimony.

 8             You said in your witness statement and during the last trial that

 9     you and your colleague worked together, very closely, intercepting these

10     conversations.  Can you describe for the Trial Chamber, please, what

11     types of tasks you would work together closely doing?  Just if you could

12     give the Trial Chamber a brief flavour of how you actually worked

13     together as a team.

14        A.   Would you like me to illustrate that with an example of our

15     team-work?

16        Q.   Sure, I think that would be helpful.  Thank you, sir.

17        A.   Well, I can give you this example:  If I was seated by the radio

18     set, listening in on a conversation, and for the most part the

19     conversations we intercepted at that time were urgent in nature, in such

20     cases, the colleague who was next to me would come close.  We had UHER

21     recorders, and we would use them to record those conversations.  Then

22     together we would listen to the conversation in question again, and he

23     usually noted it down since he had better handwriting.  If the

24     conversation was urgent, he would type it directly into the computer.  If

25     some things were unclear, we would listen to particular portions over and

Page 2465

 1     over.  And, if necessary, we would even ask the assistance of another

 2     colleague in order to confirm what they could hear if we were uncertain

 3     of it.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could we please pause for a moment.  There is a

 5     technical problem with the earphones.  Perhaps we should continue

 6     talking.  Was it again the problem of the B/C/S language?

 7             Witness, could you please repeat the last two or three sentences.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's no problem.

 9             In such a case when I intercepted a conversation, we would listen

10     to it again from the UHER recorder --

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  I

12     cannot hear the witness, whereas I can hear you well.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could anybody work on that?

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps you can put the question to the witness,

17     and with his answer we will see if the problem is solved.

18             MR. THAYER:

19        Q.   Sir, would you please tell the Trial Chamber just a little bit

20     about how the shift system worked for you and your colleagues at the

21     northern site?

22        A.   At the outset, the shifts took two to three days when we just

23     arrived in June.  However, at some later stage, we began taking turns

24     every seven days.  There would be our team, that is to say, me and my

25     colleague, who would stay there for seven days, and then another team

Page 2466

 1     would come in.  And the same system applied until the end.

 2             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Are we doing okay, Mr. President?  All right.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No complaint by Mr. Tolimir, so we should

 4     carry on.

 5             MR. THAYER:  Carry on, thank you.

 6        Q.   Let's take a look again at your booklet that you have in front of

 7     you, sir.  And I'd ask you to take a look at now tabs 12 through 23 of

 8     your booklet.

 9             And I just want to first ask you:  Do you recall me showing you

10     an additional dozen intercepts when we met last Monday?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   And if you'd kindly flip through those 12 intercepts from

13     tabs 12 to 23, and I would ask you whether you can tell the

14     Trial Chamber, once you've had a chance to refresh yourself, whether or

15     not you participated in intercepting, recording, transcribing, or

16     transmitting those intercepts.

17        A.   Yes, I did participate in either interception, recording, or

18     transcription of these conversations.

19        Q.   And how can you tell?  How are you able to make that

20     determination, sir?

21        A.   First and foremost, I can tell that by the time of the

22     conversations as well as the topics discussed and participants included.

23     I can also tell by my signature which follows each and every intercept,

24     be it as the first or the second name.  In any case, my name always

25     appeared following the intercepts.  I can also say that I still recall

Page 2467

 1     many of those conversations.

 2        Q.   Now, I note for the record that tabs 12 through 22 run from

 3     8 July through 10 July of 1995 and that the last intercept is dated

 4     25 July.  With respect to the intercepts between 8 and 10 July,

 5     tabs 12 through 22 - and we're speaking about P306 to 316 just for the

 6     record - you just testified that you recall some of these actual

 7     intercepts.  Can you clarify a little bit -- provide a little bit more

 8     detail for the Trial Chamber how it is that you're able to recall

 9     anything about any of these intercepts?

10        A.   Certainly I recall them, especially those which included certain

11     high-ranking UN officials such as Generals Janvier and Nicolai and

12     perhaps Mr. Gobillard.  I recall them because at the time it was my great

13     wish that those conversations would amount to something.  I still carry

14     that feeling within me.  This is how I can recall certain details from

15     those conversations.  They are still with me.  Of course, there are such

16     conversations which I remember to a lesser extent.

17             MR. THAYER:  Your Honour, Mr. President, at this time I would

18     tender Exhibits P306 to P316.

19             And if we could just take a look at ...

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer.

21             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to clarify the time and the number

23     again.

24             If you look at P316, dated 10th of July, 1995, I don't find it in

25     the binder.

Page 2468

 1             MR. THAYER:  We'll see if we can --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you help us?

 3             MR. THAYER:  I'll see if I can help.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Because tab 22 contains an intercept of the

 5     10th of July, 1995, at 2015 hours.  That might be the previous month.  It

 6     may be a misinterpretation on my side, but perhaps you can clarify this.

 7             MR. THAYER:  Okay, Mr. President.

 8             What we should be looking at - and perhaps we can call it up on

 9     e-court and look at the booklets together - tab 22 should be 65 ter 5625,

10     as you've identified, P316, and it should be an intercept dated

11     10 July 1995, report number 532, and it should indicate at the first line

12     of text that it is a continuing -- a continuation of the conversation

13     from report number 531.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir [sic], I understand that, but where

15     is the time noted of 21 hours?

16             MR. THAYER:  Okay, yes.  Now I understand -- now I understand,

17     Mr. President, your question.  Okay.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm sorry.  I was not asking Mr. Tolimir, but

19     Mr. Thayer.

20             MR. THAYER:  That's all right.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I apologise.

22             MR. THAYER:  Now I understand Your Honour's question.

23             The approximate time that we've placed on the index for this is

24     based on a corresponding intercept taken by Croatian authorities.  I

25     believe you will hear testimony, because our intercept heaven is going to

Page 2469

 1     continue beyond the next two weeks, you will hear testimony from Croatian

 2     intercept operators, and I believe there is a Croatian intercept.  In

 3     other words, there were Croatian intercept operators who intercepted this

 4     very same conversation, and they have placed a date -- I mean, a time of

 5     2100 hours, if I'm not mistaken, on their report.  And these are two

 6     separate armies, two separate areas, both listening to the same

 7     conversation.  That's what -- that's what the evidence we will proffer to

 8     Your Honours on that issue will show.

 9             So -- and if you go back and look at report number 531, which is

10     indicated here, you'll see that that precedes the 2100-hour time, and

11     that's why we've listed an approximate time of 2100 hours here.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I believe that was produced by the OTP for the

13     purpose of this list, but it doesn't -- that document itself, the

14     intercept, doesn't contain any indication of the time; only the day.

15             MR. THAYER:  That is absolutely correct, Your Honour.  If you

16     look at the original ABiH intercept in the original language, it flows

17     chronologically by the date and the report, but there's no time.  It just

18     says this is a continuation of the prior -- of the conversation at the

19     prior report number 531.  As I said, this is report number 532.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

21             The documents P306 through P316 will be received under seal.

22             MR. THAYER:

23        Q.   Now, as to the last intercept in your booklet, Witness, this is

24     at tab 23, and this is P317.

25             MR. THAYER:  Again, it should not be broadcast, please.

Page 2470

 1        Q.   I just ask you, Witness, if you could take a moment to review

 2     this intercept again.  And I want to know whether you have any

 3     independent recollection of this intercept which was taken on the

 4     25th of July.

 5        A.   Yes, this does ring a bell, sort of.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Well, I understand if it doesn't ring any particularly

 7     loud bells 15 years after the fact, Witness.  Let me ask you -- turn your

 8     attention to one remark at the end of the intercept where it's written:

 9             "During the conversation, we concluded that person X is, in fact,

10     Milan Gvero."

11             Do you see that?  And if you do, do you have any recollection of

12     how it was that you were able to make this conclusion that you note here

13     at the end of your report?

14        A.   Well, you see, occasionally we introduced remarks at the bottom.

15     If there were things we were uncertain of in a certain conversation, say

16     the identity of a person, or if we were subsequently able to identify

17     that person, then such a remark would be made.  Sometimes a person

18     identifies himself or herself later on during the conversation.  On other

19     occasions, we were able to do that by recognising the person's voice.  We

20     had such examples with Rajko Banduka [phoen], who was at the position of

21     secretary at the Main Staff.  And at first we thought he was just a

22     signalsman, but later on we recognised who he was.  He would sometimes

23     make remarks to the effect, Well, I'm going to put you through to

24     Milan Gvero, or something like that.  We would simply remark on that

25     towards the end of the conversation.  Of course, we made use of such

Page 2471

 1     identifying features in order to identify the participants.

 2        Q.   And while we're on that topic, what other means or methods would

 3     you use to identify a speaker in a conversation, aside from, for example,

 4     the -- Mr. Banduka, the secretary you described, overtly introducing

 5     somebody by their name during the conversation?

 6        A.   Of course, we were able to identify certain speakers by their

 7     tone of voice, since they conversed frequently with others.  At a certain

 8     point in time, we knew with certainty who some of the speakers were

 9     because of their voices.  Perhaps I should add this as well:  There were

10     certain topics and a number of conversations; and in the course of the

11     first few conversations, we were unable to a certain speaker, whereas

12     that speaker would identify himself or herself later on and the whole

13     group of conversations included the same topic.  So by the end of that

14     topic, of that group of conversations, we were able to pin-point the

15     identity of a certain speaker.

16        Q.   So before you would write down a remark like the one we just

17     looked at at the end of this intercept, identifying the participant as

18     General Gvero, how certain would you have to be of that person's identity

19     before putting it in a report?

