Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5057

 1                           Wednesday, 8 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.

 7             We are still in the stage of examination-in-chief of this

 8     witness.  Good afternoon to you as well.  And, Mr. Vanderpuye, I suppose

 9     you have additional questions.

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

11             Good afternoon to you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon, everyone.

12                           WITNESS:  STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]

13                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

14        Q.   Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.

15        A.   Good afternoon.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could have P125 back in e-court, please.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps you could repeat the number for the

18     record.  It was not recorded yet.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  P125, I believe.

20             All right, thank you.

21        Q.   Ms. Frease, I believe we left off with this document yesterday.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And we were going -- well, we had gone through the time that it

24     was issued, which is indicated as 1400, to whom it was issued, and you

25     indicated among the recipients of this document, or intended recipients

Page 5058

 1     of this document, was the commander of the Military Police Battalion of

 2     the 65th Regiment, and that was the military police of the 65th Regiment.

 3     And you've indicated that that was Zoran Malinic; is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And it discusses a thousand members of the former 28th Division

 6     of the so-called BiH Army in the area of Dusanovo/Kasaba?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, were you able to relate this particular document to any

 9     other intercepts, other than the two that we discussed yesterday?

10        A.   I don't remember.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Can I have P411B in e-court, please.

12             All right.  We'll need to go, as you can see -- well, it's not

13     very well, but you can see, on this document, it is a print-out.  We're

14     not broadcasting it, are we?  It's a print-out from the northern

15     facility, and it's dated 13 July 1995.

16        Q.   Can you see that and make that out?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  And if we could go, please, to the

19     third page of this document in the B/C/S.  All right.

20        Q.   And on the third page, hopefully, you'll be able to see a part of

21     one conversation and two other conversations.  One begins at 1400 hours.

22     It's between X and Y at 394.  Do you see that?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Okay.  And is that one of the conversations we discussed

25     yesterday?

Page 5059

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And I just want to ask you, briefly, before we move on to the

 3     next conversation:  Were you able to connect the extension 394 to any

 4     particular location?

 5        A.   I'm not absolutely certain, so I'd rather not say.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Were you able to connect any other extensions, telephone

 7     numbers, in the intercepts that you reviewed to any particular person or

 8     location?

 9        A.   155 stands out.

10        Q.   And what do you recognise that to be or what did you learn that

11     that corresponded to?

12        A.   That that corresponded to General Miletic's extension.  It was

13     actually, I believe, General Milovanovic's, but General Milovanovic had

14     been away for a few months, and so Miletic was picking up on 155 most of

15     the time.

16        Q.   All right.  I'll come back to that in just a moment.  But if we

17     could page down, go down the page on this particular document, all the

18     way down we'll see an intercept at 1405.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, this particular intercept is captured on the frequency

21     254.300, which is the same as the one immediately preceding it, and it

22     indicates:  "Direction, Pravac," "Y" and "I," "South-east."  Do you

23     recognise this intercept?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if we could have -- I hope we have an

Page 5060

 1     English translation of this one.  If we could show both of them, that

 2     would be helpful at this point.

 3        Q.   In this particular intercept, were you able to relate this to the

 4     telegram that we just saw at P125?

 5        A.   Yes, this conversation mentions -- X mentions that he is going to

 6     be sending an urgent telegram.

 7        Q.   And the time of this one is at 1405?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   Did you compare it or did you consider that in relation to the

10     1400 hours, which is indicated as the time on P125?

11        A.   On the order?

12        Q.   Yes.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Did you consider that in terms of determining the authenticity of

15     this intercept and also of the order itself?

16        A.   Yes.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Mr. Vanderpuye is trying to prove that two documents were

20     identical, the one he showed first in the courtroom, which is --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  There's no -- perhaps I'm on the wrong channel.

22             Please carry on.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This witness is being used to prove

24     that the document of the 13th, at 1405, is identical to the document

25     recorded at 1405 hours at the other end of the theatre.  I don't think it

Page 5061

 1     is possible.  In one case, we have an electronic record, and in the

 2     other, we have a typewritten text, and I don't see the correlation

 3     between the two.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, I think, is able to deal with

 5     that.  On the other hand, this is a typical remark or question.  You

 6     could deal with that in cross-examination, I think.

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

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please carry on.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:

10        Q.   Now, there's a reference in this particular intercept to the

11     football pitch, and --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   There's a reference to, also, a telegram?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And a reference to -- well, there's a clear indication of the

16     time.  And you can see, from the original print-out on the right, that

17     this document immediately follows the intercept which discusses a

18     thousand prisoners at the football stadium?

19        A.   Yes.  It says "more than a thousand."

20        Q.   And did you consider the relationship of this intercept at 1405

21     to the intercept at 1400, its subject matter, in relation to P125, which

22     is the order that we discussed?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And as a result of having considered those factors, were you able

25     to determine whether or not the intercepts were authentic and reliable

Page 5062

 1     and accurate?