20        A.   Well, you see, if I hadn't been certain about somebody's

21     identity, either I would not have written it down or I would have written

22     "probably" or "likely."  But if I was sure, then I would have recorded

23     that as me being sure.

24        Q.   And as an intercept operator, sir, why was it important for you

25     to make a distinction between, on the one hand, noting that this is, for

Page 2472

 1     example, probably General Gvero versus putting in the report that you

 2     have identified the speaker as General Gvero?

 3        A.   Because we tried very hard to do a good job, as good a job as

 4     possible.  We wanted to be as correct as possible.  We wanted to make --

 5     avoid making mistakes and record mistaken identities.  Even if we

 6     subsequently found out who was speaking, we would subsequently record

 7     that by way of a remark.  We would note who the persons in the

 8     conversation were.

 9             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I note we're approaching the break.

10     I only have two more questions for the witness, but I can certainly pick

11     those up after the break, to be short.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Well, perhaps it's better to -- if it's only for

13     some minutes, you should conclude your examination-in-chief.

14             MR. THAYER:  Then I'll do that.

15        Q.   Sir, let's look at P293 on e-court, please.

16             MR. THAYER:  And, again, it should not be broadcast.

17        Q.   And if you want to look at the hard copy, it's the first tab,

18     number 1, tab number 1 in your booklet, for anybody that's using the

19     old-school method.

20             Do you see that there, sir?  It's a report number 526, dated

21     9th of July.

22        A.   Yes, I can see it.

23        Q.   And was this the typical heading and format of one of your own --

24     that is, one of your MUP SDB intercepts, to have "CSB-SDB Tuzla" at the

25     top of the report?

Page 2473

 1        A.   Yes, my colleague and me started our reports in this way or a

 2     similar way, according to the instruction that we had received.  This is

 3     exactly how we started our reports, as a matter of fact.

 4             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Let's look at one more document.  And this is

 5     P310, please.  Again, not to be broadcast.

 6        Q.   And, sir, this is at tab 16 of your booklet.  Please just let us

 7     know when you've had an opportunity to look at it, once you've found it.

 8             MR. THAYER:  And this document should not be broadcast either.

 9        Q.   Do you have a document that's headed "Armija Republic of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina"?

11        A.   Yes, I can see it, yes.

12        Q.   And I will not identify the location that is listed there, but do

13     you have a report, and it includes report number 521, but with the ABiH

14     heading at the top?  Do you see that report, sir?

15        A.   Yes, I can see it.

16             MR. THAYER:  And for the record, the ERN is 0320-5142.

17        Q.   Can you just explain for the Trial Chamber how it is -- and if we

18     just look at the document, we see the "CSB-SDB Tuzla" heading right above

19     the report number 521.  But at the top of this document, as a whole, it's

20     an "armija" document, it's an army document, but with a MUP report

21     enclosed.  Can you just explain for the Trial Chamber how that happens?

22        A.   Well, let me tell you.  I know that we handed over our reports to

23     the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the relevant department.  It was

24     only normal for us to provide the same materials that we had to the

25     BiH Army.  If we had materials, there was no reason for us to hide

Page 2474

 1     anything from them.

 2             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Witness.

 3             That concludes my examination.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 5             We must have our first break now.  The tapes must be rewound.

 6     And we will resume five minutes past 11.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer.

10             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I neglected to tender one final

11     intercept in the booklet, and that is number 317.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received under seal.

13             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             Now, sir, you know the accused, Mr. Tolimir, has the right to put

16     questions to you.

17             Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

19             Once again, I would like to welcome everybody in the courtroom.

20     I would like to greet the witness.  I'll have a few questions for him

21     with regard to his previous testimony.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Since we're speaking the same language, I would kindly ask him to

25     wait for me to say, Thank you, and once the cursor has stopped moving on

Page 2475

 1     the transcript, then you start answering my question, in order to avoid

 2     overlapping.

 3        A.   I understand.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Could the Court please produce

 6     P292.  This is the witness's statement provided to the OTP.  Thank you.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   While we are waiting for the document to be produced, I'm going

 9     to put my question.

10             Before January 2007, did anybody contact you in -- did anybody

11     contact you with regard to your testimony before this Tribunal?

12             Thank you.

13             We have the first pages of the document on the screen, but let me

14     ask you, once again:  Did anybody contact you before January 2007 with

15     regard to the testimony either here or in some other courts?

16        A.   Before I provided my testimony, I was contacted maybe a month or

17     two before.  I don't know exactly.  A person came to contact me.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Was that person from the Prosecution, and do you know

19     that person's name?  Thank you.

20        A.   I believe that the person is from the Prosecution, yes.

21        Q.   Did they approach just you or everybody and that's why you don't

22     know that person's name?  Thank you.

23        A.   I don't know the person's name.  She was a lady.  I don't want to

24     make a mistake.  And there were three of us during our initial

25     conversation that I was also involved in.

Page 2476

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Were you asked to provide a statement, and were you

 2     told that you would be asked to testify?

 3        A.   Yes, we did mention our future testimonies.  We were asked

 4     whether we were willing to testify before this Tribunal.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Did that person know that you had the documents that

 6     you are testifying about or did she not know?

 7        A.   I don't know whether she knew or not.  She just contacted us as

 8     prospective witnesses.  I don't know whether she was aware of the

 9     documents or not.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you.  I apologise.  Could you please tell us,

11     before the interview that you're talking about, a month before

12     January 2007, when you were contacted by that person, did you have these

13     materials on you?  Where were they?

14        A.   No, I didn't have those materials on me.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Could you tell us if you know where those materials

16     were in January 2007?  Who were they with?

17        A.   The first time I saw these materials was when I came here to

18     The Hague.  They were to -- before I appeared in court.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Could you tell the Trial Chamber when was that?  What

20     year, if you can't remember the date.

21        A.   That was in the year 2007, in the month of January.  I was here

22     for four or five days.  Before I appeared in court, a couple of days

23     before that, I had an occasion to peruse the materials.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see the second page

Page 2477

 1     of the document that we now have on our screens.  Thank you.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   While we are looking at the second page:  Did you need to seek

 4     approval from your employer in order to come and testify?

 5        A.   It was a matter of courtesy for me to tell them that I was called

 6     to testify, because I had to ask for a leave of absence.  And I did not

 7     encounter any problem with this regard.

 8        Q.   So you just told them that you would go; you didn't have to ask

 9     their approval?

10        A.   Yes, I did receive a piece of paper that I presented to them,

11     showing where I was going, how long I would be here.  And based on that

12     piece of paper, I was relieved of my duties.

13        Q.   Once again, for the transcript, were you given consent from your

14     employer to testify before the International Court; yes or no?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Please, before the month of June 1995, were you a member of the

17     Intercept Service or not?

18        A.   Before July 1995, I was not a member of that service.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I interrupt you very shortly.  We received

21     the answer "Yes" in page 36, line 2.  I saw the witness, that there was a

22     sign of doubt.  Could you please give the answer again?  Mr. Tolimir

23     asked you:

24             "Were you given consent from your employer to testify before the

25     International Court; yes or no?"

Page 2478

 1             Which is your answer?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said yes.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Could you please tell us, in January 2007, did your brother also

 7     testify in that case, like he did in mine, before you?

 8        A.   If we're going to talk about that, I think it would be advisable

 9     for us to go into private session.

10        Q.   He testified just like you did.  I'm not going to ask for any

11     names.  I'm just asking you whether he testified in 2007.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   In 2005, before you joined the service, did your brother work in

14     the State Security Service; yes or no?  Thank you.

15        A.   I did not understand.  2005?

16        Q.   You said that in June 2005, from the MUP you were transferred to

17     the State Security and started working for the Intercept Service.  Did

18     your brother work in the State Security Service at the time?

19        A.   I believe that you're referring to 1995.

20        Q.   Thank you for correcting me.  During 1995, did your brother work

21     in the State Security Service?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Was your only boss your brother when you started

24     working in the Intercept Service, or were -- did you have any other

25     supervisors on the north facility?

Page 2479

 1        A.   He was my immediate superior, and I'm not aware of the rest of

 2     the hierarchy of that service.

 3        Q.   When you provided this statement in January 2007, was anybody

 4     else present in the room besides yourself and the members of the

 5     Prosecution?

 6        A.   The only other person was an interpreter, as far as I remember.

 7        Q.   In 2007, when you testified, were you proofed by an intercept

 8     service of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   In the course of the seven days while you have been here, did you

11     have contacts with anybody else but Mr. Thayer?

12        A.   No, I did not have any contacts with anybody else.  I've not had

13     any contacts since I arrived here in The Hague.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Did you contact your brother, because he also

15     testified in the meantime?  Did you contact him after he provided his

16     testimony?

17        A.   To be honest, I sent him an SMS that I had arrived, and we did

18     not discuss this case at all.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please look at paragraph 8 in your

20     statement.  We can now see it on the screen.  It's the penultimate

21     paragraph in the Serbian and English statements, both on page 2.  Can you

22     see it?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   I'm going to quote something, and then I will have a question for

25     you.  And I quote:

Page 2480

 1             "We did not always transcribe the entire conversation which we

 2     had taped if portions of it were unimportant; for example, passages not

 3     of any military interest."

 4             My question:  What was the purpose of intercepted conversations

 5     if you were the ones who determined the significance of those

 6     conversations, if you were the one to determine which portions were

 7     interesting and were not?