 2        A.   Yes, it was a factor.  Certainly, they are mutually

 3     corroborating.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'd like to show you P2960.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think this number is not correct.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I'm sorry, it's 65 ter 2960.  It's P842.

 7     Thank you, Ms. Stewart.

 8        Q.   Ms. Frease, do you recognise this particular intercept?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  And do you recognise what it's talking about, what the

11     subject matter is?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Could you tell us about it?

14        A.   It's a conversation between two unknown participants.  They're

15     talking about extension 394 being down at Kasaba, and then where

16     Malinic's unit is, Malinic being Zoran Malinic, the head of the military

17     police unit of the 65th Protection Regiment.  And X says:

18             "They said that there are 1500 gathered at the stadium."

19             And that:

20             "There were 1500 at the stadium in Kasaba."

21        Q.   And did you consider this particular intercept in the context of

22     the other intercepts and the order we've just looked at?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And does it confirm or corroborate the information that's

25     contained, well, in all of those documents?

Page 5063

 1        A.   In my view, they all relate to one another.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  I'd like to show you another

 3     document.  Just bear with me one moment.  I'll give you the P number for

 4     it.

 5             Thanks.  It's P774.

 6        Q.   Do you recognise this document, Ms. Frease?

 7        A.   I saw it briefly in the last couple of days.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And do you know what its origin is or what it purports to

 9     be?

10        A.   I do not know what its origin is.

11        Q.   Do you recognise the extensions or telephone numbers of persons

12     that are indicated in this document?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Do you recognise the locations that are indicated in this

15     document?

16        A.   Yes, some of them.

17        Q.   Okay.  So let's start with this, for example, at Panorama.  Do

18     you know what that is?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   What is it?

21        A.   That's the General Staff headquarters.

22        Q.   And where is that located?

23        A.   In Han Pijesak, Crni Vrh.

24        Q.   And can I ask you:  In this particular document, do you see,

25     well, what's written here is "Lokal"?

Page 5064

 1        A.   Yes, that's an extension.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And if we go down this document, you can see these numbers

 3     that correspond to various names and locations.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And if we go down to "Panorama," you can see, for example,

 6     "General Gvero, Milan"?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And it's associated with extension 154?

 9        A.   That's what it says here, yes.

10        Q.   And if you go further down, you can see "Extension 155"?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And that's associated with, it says, "Puk Miletic"?

13        A.   Yes, I guess before a promotion.  "Pukovnik" is the -- would be

14     the short version for "Colonel" Miletic.

15        Q.   And then you see it says "Oficir Pandzic"?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And it also says "Panorama"?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And if we go a little bit further down, we can see General Gvero,

20     it says "Cabinet for information."  Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And that's associated with extension 157?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And further down, you can see "Extension 168"?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5065

 1        Q.   And you can see that's associated with a General Tolimir?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And it says "Puk Beara, Ljubo"?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And then it says "Sekretar Zeljo"?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And are you familiar with these individuals, in terms of your

 8     analysis of the intercept materials?  These names, I should say.

 9        A.   I'm not familiar with the last name.

10        Q.   Okay.  And to the right on that particular column, you can see it

11     says "Glavni Stab."  Can you tell us what that means?

12        A.   "General Staff," "Main Staff."

13        Q.   And what about at 154?  You can also see "General Gvero,

14     Milan" -- I'm sorry.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry.  If we can go to the next page of

16     this document.

17        Q.   If we go to this page, you can see other locations, such as

18     "Bedem"?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Are you familiar with that name?

21        A.   I would have to look at the reference guide, but I think it's the

22     Sarajevo -- it looks from here like it's the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.

23        Q.   All right.  And are you familiar with the code-names that are

24     used in this document, generally?

25        A.   Generally, sure.  I mean, "Panorama" being the main one,

Page 5066

 1     certainly, on this page.

 2        Q.   And in terms of this extension 155, were you able to verify that

 3     extension with any other information that you came across while you were

 4     examining the intercept materials?

 5        A.   I cannot cite one now, but I believe that there are intercepts

 6     that mention 155 and then associate names with it.

 7        Q.   Very well, okay.

 8             I'd like to take you to a totally different area, and I'd like to

 9     show you an intercept --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you leave this topic, Judge Mindua has a

11     question related to this document.

12             JUDGE MINDUA:  Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor.  Actually, it's not a

13     question, but a clarification.

14             Likewise, Ms. Frease, we still don't know the origin of the

15     document.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry?

17             JUDGE MINDUA:  The origin of this document --

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

19             JUDGE MINDUA:  -- we don't know it.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I can tell you it, but I think the witness

21     hasn't answered the question so I'll leave it at that.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And we could see the first page, perhaps.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  This is, as far as I know, the first page of

24     this document.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At least the second.  Now the first.  Okay.

Page 5067

 1             The witness could perhaps help us to understand the origin of

 2     this document.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I'm afraid I can't.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What kind of document is it, Mr. Vanderpuye?

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, this is a document that came

 6     from ... all right.  This is -- well, as far as the MIF is indicating,

 7     Mr. President, it indicates it was a document that was forwarded -- or

 8     seized by, I should say, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Intelligence and

 9     Security Agency, and it was also furnished to the Office of the

10     Prosecutor in 2004, 6 July 2004.  And it came together with other radio

11     surveillance information, including some documents on a CD, which

12     included documents totalling some 6.000 pages or so.  But it was seized

13     and turned over to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2004.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We see that there's no headline, no date, no

15     signature.  We can't see, from the document itself, the origin and who

16     compiled this list.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I understand that.  I'm not proposing to tender

18     it through this witness, since she hasn't laid the foundation for it, and

19     that's the reason why I said if she's not familiar with it, I'll leave it

20     at that and I'll move on to a different area.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  This is, indeed, a very good

22     procedure.

23             But I would like to ask the witness:  How do you know that the

24     extension number 155 is related to a specific person?

25             THE WITNESS:  Through years of work on the intercepts, some

Page 5068

 1     things stay in one's mind, and so through -- through just analysis.  I

 2     can't point to a specific, you know, moment that I remember knowing it.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Thank you

 6     very much, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   I want to take you to a different area altogether, Ms. Frease,

 8     and that has to do with some other intercepts.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have 65 ter 3497.  It's a 22nd July intercept,

10     and I think it's P773.  Now, let's see which one we can get up here.

11             Is it possible -- do we have P773 -- okay.  It should be

12     ERN 0080-1157.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, the Chamber learned that you want

14     to use several documents related to this intercept, but there's only one

15     offered to the Chamber yet under this number.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President, you're right.

17             What we proposed to do was -- we have this -- actually, this is

18     rather convenient.  We have this print-out of the intercept.  There is

19     also an electronic version of the intercept which is more legible, and a

20     handwritten version of the intercept which I think is also helpful, which

21     we would like to use.  We would like -- we would like to be able to show

22     the Court this.  They are substantively -- the electronic version and

23     this photocopy are substantively identical, but this is actually a

24     convenient moment because perhaps Ms. Frease can -- this coincides with

25     Ms. Frease's testimony about the materials that the Office of the

Page 5069

 1     Prosecutor received initially.  These are the photocopies that had some

 2     problems, in terms of legibility.  So perhaps I'll ask her to comment on

 3     this, that we have it on the screen already.  But I would like to ask

 4     your permission, the permission of the Chamber, to show her also the

 5     electronic version of this intercept and the handwritten version of the

 6     intercept.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think there will be no problem.  But first of

 8     all, you should move for adding these documents to the list of documents,

 9     because originally you only -- the Prosecution only asked for admission

10     of one document, and it was given the P number 773, only one of them.

11     But this is quite exceptional, because in other cases we have the numbers

12     A, B, C, different versions of the same intercept, transcript and

13     translation, so that we should, for the sake of the record, be very clear

14     to which document you are referring.

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

16             I apologise.  I only realised -- and it is my fault.  I only

17     realised that this was a document that was loaded into e-court, as

18     opposed to the electronic version and the handwritten version, which is

19     what we try to do in most instances.  I don't know whether or not the

20     Registry has had a chance to designate the electronic version so that it

21     can be used in e-court.  We have.

22             So if I may, with the Court's permission, I'd like to -- all

23     right.  I'd like move to have this document, which is P773, changed to

24     P773A, and then to add P773B and C as the handwritten and the print-out,

25     respectively.

Page 5070

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The last one is a new print-out, because the

 2     first one --

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- is an old print-out, if I understand that

 5     correctly.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.  This is a hard copy of -- it's a

 7     photocopy of something that was printed out long ago, and what I propose

 8     to add is -- yes, it's a new print-out from the electronic data that the

 9     witness has testified that the Office of the Prosecutor received

10     subsequent to these hard-copy print-outs.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is wrong with the first print-out?

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The first print-out doesn't contain pertinent

13     information relating to this intercept, such as the date, and I think

14     that's particularly important in this instance.  The date can be found on

15     the first page of the report which contains this intercept.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sorry, I didn't understand that.

17             The old print-out doesn't contain a date?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The old print-out does not contain the date on

19     this -- that's right.  On this page, it doesn't contain the date.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But it was a photocopy of the original or a

21     print-out of the original transcript?