 8        A.   Let me tell you, this concerned a very particular situation.

 9     Conversations were intercepted, recorded, and forwarded the way they were

10     recorded.  But here reference is made to the parts in which two

11     participants engaged for a lengthy conversation lasting for over

12     45 minutes.  For example, they talk, I listened to them, and then in

13     their conversations they tackle some private matters, some matters of no

14     interest to me.  However, I keep on listening, and then at one point they

15     touch upon some matters of interest.  Then I make a summary and I say, at

16     a certain time in one of the conversation, This is what was said.  This

17     is what I mean when I say "summary."  And those were usually

18     conversations with lower-ranking foot soldiers or officers who sometimes

19     conversed among themselves in the early hours of the night.  They would

20     normally discuss private matters.  And only occasionally they would touch

21     upon some things that concerned the front-line.

22        Q.   Did you act the same if, for example, you had two participants of

23     whom one was interesting and the other was not; for example, you were

24     intercepting a conversation involving your commander, when your commander

25     would be interesting and the other one would not be interesting?  Would

Page 2481

 1     you also omit portions which were not relevant?

 2        A.   No, no, never.  In such situations, we never worked in that way.

 3     What is described here concerns informal conversations where nothing else

 4     is going on.  One would come across a lengthy conversation which were not

 5     interesting, save for some little bits that were then summarised.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell me whether, while you were

 7     recording, did you omit what the other interlocutor said and only

 8     recorded what was said by the interlocutor that was of interest to you

 9     and your service?

10        A.   No, never.  It happened very often at the beginning, and late

11     more rarely, that we did not hear the second person, then we would put a

12     line of dots and we would say that we could not hear the interlocutor.

13     And sometimes the transmission was not clear.  We would also record that,

14     and later on we would try to reconstruct the conversation.  What I'm

15     saying is that we tried to follow the words of both interlocutors, as far

16     as that was feasible.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Please tell me, in this binder containing intercepted

18     conversations from 1 to 23 that the Prosecution just showed you a while

19     ago, are there any conversations in which you could not hear both

20     interlocutors?

21        A.   Of course there are.

22        Q.   In this binder containing conversations from 1 through 23, are

23     there any conversations where you can hear just one person and you could

24     not hear others, whom you did not record?

25        A.   If I understood you properly, you're asking me whether there are

Page 2482

 1     any conversations in which you hear both interlocutors.

 2        Q.   I'm asking you this:  Are there any conversations --

 3             I apologise to the interpreters.

 4             I'm asking you, again, are there conversations in this binder in

 5     which you can hear interlocutors on both sides when they talk to each

 6     other, but you can't hear the person whose message they are trying to

 7     convey?

 8        A.   Yes, I believe that there were such conversations; for example,

 9     such a third person was not heard clearly.  Sometimes you could hear a

10     person talking on the phone, and then there was a person standing by the

11     telephone whom we couldn't hear.  There were such instances and such

12     conversations.

13        Q.   Thank you.  My following question is this:  In this binder, are

14     there conversations in which the words of one interlocutor are heard very

15     well when they engaged in informal conversations, and when they tried to

16     convey a message from a third person, for example, an interpreter, you

17     couldn't hear that?

18        A.   I really can't answer your question.  I don't have an impression

19     that that happened.  Sometimes it happened that the transmission was not

20     clear enough, but it's very difficult for me to say when that happened

21     and in what situations.  It sometimes happened that you could hear the

22     interlocutors very well, and then some time would pass during which you

23     could not hear them well, and whether that information was important or

24     not, I don't know.

25        Q.   I'm asking you again.  You've had the binder in your hands for

Page 2483

 1     seven days.  I'm sure that you've had enough time to look at it.  Are

 2     there any conversations there where you can hear an interpreter in

 3     Sarajevo talking to the participants from the Main Staff and you could

 4     not hear the interpreter conveying the message that they had received

 5     from a third interlocutor?

 6        A.   Let me first tell you that I've not been perusing these materials

 7     for seven days.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, Mr. Thayer.

 9             MR. THAYER:  Just two things, Mr. President.  One, the question

10     was asked and clearly answered at least once.  And the second, I was

11     going to object that there was an assumption built into the question that

12     was not in the record, and the witness answered it himself.  But I just

13     want to place that objection on the record about asked and answered.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank

17     you, Mr. Thayer.

18             I wanted to be fair towards the witness.  And before I presented

19     to him what I wanted to prove, I wanted to be fair and then I wanted to

20     ask him whether there were such conversations.  I am asking him again,

21     and then I will move on to proving my case.

22             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Are there any conversations in the binder where you can hear an

24     interlocutor in the Main Staff and an interpreter and the interlocutors

25     in the UNPROFOR Command in Sarajevo, you can hear them well until the

Page 2484

 1     moment when the interpreter conveys the message from such a person?  Are

 2     there such conversations?

 3        A.   I don't know.  Let's come to that conversation and we can discuss

 4     it.  From this position, I really can't tell you whether there were any

 5     such conversations or not.  There were situations when you could hear the

 6     interlocutors and others, when you couldn't hear them.  I can't really

 7     give you a specific answer to a very abstract question.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Before we move on to --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir and Witness, please don't overlap.

10     It's very difficult for the interpreters.  Slow down a bit, and don't

11     overlap.

12             Carry on, please.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you, Witness.  I wanted to be as fair as possible to you in

18     trying to jog your memory about the things you may have heard.  It's not

19     up to me to try to catch you unawares 11 years down the road.  That is

20     why I wanted to present the transcripts themselves.

21             I'm asking you whether you remember, since you told the

22     Prosecutor so, any conversations between the generals.  And I can try to

23     jog your memory about what you said about that particular transcript.

24     You said as follows --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.

Page 2485

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2        Q.   "I recall certain conversations with UN officials, such as

 3     General Nicolai, General Janvier, and others.  I hoped that those

 4     conversations would amount to something, and I still have that feeling

 5     with me."

 6             Is this what you said a moment ago during examination-in-chief?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Lines 4 through 10, page 26, for

 9     the sake of the Chamber and the Prosecutor.

10             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   You said you remembered those things.  That is why I'm asking you

12     whether you recall any such conversations in which not everything was

13     interpreted by the interpreter when conveying the message of one of the

14     participants.

15        A.   When I discussed my memory of those conversations, then I said

16     that I could remember such conversations in which some generals

17     participated, but I don't recall each and every line of those

18     conversations, and this is not what I said.  I said that I remember them

19     in general.  That was the gist of my statement.

20        Q.   Thank you very much for this statement of yours, which is only

21     fair.  I do not contradict what you are saying.  If you can recall what

22     those generals discussed, then you must have been able to hear either

23     them or the interpreter.  Otherwise, you would not have remembered it;

24     correct?

25        A.   Yes.  We also could hear the interpreter, because they

Page 2486

 1     interpreted for the most part in such conversations.

 2        Q.   That is why I'm asking you that.  Are there any conversations in

 3     which you could not hear the UNPROFOR generals speak but that those

 4     comments are still contained nonetheless?

 5        A.   Well, yes, because the message was conveyed by the interpreter.

 6     I only noted down what I could hear.  What I couldn't was replaced by

 7     dots.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  We'll get to that.  But before that, tell me, did you

 9     receive any information about whether your reports reached the final

10     user?

11        A.   No.  We sent it to the centre we were supposed to, and I have no

12     knowledge of what followed.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me whether you were ever subsequently

14     asked to review again a particular conversation in order to clarify

15     portions which you were unable to decipher at the outset?

16        A.   At the time we were working on this, we kept going to certain

17     conversations, because I remember a few of them even now where I could,

18     for example, hear the word "Asandi" [phoen].  It was very quiet.  And

19     upon listening to it over and over again by a number of us, we reached

20     the conclusion that this word actually was the bad pronunciation of the

21     last name of Janvier.  So I'm trying to illustrate this, how we went back

22     to listen to certain parts to be sure.  If a report had already gone out,

23     I would follow it up with a note stating that in this and that report the

24     person in question was actually General Janvier, rather than the unknown

25     word of "Asandi" as we noted down initially.

Page 2487

 1        Q.   Thank you.  In your chain of command, starting from your brother

 2     onwards, did you ever receive a request to revisit a certain conversation

 3     in order to try to clarify parts that were unclear?

 4        A.   I'm not sure.  I don't think so.  As far as I recall, we did not

 5     have such feedback or additional requests for review.  We would simply

 6     send it on.  And whether anybody worked on it any further, that is

 7     something I don't know.  We never listened to things again unless we did

 8     so at the very moment before sending anything out.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Tell us this, please.  When there was a change of

10     frequency on the equipment you used, how long did it take you to locate

11     the participants in the particular conversation again on a different

12     channel?

13        A.   Well, we had two combinations at the time.  When I say

14     "combinations," I mean two sets of equipment that were prepared

15     beforehand.  And on one combination, we always kept the same frequency.

16     And if there was nothing of interest, then we used the other one to

17     search all the channels, trying to locate anything of interest.  And if

18     we were both free at the time -- at that moment, we would look for any

19     additional frequencies together.  Otherwise, there were no frequent

20     changes in frequency.  Most of it was well known.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have on the left-hand side

23     P293 in e-court, and on the right-hand side of the screen P294.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer.

25             MR. THAYER:  And that's tabs 1 and 2 of the booklet, if anybody's

Page 2488

 1     following along in hard copy.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's very helpful.  Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Can you see the left-hand side?  This is a conversation you

 6     recorded at frequency 836, channel 13, at 11.10 p.m.  Allegedly, the

 7     conversation was between General Tolimir and General Janvier.  Can you

 8     hear any other participants in this conversation, save for

 9     General Tolimir?

10        A.   No.  Only you can be heard.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Can you hear General Janvier's interpreter?

12        A.   Probably not.  Had we been able to hear him, that would have been

13     noted down.

14        Q.   So this is the first example in which only one of the

15     participants is heard.

16             Now shift to the right-hand side.  This conversation was taken at

17     10.30 p.m.?

18        A.   This is number 2?

19        Q.   Yes.  It is P33 -- or 533.  It's on the screen.

20        A.   I have it before me.

21        Q.   Well, see here, the first one says -- T says:  "I'm listening."

22             And P says:  "Hello."

23             Who is P?

24        A.   Obviously, the interpreter.

25        Q.   Okay.  Then T says:  "Yes, I'm listening."

Page 2489

 1             Is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Next, P says:  "General Tolimir"?

 4        A.   Yes, and the three dots.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can you hear here a speaker from the General Staff

 6     and General Janvier's interpreter?

 7        A.   Yes, but the interpretation was obviously interrupted.

 8        Q.   Sorry, it was me, I just turned off the microphone.

 9        A.   I can see that we heard them, and then something was interrupted,

10     and then it would go on.  So obviously we couldn't make out parts of the

11     conversation.  When I say "hear" or "cannot hear," you must bear this in

12     mind:  This is not as if we were sitting in this room where we can hear

13     each other well.  The situation is different.  It can be suddenly cut

14     off.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Is this the second type of example as I mentioned ini

16     which you can hear one of the participants and at the outset you can hear

17     the UNPROFOR general's interpreter, and later on you could hear neither

18     the interpreter nor the general?  Is that one of such conversations?

19        A.   I can see here that at times we could, and then at other times we

20     could not hear the interpreter.  That's all I can say.

21        Q.   Thank you.  You could hear him only at the beginning of the

22     conversation when they established communication and at the end when he

23     said, "Do you have anything to say" in the penultimate line on the

24     right-hand side?  Can you see that?

25        A.   I don't think so.  There were a number of places here where we

Page 2490

 1     could hear the interpreter:  "Do you have anything to say," and then:

 2     "Hold on, maybe we'll need to contact you."  "Around what time should we

 3     do that?"

 4             So there were different moments when we could hear him.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  On the last -- in the last line on the right-hand

 6     side, does it say:  "Do you have anything to say," and then followed by

 7     the question mark?

 8        A.   In one of the lines, yes, it says:

 9             "Do you have anything to say?"

10        Q.   Does T say:

11             "I have nothing to say.  I would like to thank the general, and

12     we'll speak later"?

13        A.   Yes, this is what it says.

14        Q.   Does this conclude the conversation between the participants?

15        A.   Well, I can see that he goes on.  It says:  "Wait."

16        Q.   Is this the end of the conversation?  Doesn't T say:  "We'll

17     speak later"?

18        A.   Well, obviously the conversation was not finished.  You can say,

19     Bye, but then you can say, Wait, wait, there's something else that we

20     want to ask you.  So the conversation goes on in a normal fashion.

21        Q.   The second part is between other participants.  You can only hear

22     the T.  There is no P or J.  There are no other participants, only the T.

23        A.   Are we looking at the same interview -- intercept?  After the

24     line:  "Do you have anything to say," T says:  "No, I would like to thank

25     the general, and we'll speak later."

Page 2491

 1             Later on, it's -- something follows:  "If we need to contact you,

 2     at what time should we do this?"

 3             So it goes on, if this is the conversation we're talking about.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Look at the transcript on the screen:  It is

 5     0320-1097.

 6        A.   This is what I'm looking at.

 7        Q.   Well, look at it on the screen.

 8        A.   Well, it is a bit difficult to peruse it on the screen.

 9        Q.   Do you see it now?  Doesn't the last line say:  "There's nothing

10     to add.  I'd like to thank the general, and we'll speak again"?

11        A.   On the screen, this is the last line, but in my booklet, this is

12     not so.

13        Q.   Thank you.  I'm not trying to pre-judge anything.

14             My next question is this:  Before this conversation, did you

15     intercept conversation 531, when -- where we have Generals Tolimir and

16     Janvier as the participants and both are heard?

17        A.   Where can I find that?

18        Q.   531.  There should be a tab.  I'll tell you which one.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer.

20             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I'll try not to compound the

21     confusion, but I think I know what the problem is.

22             If we work with the booklets that we have, there is a print-out

23     that we can all share and look at the same thing.  I think what has been

24     up-loaded into e-court is a slightly different version.  You can see that

25     the ERNs are the same, but if you look on the right-hand page, 0320-1097

Page 2492

 1     is in the middle of the page, and there is a second page that I think may

 2     be confusing the issue.  If we go to the second page, that's what is in

 3     our booklets.  And you can see at the top of the right-hand page of the

 4     second page in our booklet "0320-1097."  So I suggest that the general is

 5     not seeing the second page and may be being misled, thinking that that's

 6     the end of the conversation, when, in fact, if you turn the page, there's

 7     a second page of the conversation.

 8             We have it in our booklets.  I've distributed the booklets to the

 9     accused.  And it's just a matter of what's being shown on e-court at the

10     moment.  I think that's what's tripping us up.  So if we -- it may help

11     just to look at the booklet, if, for nothing else, for this exhibit.  And

12     we've got the second page up.  In any event, it's in e-court there.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now we have the second page of this document in

14     B/C/S on the right side of the screen.  This seems to be the same as the

15     printed version we have in our binder.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Thayer, he just confirmed my

17     assertion, and that is that you can only hear here the final part of the

18     conversation, where you could hear the interpreter, but throughout the

19     rest of the conversation you couldn't hear the principal messages that

20     General Janvier wanted to convey to the other speaker.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so.  I can only tell

22     you that in certain places we could hear the participants, and there were

23     others wherein we couldn't.  I don't know whether this conveys

24     General Janvier's message or not, but what we could hear is noted down.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 2493

 1        Q.   Can you hear any other information forwarded by General Janvier,

 2     save for the information about when they were to speak next the next day?

 3        A.   Well, they say:  "When can we talk to you, around what time?"  So

 4     they communicated.  It says:  "Well, tomorrow morning, if needed at

 5     6.00."

 6             So it was obvious that you were going to continue this

 7     conversation.  I see no point in disputing this.

 8        Q.   Is this something General Janvier wanted to pass on, or was this

 9     the word -- the words -- the voice of the interpreter?

10        A.   Yes, it was the interpreter, but he wasn't speaking of his own

11     free will.  He conveyed information from the general.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Do you recall a single thing that General Janvier

13     conveyed to General Tolimir here?

14        A.   Well, to tell you the truth, I can't remember everything.  I

15     couldn't hear the general.  And I did not analyse this conversation in

16     detail.  I only know that this was recorded, reproduced the way we were

17     able to hear at the moment.

18        Q.   Since I'm running out of time --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Tolimir's microphone is off.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No problem, whatever you wish.

21             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Tell me, please, is it possible, in the computer you used to

23     reproduce these conversations, to have the following:  That you printed

24     out a single collocutor, and then later on this same collocutor five or

25     ten lines later by mistake?

Page 2494

 1        A.   Well, I can't say anything specifically, but of course errors

 2     occur.  Just the other day I found an error.  It was possible to have

 3     typos, but I'm not aware of any specific situations like that.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  This suffices.  So such errors were possible; yes or

 5     no?

 6        A.   Well, I don't know about such particular ones, but there could

 7     have been typographical errors, although I'm not aware of any specific

 8     ones.

 9        Q.   I did not ask about you about any specific errors.  But if

10     something like that happened, would it be necessary to include what both

11     interlocutors were saying, because one answer can appear later and can be

12     put in a place where it would be given a totally different significance?

13     Is that possible?

14        A.   Well, if you can hear both interlocutors at least to a certain

15     extent, then we made sure that the second interlocutor's words are

16     recorded or the place was left for them.  If you couldn't hear the second

17     interlocutor, you made a note of that and you just recorded the words of

18     the first interlocutor.

19        Q.   I'm happy with your answer.  Now that we are reading those

20     monologues when only one person is heard talking, is it possible that,

21     for example, the 10th sentence in that monologue could be shifted from

22     the penultimate place to the 10th place in that monologue?

23        A.   No, no.

24        Q.   What can prove that that was, indeed, not the case?  What can we

25     follow the course of the conversation on?

Page 2495

 1        A.   I don't know, but I know that when I listened to conversations,

 2     when I recorded them, I recorded them as I heard them.  I don't know what

 3     constitutes good proof that things transpired the way they did or not.

 4        Q.   Thank you very much.  I will leave it to the Trial Chamber

 5     whether technical problems are possible or not.  We just saw technical

 6     mistakes.

 7        A.   I'm not sure that this is a technical mistake.  Are you referring

 8     to the situations when only one interlocutor could be heard?

 9        Q.   I asked you whether there were conversations in the binder where

10     you can hear just one interlocutor in their monologues.  And I proved it

11     by pointing to the letter T.

12        A.   Yes, there were such situations where we could hear only one

13     person and not the other.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please wait.  Now carry on.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Witness, I just asked you whether it was possible for those dots

19     or those lines, where T is speaking, could be mixed up in the computer.

20     Is it technically possible?  Could line 10 then be shifted to line 22?

21     Is that -- such a computer error possible?

22        A.   I don't know.  I'm not sure that the computer could be

23     responsible for such errors.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please now look at report 532.  In your

25     binder, it is under tab 22.  Thank you.  The document number is 5316,

Page 2496

 1     page 2.

 2        A.   Are you saying "531"?

 3        Q.   Yes, that's correct.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Thayer.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's tab 22.

 6             Mr. Thayer.

 7             MR. THAYER:  Yes, Mr. President.

 8             I just want to make sure we're all on the -- literally on the

 9     same page.  It depends on exactly which conversation General Tolimir is

10     referring to.  If he's referring to report number 531, although that is

11     included within the report that's at tab 22, what we have at tab 22 is

12     actually another intercept that's in that same report.  So we have an

13     English translation of number 532 under tab 22.  So if we really do want

14     to look at tab -- I mean, if we really want to look at report 531, let me

15     see if I can find that in the booklet and get that number so that we have

16     an English translation of report 531, and that is at tab 21, the prior

17     tab.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Exactly.  Thank you.

19             Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.  Do you want to deal with

20     number 531?  Then everybody should look into tab 21.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have 531 under 22, I'm looking at

22     it, and I intend to put a question to the witness or a few questions with

23     regard to the document under tab 22.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's right, but the English translation is only

25     under tab 21, and the B/C/S version as well.

Page 2497

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 5315 shown on the

 2     screen, please.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you referring to the 65 ter number?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I'm talking

 5     about what was given to me by the OTP to prepare myself for the

 6     conversation with this witness, and that is in binder

 7     tab 92 [as interpreted].  The page number is, as I've already stated -- I

 8     can't see that, I can't see that.

 9             My legal adviser is going to read the Prosecutor's numbers to

10     you.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think the problem is that you mix up what is

12     behind and what is before the number.

13             If you take the binder, if you are looking at tab 21, it is

14     behind -- the document is behind the number, it's the next page, and

15     there is the translation number of this intercept, number 531 in English

16     and the B/C/S version.  Behind number 22, you will find 532 only in

17     English, but in B/C/S you will find the intercept 531 and 532.

18             MR. THAYER:  And if I may add, Mr. President, we can see that

19     that's an example, tab 22, of the army passing on the MUP's report up its

20     own army chain of command.  That's why it shows up again.  The first one

21     is the MUP report alone, as the MUP sent it to their centre, and then we

22     see it show up again because the army is passing on that very same

23     intercept to its own people.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this help.

25             Mr. Tolimir, is that clear now?  In that case, you should carry

Page 2498

 1     on and put questions to the witness.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I said that it is

 3     page 22 in my binder, and you're reading from page 22.  Never mind.

 4     I can put questions on any of the pages, even on the page quoted by

 5     Mr. Thayer.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Carry on, please.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   In the conversation that Mr. Thayer wants us to look at, can you

10     hear the interlocutors on both sides, in the Main Staff as well as in the

11     UNPROFOR headquarters?  Thank you.

12        A.   Yes, occasionally you can hear the second -- the other side, and

13     occasionally you can't.

14        Q.   Can we at all hear what General Janvier says to Tolimir?  Thank

15     you.

16        A.   You can see "P" standing for the interpreter, meaning that the

17     interpreter is conveying the messages.

18        Q.   Can you find a single message that the interpreter conveys that

19     reflects either the opinion or request on the part of General Janvier?

20        A.   Please bear with me just for a moment.  I would like to be able

21     to read the whole conversation.  I can't tell you, without reading, off

22     the top of the head.

23        Q.   If the Trial Chamber will allow you, I don't mind you reading the

24     entire report.

25        A.   The first one that I've come across immediately, it says:

Page 2499

 1             "Very well."

 2             The general says:

 3             "Your units down there are attacking our soldiers."

 4             Then one part is inaudible.

 5             "Is that correct?"

 6             I suppose that it is important what the general says here, that

 7     his soldiers had come under attack.

 8        Q.   Go on reading, and then I'll have questions for you that you will

 9     be able to answer after having read the entire document.  Thank you.

10        A.   Yes, I've read it.  Go ahead.

11        Q.   Can you please tell the Trial Chamber whether you know what

12     General Janvier was saying here, what the interpreter was saying on his

13     own behalf, what he was saying on behalf of General Janvier, and what

14     interlocutor T was saying on his own behalf?  Can you make any

15     conclusions after 20 years?

16        A.   As I'm reading things today, I can see that the interpreter was

17     conveying the messages from General Janvier and that you are delivering

18     your own messages, messages on your own behalf.

19        Q.   Thank you.  So you are saying that we are exchanging messages.

20     Thank you.  Please tell me, whose messages are more numerous, whose words

21     are more often quoted, whether Janvier's words or his interlocutor on the

22     other side?

23        A.   I would have to count words, actually.  I suppose that you spoke

24     more, that you -- in any case, your words are better heard.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Would you say that you have made a selection of the

Page 2500

 1     sentences told by Janvier; in other words, whether you screened those

 2     things that could be presented to the Trial Chamber and others that could

 3     not be presented?

 4        A.   If we follow that logic, we would have to omit everything,

 5     because you can see here that it says:

 6             "Our soldiers came under attack."

 7             No.

 8        Q.   Thank you for your interpretation.  Can one draw a conclusion

 9     from this whether this was a dialogue or a monologue?

10        A.   Well, this was a dialogue.

11        Q.   So in terms of the contents, was that a dialogue or just -- was

12     that just one side heard and the other interlocutor could not be heard?

13        A.   You can hear the other interlocutor who is conveying

14     General Janvier's messages, which determines this conversation to be a

15     dialogue.

16        Q.   What messages did you just mention?  Could you please tell us

17     whether you recorded this conversation?

18        A.   I remember this conversation.  I remember some of the details.

19     Whether I personally recorded it or reproduced it, I wouldn't be able to

20     tell you.  I'm not sure.  I can see that my colleague signed his name

21     here.  We had a formal arrangement that one of us recorded, the other

22     reproduced.  Our desks were really close, so it wasn't really important.

23     So even if I was mistaken and put my name first and then his name second,

24     it would not mean a lot, because both of us were involved in the

25     contents.  I was recording; the other one was reproducing.  So I'm

Page 2501

 1     familiar with the conversation, is what I'm trying to say.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please now tell me, after this

 3     conversation, conversation 532, was that recorded by you, interceptors

 4     from the State Security Service?

 5        A.   [No interpretation]

 6        Q.   Thank you.  This is another conversation on page 22, where it

 7     says -- follow-up is on the conversation 531 conducted between

 8     General Janvier and the aggressor General Tolimir.

 9        A.   I believe that it was my colleague who recorded that other

10     conversation.  What's your question, actually?

11        Q.   Since the telegram is not signed, you can see in the binder it is

12     not signed -- for the record, we're talking about 5316.  Thank you.

13        A.   I don't know.  All of mine are signed.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I have one that is unsigned in the Prosecutor's

15     binder, 22, under tab 22.

16        A.   532 report?

17        Q.   532 report.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is this behind the page 22?

19             MR. THAYER:  Yes, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should look at the last page in B/C/S.

21     Sorry, the second-last page.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Who was it from the State Security who recorded that important --

25     or, rather, it's not important.  Who is it?  But was it the State

Page 2502

 1     Security Service?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Can you hear in this conversation what P is demanding or

 6     requesting from T?

 7        A.   It says here:

 8             "Well, tell me, what did you mean -- what did you manage to do in

 9     the meantime?"

10             And then your response is to the effect of what you had managed

11     to achieve in the meantime.

12        Q.   How come you could hear both interlocutors on both sides of the

13     wire?

14        A.   Let me tell you.  I am not an expert for this type of technology.

15     I can't tell you how connections functioned.  I was the one who

16     intercepted the recorded conversation.  I would be the one sitting at the

17     table for 16 hours and listening in.  When it comes to the technical side

18     of the technology, maybe you should talk to somebody else.

19        Q.   No, I don't want to discuss the technicalities of the job.  You

20     are a [indiscernible] professional, but my question is this:  How come

21     that you can hear two interlocutors in one part of the conversation, on

22     the same channel, on the same frequency, and then the other part of the

23     conversation you could hear them so well?

24        A.   Let me try and explain.  And I repeat, there may be somebody else

25     better suited to explain.  There are telephones which have a better

Page 2503

 1     receiver in their electronic combination, and you could hear an

 2     interlocutor using that kind of telephone.  It's down to the technical

 3     equipment, to the telephone that the other interlocutor was using, and so

 4     on and so forth.  This is something that I am kind of familiar with, but

 5     I can't give you any details.  It is possible that you could hear the

 6     interlocutor on the other side if they were using a better telephone.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Does that mean that whenever the interpreters

 8     participated from Sarajevo, as well as those from the General Staff, that

 9     the mic on the Sarajevo side was always poorly heard?

10        A.   I presume that they always used the same phone, the same

11     location, but I cannot say that with any certainty.

12        Q.   They had a single telephone in the UNPROFOR office, and there was

13     another one at the General Staff.  They could communicate directly.  They

14     didn't need to dial any special numbers?

15        A.   Well, if you say so.

16        Q.   What I'm asking you is this:  Was it technically possible that

17     you could always hear the speaker from the General Staff and that you

18     were never able to hear the person on the UNPROFOR side, and only

19     occasionally you could hear their interpreters during the informal part?

20        A.   We had your channel frequency, and when you picked up the phone

21     in the General Staff, I could hear you very well.  As for the other side,

22     we could sometimes hear them and sometimes could not.  Only later we

23     managed to locate a duplex frequency on which we could hear the other end

24     of the line much better.  It was at a later stage.  In order to hear the

25     other end of the line, technically speaking, I'm not well versed to be

Page 2504

 1     able to tell you how that could have been done, but I think it had to do

 2     with the phone they used and what frequency combination they used.  I

 3     don't know whether this suffices.

 4        Q.   Well, it suffices for you to say that there were reliable and a

 5     less reliable conversation you are presenting.  Just a moment.  When

 6     conclusions are drawn about what one person is saying to another, were

 7     those conclusions always clear cut and could that include all the

 8     conversations?

 9        A.   Well, I cannot accept what you just said.  Every conversation we

10     recorded, we did so authentically the way we heard it.  Each transcript

11     reflects the situation of what we could really hear at the moment.  This

12     is what I can tell you.

13        Q.   Thank you.  When you came to the State Security Service in 1995

14     to work on their surveillance, did you attend any training for those

15     engaging in intercepts and surveillance?

16        A.   Well, the training we received was to the extent that our boss

17     told us what to do and what the frequencies and equipment were, as well

18     as what was the point in doing that.  Given that I was familiar with the

19     equipment and had worked with radio equipment before, it wasn't very

20     difficult to fit in.  It was easy for me to work on that job.

21        Q.   Can you tell us whether you attended any training, be it two,

22     five, or ten days for any radio interceptors?

23        A.   I attended no special training, save for the training we

24     internally organised.  We also carried out research, and all was done

25     under his supervision.

Page 2505

 1        Q.   Did your boss attend any training?

 2        A.   I don't know.  You should ask him, if you ever have a chance to.

 3        Q.   As far as we could see, your boss was your brother, because he

 4     testified here.

 5        A.   I was there only for a short while, six or seven months.  I

 6     didn't work for the service for years to know whether he had attended any

 7     training.

 8        Q.   Well, he told us so.  He also said that he was abroad for

 9     training.  Do you recall that?

10        A.   No, we didn't discuss that, and I don't think it would be fair

11     for me to speak about him.

12        Q.   Well, he told this to the Court.  He said that he attended

13     training abroad.  Did you know that?

14        A.   I didn't.  I'm not sure he ever told me that.

15        Q.   Thank you.  So you don't know that he attended intercept training

16     abroad; yes or no?

17        A.   No, I don't.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Did you attend any training abroad or did you go

19     abroad at all during the war?

20        A.   No.  I never went abroad, actually, before coming here.

21        Q.   Is it possible that a certain report in the binder we saw was

22     taken by another service and was still logged as a report of your

23     State Security Service?

24        A.   The reports before me are ours.  I am not familiar with any other

25     reports, and I don't know what others did.  What is before me is what we

Page 2506

 1     did and forwarded to the centre.  This is what I know.

 2        Q.   During examination-in-chief, could you hear from the Prosecutor

 3     that a part of the conversation between J and T, Janvier and Tolimir, was

 4     recorded by Zagreb?

 5        A.   I seem to recall the Prosecutor mentioning that, but I'm not

 6     familiar with it.

 7        Q.   When the Presiding Judge asked about the time of the intercept,

 8     it had to do with that.  Do you remember?

 9        A.   I remember the Prosecutor saying so, but I don't know of anyone

10     else recording intercepts.

11        Q.   Well, is it still recorded as your intercept?

12        A.   No, these intercepts were recorded by me.  As for any others, I

13     don't know of any services doing that, and no one ever gave me anything

14     to sign that would have to do with that.  What I signed is my

15     conversations.  Whether someone else intercepted at other locations and

16     provided that to the Prosecutor's Office, this is something I don't know.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank you for your testimony.

18     You testified fairly about what you know, and I didn't want to ask you

19     about anything else.

20             Thank you.  This concludes my cross-examination.  I would like to

21     thank the interpreters and the effort they put in to conveying the entire

22     conversation, since we frequently overlapped.  I'm well aware of that.  I

23     would also like to thank the Presiding Judge.

24             Witness, thank you as well.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

Page 2507

 1             Mr. Thayer, do you have re-examination?

 2             MR. THAYER:  I do, just very briefly.  Just a couple of very

 3     small points, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

 5                           Re-examination by Mr. Thayer:

 6        Q.   Sir, can you tell the Trial Chamber why, in the original reports,

 7     the reports that are in your language from the MUP that we have in your

 8     booklet, why the interpreter is designated with the letter P?  Can you

 9     just explain that to us, please?

10        A.   Because the first letter of the word "Prevodilac," meaning

11     "Interpreter," is P.

12             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, one final question.

14                           Questioned by the Court:

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You have explained that you signed the intercepts

16     with your first name.  I see sometimes that there is another name added

17     to your name.  Without mentioning that name, could you explain why there

18     are sometimes two names?

19        A.   I think there are always two names.  There was an internal

20     arrangement.  We put our names there because we were not members of the

21     service.  Their employees had their code-names and numbers, whereas we

22     put our names down.  The first name was the person sitting at the desk

23     recording, then a slash, and the second name was the transcriber's name,

24     the person typing it into the computer and sending it.  Sometimes we

25     changed places.  However, for the most part, on our team, I basically sat

Page 2508

 1     at the desk with the equipment and my colleague typed it in, since he was

 2     a better typist, and he was the one transmitting it.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that.

 4             You will be pleased to hear that this concludes your examination

 5     of today.  You are now free to go back to your normal activities.  The

 6     Chamber would like to thank you for your attendance here in The Hague

 7     again, and all the best for your future.  Thank you very much again.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We should have the second break now.  I think

10     it's a convenient time to enable this witness to leave and the next

11     witness to come into the courtroom.  Thank you.

12             Please wait a moment so the screens should be closed, and we will

13     rise together.

14             We break now and resume in half an hour at 10 minutes to 1.00.

15                           [The witness withdrew]

16                           --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I apologise for our delay.

19             Could the next witness be brought in.  First, the screens have to

20     be closed, I think.

21                           [The witness entered court]

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon, sir.  Please be patient for a

23     moment.

24             Good afternoon again, sir.  Would you please read aloud the

25     affirmation to tell the truth which is shown on the card to you now.

Page 2509

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 2     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 3                           WITNESS:  PW-027

 4                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Please sit down.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  There are protective measures in place for you.

 8     Your voice and face will not be acknowledged outside the courtroom.  And

 9     Mr. Thayer has some questions for you.

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

11                           Examination by Mr. Thayer:

12        Q.   Good afternoon, Witness.  In line with your protective measures,

13     I'd like to show you a document.

14        A.   Good morning -- good afternoon.

15        Q.   I'd like to show you a document on the computer, and it's P323.

16     I think last time around we did this on a piece of paper and handed it to

17     you, but we're just going to show you on the computer screen.  I ask you

18     if you can confirm whether or not you see your name on this document

19     before you.

20        A.   Yes, I can.

21        Q.   And, Witness, do you recall providing a signed witness statement

22     to the Office of the Prosecutor back in January of 2007?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And did you read that witness statement recently in your own

25     language?

Page 2510

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   And just to move things along a little bit:  You identified two

 3     corrections to that statement, did you not?

 4        A.   Yes, I did.

 5             MR. THAYER:  So may we have 318 on e-court, please.

 6             And before I get too far ahead of myself, Mr. President, the

 7     Prosecution would tender P323, the pseudonym sheet, at this time.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received under seal.

 9             MR. THAYER:

10        Q.   Witness, do you see a copy of your witness statement in your own

11     language before you?

12        A.   Yes, I do.

13             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  If we could turn to page 2 in both the

14     English and the B/C/S versions.

15        Q.   I want to focus on the two corrections you pointed out to me at

16     paragraph 6 first.  And, actually, in the B/C/S version, it's going to be

17     over on page -- it's going to continue over to page 3.  So just please

18     let us know when you've read the first part of paragraph 6 on page 2 and

19     need the page turned.

20        A.   Go ahead.

21             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  If we could have the next page in the B/C/S

22     version.

23        Q.   And, sir, I just want to focus your attention on the last

24     sentence in paragraph 6, and I'll just read from the English translation.

25     What is written here is:

Page 2511

 1             "I do not recall receiving orders to move their antennas; I did

 2     not have the know-how."

 3             Now, you pointed out a correction to me when you re-read your

 4     statement last Monday.  Can you just tell the Trial Chamber what the

 5     correction is, please?

 6        A.   Yes.  The last sentence of this paragraph, paragraph 6, it says:

 7             "I don't remember receiving orders to move their antennae; I

 8     wasn't trained for that."

 9             This phrase, "their antennae," I actually meant the antennae

10     installed by my predecessors that were to serve for our -- for the

11     purposes of our work.  It had to do with the antennae we worked with --

12        Q.   Okay.  So if fair so say instead of "their antennas," it should

13     simply read "our antennas"?

14        A.   Precisely.

15        Q.   Okay.  On to the next paragraph, paragraph 7.  In the middle of

16     the paragraph, you pointed out an error in the following sentence, where

17     it says:

18             "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter

19     paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop, encode

20     the transcript, and transmit it."

21             Would you please tell the Trial Chamber what correction you made

22     to that sentence, please?

23        A.   The sentence reads:

24             "We tried to be 100 per cent certain that what they wrote was

25     correct."

Page 2512

 1             As a matter of fact, we tried to be 100 per cent certain that

 2     what we were writing was correct.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Actually, thanks for your attention to detail.  You found

 4     another correction that I wasn't even referring to.  So what you were

 5     pointing out is in the English, it's going to be page 3 of the English

 6     translation, it says:

 7             "We wanted to be 100 per cent sure of what they were writing

 8     down."

 9             And what you're telling us is that should read:

10             "We wanted to be 100 per cent sure of what we were writing down."

11             Is that fair to say?

12        A.   Yes, it is.

13        Q.   Okay.  And let me call your attention to another sentence in

14     paragraph 7, and in your language it's the -- I believe it's the third

15     sentence that begins:

16             "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter

17     paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop, encode

18     the transcript, and transmit it."

19             And I'll just ask you, is there a correction that needs to be

20     made in that sentence as well or not?

21        A.   The word "handwritten" is not necessary.  It also says "type out

22     by hand."  Well, what other way there would be, other than using your

23     hands to type something into the computer?  Okay, I see now.  This is the

24     context.  Then we would type out the handwritten notes, so we would take

25     down the intercept onto teleprinter paper, just plain paper, which we

Page 2513

 1     could make corrections to, for the sake of precision, in case someone was

 2     able to hear anything better later on when reviewing the conversation.

 3             It happened sometimes that we would together listen to a portion

 4     of the conversation to be certain, and then we could make corrections on

 5     that piece of paper.  Such a finished version would be then transmitted

 6     into the laptop, encrypted, and sent to the base.

 7        Q.   Okay.  In the English translation, it says:

 8             "We would later transcribe the conversation onto teleprinter

 9     paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a laptop ..."

10             My question to you is:  Whose handwritten transcription would be

11     typed into a laptop?  Is it theirs, or somebody else's, or "ours," or

12     what is it, and is there actually an error there as I've read it to you?

13        A.   Yes, I meant to say myself and my work-mate who at that moment

14     was typing on the laptop, entering the intercept.

15        Q.   Okay.  Witness, with those corrections noted, can you attest to

16     this Trial Chamber that your witness statement that you have before you

17     accurately reflects what you said during the interview?

18        A.   With the changes just mentioned, the answer is yes.

19        Q.   And during that interview, were you also shown a packet of six

20     intercepts?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And, Witness, were you able to determine whether or not you

23     participated in the interception recording, transcription, or

24     transmission of those intercept reports?

25        A.   Yes, I did.

Page 2514

 1        Q.   And when you arrived here again recently, did you review a packet

 2     containing those same six intercepts and make the same conclusion that

 3     you participated in taking those intercepts?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. THAYER:  With Madam Usher's assistance, I would just hand up

 6     to the witness his packet of six intercepts.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you tendering the statement?

 8             MR. THAYER:  Yes, Mr. President.  Sorry, old habits die hard.

 9     The Prosecution would tender P318, under seal.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received at P318, under seal.

11             And at that stage, I would like to mention that on page 37,

12     line 21, it should be "P323, under seal."  This is the personal

13     information sheet.  The number is just missing.

14             Please carry on.

15             MR. THAYER:

16        Q.   Sir, I just ask you to leaf through those six intercepts behind

17     the tabs there and ask you if you can confirm again that you were the

18     operator who intercepted those conversations.

19        A.   Do I have to read through all of them?

20        Q.   Well, take as much time as you need, sir, just to ensure -- I

21     know it's been a week since you've seen that packet.  But just take as

22     much or as little time as you need to flip through those tabs and be able

23     to confirm whether or not those are the intercepts that you were shown

24     during your interview in 2007.

25        A.   Okay.

Page 2515

 1        Q.   Sir, first can you confirm that those are the six intercepts that

 2     you were shown during your 2007 interview?

 3        A.   Yes, I can.

 4        Q.   And can you confirm that you participated in taking those

 5     intercepts?

 6        A.   Yes, I did.

 7        Q.   Now, with respect to your 2007 witness statement, can you attest

 8     before this Trial Chamber that if you were asked the same questions today

 9     that you were asked back then in 2007, that your answers would be the

10     same?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, I want to turn your attention, sir, to the last two tabs in

13     your booklet.  That's tabs 5 and 6.

14             MR. THAYER:  For the record, one is a 4 August 1995 intercept and

15     the other one is an 11 August 1995 intercept.  And these intercept

16     reports identify General Miletic as being one of the participants in both

17     of these conversations.  And those are P324 and P325, for the record,

18     tabs 5 and 6 respectively.

19        Q.   My question to you, sir, is:  Do you have any independent

20     recollection of being involved in those particular intercepts?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And can you share with the Trial Chamber what, if anything, it is

23     about these intercepts that enables you to remember anything about them

24     today?

25        A.   It was their arrogance towards UNPROFOR troops and their

Page 2516

 1     high-ranking officers.

 2        Q.   Okay, fair enough.

 3             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, at this time I would tender the six

 4     intercepts contained in the booklet, P319 through P325, into evidence.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  They will be received as P319, 320, 321, 322,

 6     324, and 325.

 7             MR. THAYER:  Forgive me.  I forgot that there was a gap.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  All under seal.

 9             Please carry on.

10             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I'd like to read the 92 ter statement

11     summary for the Chamber at this time.

12             The witness was trained as a teleprinter operator and

13     cryptographer during his mandatory JNA service.  Prior to the war, he

14     worked as a communications officer, supporting the State and

15     Public Security Services.  During the war, he worked as a cryptographer,

16     receiving and sending encrypted and open dispatches in support of the

17     Public Security Services.  He also became a Ham Radio operator during the

18     war as a way of helping people stay in contact with their families.

19             From June 1995 through early 1996, he began working shifts for

20     the State Security Services at the northern site.  He had no prior

21     intercept operator training and received instruction from his direct

22     supervisor.  He worked seven-day shifts with a colleague, though

23     sometimes his direct supervisor was present as well.  The ABiH also had

24     personnel at the northern location who worked separately.  The witness

25     intercepted primarily high-level politicians and military personnel and

Page 2517

 1     became familiar with their channels and voices.  At the time, he knew

 2     that Generals Miletic, Gvero, and Tolimir were top VRS commands and was

 3     familiar with their voices but did not know their functions.

 4             The witness described the procedure used when intercepting,

 5     taping, and transcribing VRS radio communications as follows:  They had a

 6     receiver to which was attached a scanner that was constantly running.

 7     Once the channel was picked up, they would listen to the conversation.

 8     And if it were important, they would begin recording it with an attached

 9     UHER recorder.  They would later transcribe the conversation onto

10     teleprinter paper, then type their handwritten transcription into a

11     laptop, encode the transcript, and transmit it.  If a portion of the

12     conversation was unclear, they would listen to it over and over together

13     until they were sure.  If they were still unsure, they would place dots,

14     a question mark, or Xs.  Because the handwritten transcriptions would

15     often get quite marked up during this process and because the typed

16     intercept was the most important product, the handwritten pages would be

17     collected and burned.

18             The witness and his colleague worked as a team and would seek

19     each other's assistance listening to the conversations, sometimes both

20     transcribing the same intercept, then comparing their handwritten

21     transcripts as another way of achieving the greatest possible accuracy.

22     The two-name designation at the end of the print-outs was supposed to

23     indicate the interceptor first and the typer/cryptographer second.

24     However, because they worked so closely, they both often listened to the

25     intercept.

Page 2518

 1             If the conversation were urgent, they would immediately remove

 2     the tape, place it on another tape machine, and begin transcribing.  On

 3     rare occasions, when his direct supervisor was present and an extremely

 4     important conversation was intercepted, his supervisor would take their

 5     handwritten transcript and the tape to the base to be transcribed there.

 6             The witness reviewed six intercept print-outs, recognised his

 7     name on them, and confirmed that he participated in intercepting them.

 8             Now, sir, I just want to ask you one follow-up question.

 9             If we could have P306 on e-court, please.  And let's not

10     broadcast that, please.  And that is not in this witness's booklet.  This

11     is in the prior witness's booklet, but we'll see it on e-court shortly.

12     And if you happen to have the prior witness's booklet, it's tab 12 of the

13     prior witness's booklet.

14        Q.   Sir, do you see an intercept report number 512 dated 8 July 1995

15     before you?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And is the time 1530 hours?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. THAYER:  If we may turn to the second page in the English,

20     and we can stay on this page in the original.

21        Q.   And this -- again, it's not being broadcast, so I don't want to

22     mention the name here, but do you see at the very bottom there's a

23     reference to someone who is, and I quote:

24             "... going to bring the rest of it.  He is here with us and

25     heading towards you."

Page 2519

 1             Do you see that language there, sir?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber what that line is

 4     about, please?

 5        A.   In the cases when our supervisor visited us whenever he could, in

 6     view of the fact that he had commitments in the base, when he visited us

 7     and when he came across an interesting conversation, a very interesting

 8     conversation to be more precise, because of the urgency of the matter and

 9     in order to assist us, he would take the tape and whatever was

10     transcribed up to then and he would drive all that to the base in his

11     car.  And that -- such a case is demonstrated in here.  That's what I

12     stated in my statement.  I said that things like that could happen and,

13     indeed, did happen.  And here you have one of the things that prove it.

14     The last sentence in this document proves that such things did happen.

15             MR. THAYER:  Okay, Witness, I have no further questions.  Thank

16     you.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, Mr. Thayer.

18             Mr. Tolimir, do you have cross-examination?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I do

20     have a few questions, by your leave.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please go ahead.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Good afternoon, Witness.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce the

Page 2520

 1     statement that the Prosecutor displayed just a minute ago.  The document

 2     number is P318.  The witness provided that statement to the OTP on the

 3     20th and the 21st of January, 2007.  Thank you.

 4             Thank you.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] We can see the first page of the

 6     statement that we will be using for the first question.

 7        Q.   Please tell me, before the 20th and 21st of January, 2007, did

 8     you have any contacts with anybody with regard to the things that you're

 9     testifying about today in the courtroom?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Did any representatives of the Tribunal speak to you before those

12     two dates, a woman?

13        A.   Not about the case.

14        Q.   Did anybody from the OTP speak to you before the 21st?

15        A.   I received an invitation to come here, and that was all.

16        Q.   In other words, your interviews in 2007 were conducted in

17     The Hague, or did you do it in your own place, in your territory?

18        A.   I'm not clear what you're asking me.  What interviews?

19        Q.   Where were you on the 20th and 21st of January, 2007, when you

20     provided your statement to the OTP?

21        A.   It was here at the OTP.

22        Q.   I'm asking you whether before that anybody in Bosnia-Herzegovina

23     or, rather, in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina spoke to you or told

24     you that you were supposed to testify in The Hague.

25        A.   Of course, somebody had to invite me.

Page 2521

 1        Q.   Did you receive consent from any of the BiH bodies to come and

 2     testify here in The Hague?  Thank you.

 3        A.   Only from my superior in my work-place, where I still work.

 4        Q.   I repeat my question.  Before this interview, did a certain

 5     person contact you, a person from the OTP?  Thank you.

 6        A.   Yes, a person who invited me and who defined my date of travel,

 7     and that's all.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  In other words, you did not have any other contacts

 9     with the representatives of the Prosecution - thank you - in 2007?  Thank

10     you.

11        A.   No, not about the case.

12        Q.   Thank you.  On the statement that we see on the screen, did you

13     read it and sign it when you first provided it?  Thank you.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Did you sign the corrections that you just mentioned

16     during your examination-in-chief, those mistakes that you had just

17     recently noticed?

18        A.   Yes, I signed, but these are technical corrections, corrections

19     of mistakes of technical nature.

20        Q.   Did you make those corrections during the Popovic case?  And if

21     you did, was that recorded in the transcript?

22        A.   I don't understand what you're saying.

23        Q.   In the Popovic case transcript, did you notice that the same

24     mistakes had been made, and did you remove them?

25        A.   No, I have removed them now here.

Page 2522

 1        Q.   Does that mean that you stated one thing at the previous trial

 2     and now you're stating a different thing, all that with regard to your

 3     original statement?

 4        A.   No, no.  These are typos or mistranslations.  But when it comes

 5     to my statement, my statement was the same then as it is today.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us who was present in the room

 7     in which you provided the statement which we see on e-court?

 8        A.   Who was present?

 9        Q.   Yes.  Do you remember who was present?  Thank you.

10        A.   Well, you have them all mentioned on the front page, all those

11     who were present.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I'm asking you whether there was somebody else

13     besides those who are stated on the front page of the statement.

14        A.   As far as I know, there was nobody.

15        Q.   Do you remember or do you not remember?  Thank you.

16        A.   I remember it very well.

17        Q.   Thank you.  You said that you had worked as a cryptographer in

18     the State Security.  Could you please explain, for the benefit of the

19     Trial Chamber, what is the job of a cryptographer?

20        A.   Coding and decoding of strictly-confidential documents.  Is that

21     enough?

22        Q.   Enough, yes.  Could you please -- thank you.  I apologise.  Could

23     you please explain, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, whether you

24     were allowed to correct anything in the documents that you were given to

25     code or decode while you were working in the State Security Service

Page 2523

 1     before the war?

 2        A.   At that time, I was not the one who transcribed the tapes.  I

 3     received them already completed, and they had to be checked before being

 4     dispatched.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  This means that you were not supposed to correct

 6     anything in the documents that you either coded or decoded; you had to

 7     code and decode everything, even the question marks and things like that?

 8        A.   Yes, exactly, and this applied both to the procedure of

 9     dispatching such documents as well as their receipt.

10        Q.   Thank you.  How often did your supervisor come to visit you in

11     the northern site where you were engaged in the interception work?

12        A.   I can't tell you exactly, but that all depended on his

13     commitments in the base.  He came often.  He would even spend the night,

14     if there was a lot of activity on the channels.  Sometimes he would even

15     spend the night, as I say.  He came usually during the day, he would

16     spend an hour or two with us, and then he would go back.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Tolimir.  Mr. Tolimir's

19     microphone is not on.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21        Q.   You said that -- thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. President.

22     Thank you.

23             Witness, you said in your statement, on page 1 --

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can page 1 please be displayed on

25     e-court, paragraph 6.  Actually, it's page 2.  We are looking at page 1

Page 2524

 1     now, and I would like the Court to produce page 2, paragraph 6, for the

 2     benefit of the witness, to jog his memory as to what he stated.

 3             I apologise.  It is not paragraph 6.  Could you please turn to

 4     the following page.  Thank you.

 5             Thank you.  Now we can see the complete paragraph 6.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   You say here in paragraph 6 that you mainly intercepted

 7     politicians and high-ranking officers.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   In any case, we found those the most interesting for us, but

 9     there were other people whom we listened in.

10        Q.   Did you, in the course of 1995, intercept a conversation of

11     anybody else but generals and politicians from Republika Srpska?

12        A.   Our range was very broad, so we were able to intercept the

13     conversations of common folks, but we did not find their conversations

14     interesting.  We searched for the frequencies with interesting

15     conversations.

16        Q.   In your work, did you co-operate with the BiH Army and did you

17     set priorities, did you split priorities?

18        A.   No, we did not split priorities between ourselves.  However, if

19     there was something interesting, in military terms, then we would send

20     our conversation to them and vice versa.  They would seed to us those

21     things that we might have found interesting.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please look at paragraph 7, the penultimate

23     sentence that you can see on this page, paragraph 7, and that sentence

24     starts with the following words, and I quote:

25             "Since the pages became messy and since the typed documents were

Page 2525

 1     the most important product, the handwritten pages would be collected and

 2     burned."

 3             Did I read your words correctly?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Is that what you did with your handwritten pages, the ones that

 6     were recorded in note-books and on loose pieces of paper?  Thank you.

 7        A.   While we were listening to the conversations, we were liable to

 8     make mistakes.  And as we listened to the same conversation over and over

 9     again, sometimes we would cross out parts of the words or the last parts

10     of the words.  Then we would hand the same conversation over to the other

11     colleague, and the decision we jointly made was finally recorded, if it

12     made sense for the overall context.

13        Q.   Did it often happen that you corrected yourself, what you

14     recorded and what you thought you heard on the first listening?

15        A.   There was no -- there were no mistakes in the gist of the

16     sentences, but sometimes we had to correct words, cross out the first

17     word, and sometimes we would go back to the original solution.  For

18     example, if you just heard one part of that word and you didn't hear the

19     rest, you would enter the word with Xs or points.  If we were not sure,

20     we would mark that with either points or Xs, indicating that we were not

21     sure of the meaning of what we'd heard.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Did I heard you properly?  When it comes to

23     handwritten pages, did you burn them because they were illegible by other

24     people once you made all of your corrections on them?

25        A.   Well, we were afraid they could end up with those who should not

Page 2526

 1     see them.  We simply burned them because that same text, corrected, would

 2     be recorded on -- by a laptop, and that's how we sent it -- that's how we

 3     dispatched it.  We did not need handwritten materials.

 4        Q.   Could such materials on laptop also be accessible to the enemy,

 5     just like the handwritten material?

 6        A.   No.  Are you referring to the papers, whether those could end up

 7     in somebody else's hands, or are you referring to the laptop materials?

 8        Q.   You said that you burned handwritten materials to prevent them

 9     from ending up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.  What about

10     the corrected text that was recorded in the laptop; could that end up

11     with undesirable listeners?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Could laptop signals also be intercepted as well as all the other

14     technical means?

15        A.   I'm not technically savvy to be able to answer your question.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please answer the following question:

17     Where and when did you burn the corrected papers?  Did you burn them

18     immediately after having entered the corrections into the laptop, or did

19     you burn them in the course of the day at certain times?

20        A.   There were no rules as to when those papers would be burned.  It

21     depended.  We had a bag where we collected all those papers, and when

22     that bag was full, then it would be taken out of the facility and burned

23     there.

24        Q.   Did you use shorthand?  How fast did you have to type or write

25     when you made your handwritten notes?

Page 2527

 1        A.   It depended on the speed of the conversations.  If we understood

 2     the conversation well, we could transcribe them very quickly or we could

 3     make our handwritten notes very fast, and the same applied to the laptop

 4     inscriptions.  If the conversations were not easy to understand, it took

 5     us longer.  There were two of us working in one shift, so we were able to

 6     work on different segments of the work.  One continued listening in, and

 7     the other was transcribing.

 8        Q.   When it comes to your handwritten pages, is it true that only you

 9     could read them, that you used some abbreviations and things like that?

10        A.   We used abbreviations only on paper.  When we typed into laptop,

11     we used full words which could be easily understood by everybody.

12        Q.   Thank you very much.  You understood me very well.  What you are

13     saying is that those papers were not neatly transcribed; it was your

14     working material?

15        A.   Yes, because when we transcribed from UHER, we could not hear

16     well at every moment.  We had to -- we had to replay a certain word or

17     sentence even 10 times before we were sure what was said to be able to

18     record that in the laptop.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please look at paragraph 7, where you made

20     corrections during your examination-in-chief, when you were examined by

21     the Prosecutor.  Here, you're talking about the methods you used to

22     transcribe conversations and their transcribing by laptop.  Could you

23     please tell us, how much time did you need to copy a handwritten

24     conversation which you had intercepted, and how long did it take before

25     you could send it to the end user?

Page 2528

 1        A.   It would -- it took much more time to record the intercepted

 2     conversation on teleprinter paper.  Entering a conversation into laptop

 3     was a fast procedure.  I was a very skilled teleprinter operator, so

 4     typing was not a problem for me.  I was a skilled typist.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us, how long did you --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We are running out of time.  We have reached the

 7     time of adjournment for today, and we have to break now because another

 8     trial is using this courtroom this afternoon.

 9             Could you please indicate how much time you will need for

10     conclusion of your cross-examination?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will need some time to clarify

12     facts from paragraph 7, which the witness corrected during the

13     examination-in-chief.  And once I've done that, my cross-examination will

14     be over.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In this case, we have to adjourn now and continue

16     the examination of this witness tomorrow.  I'm sorry for that, sir, but

17     we have to adjourn.  We continue with your examination tomorrow in the

18     afternoon at 2.15.

19             Just to remind you, you shouldn't have contact to either party

20     about the content of your examination.  Thank you very much.

21             We adjourn and resume tomorrow at 2.15 in this courtroom.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day

25                           of June, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.