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  It's a photocopy of the original

23     500-and-some-odd pages of photocopied material that was provided to the

24     Office of the Prosecutor back in 1998, I think it was, or thereabouts.

25     March of 1998.

Page 5071

 1             Subsequently, as the witness has mentioned, the

 2     Prosecutor's Office received electronic -- that is, data disks,

 3     electronic versions of this material, and what we have -- what I'm

 4     proposing to add is the print-out from that material, which is

 5     substantively identical to this, in terms of the content of the

 6     intercept, but clearly it's not something that was compiled.  It's

 7     something that's printed directly from the disk.  So it contains the

 8     entire report for the day which contains this intercepted communication,

 9     among others.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It would be helpful to elaborate with this

11     witness and to show all these documents so that we can compare them.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, do you have any problems by

14     replacing one intercept by -- or adding three documents to one

15     already-listed document?

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

17             I'd like to greet everyone, and may there be peace in this house.

18     Let us conclude this exercise in keeping with God's will and not my own.

19             It doesn't matter to me what the OTP is going to do, because all

20     of these documents were copied and never used.  The more we have of such

21     material, the easier it will be for me to prove my assertions.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

23             In that case, the Registry will give the relevant numbers to the

24     65 ter numbers.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 5072

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             65 ter 3497, previously marked as P773, is now marked as P773A.

 3     65 ter 3497B is now marked as P773B.  65 ter 3497C is now marked as

 4     P773C.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 6             Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I do

 8     apologise for the confusion.

 9        Q.   First, Ms. Frease, can you comment on this particular document

10     that you see in front of you?  Can you tell us a little bit about it?

11        A.   Yes.  This is one of the original documents.  I can tell from the

12     ERN number, which starts 0072.  This was among the 550 pages that we

13     first received in 1998.

14        Q.   Now, were these -- well, were these -- you've testified these

15     were received in hard copy, or were they received electronically back in

16     1998?

17        A.   No, they were received in hard copy in one single binder.

18        Q.   And if I could just refer you to the very top of this document --

19     I think we can see the whole thing there, but in this case do you see the

20     black line at the top of the document?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Can you tell us a little bit about that?

23        A.   Yes.  That's an example of what I referred to yesterday, when I

24     mentioned that at times we couldn't see the -- either the top line or the

25     bottom line of the intercepts that we first received.  So I think that I

Page 5073

 1     said yesterday that they were incomplete and that in the Popovic trial we

 2     tried to present the complete intercepts, and this is an example of what

 3     I mean by that.  It's very difficult to read this first word.  I think it

 4     says "hocete," which is "do you want to" or "can you call me," but you

 5     can see it's very difficult to read.  And those sorts of lines -- there

 6     may have been another line above that that could have been missing and

 7     the same thing with lines at the bottom of the pages that we received as

 8     photocopies.

 9        Q.   And as a result of that, when these documents were translated,

10     was that reflected in the translation?

11        A.   Yes, it was.

12        Q.   How so?

13        A.   As missing text, usually, though at times it also might not have

14     been clear that the text was missing, so the intercept would just end.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  What I'd like to do, if I can, is to

16     display --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, for the record, we have now P773A

18     on the screen; is that correct?

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  We do.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Because it was not mentioned yet.

21             Please carry on.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much.

23             I'd like to display alongside this exhibit P773C, which is the

24     print-out.  And we'll start with the first page, and we'll go through it

25     up until we get to this intercept.

Page 5074

 1             All right, I think this is okay.  We can start here.  And we're

 2     not broadcasting it, are we?

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to raise the problem of legibility

 4     of this document.  I was told that the witness can see it on her screen

 5     much better than the parties and the Chamber and the courtroom.

 6     Therefore, we can be sure that she is able to read it.  For us it's

 7     really hardly legible.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It might be a good idea, Mr. President, if we

 9     can -- you know, we can blow it up section by section.  I think we can

10     maybe get through it that way.

11        Q.   All right.  At the top of this document, we can see it says

12     "Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine"?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   "2nd Corps," "Command of the 2nd Corps"?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Then it has a location which indicates the northern site?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   The strictly confidential number of 03/22795?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And then the date of "22/7/1995," 22nd of July?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  Now, what I'd like to do -- as you can see on this

23     document, the first recorded communication, the first recorded intercept,

24     is at 742 hours, 0742 hours?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5075

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Now we can go to the next page, and

 2     we can go down.

 3        Q.   You'll see the next -- well, the first recorded conversation on

 4     this page is at 902 hours and the one following at 0917 hours.  You see

 5     that?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And then if we go to the next page, all right.  If we go

 8     down the page, you can see the conversation at 0928 hours?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   All right.

11        A.   Could I just point out one thing?  That on that previous document

12     that we saw, on the print-out, that 550 pages, that top line that was

13     missing that I said you could kind of make out, but you couldn't really,

14     you can see it if you look -- whoops, I touched the screen and everything

15     got big.  If you look two, four, six lines up in the previous

16     conversation, so the one before 928, you'll see that line.  "Hocete mi

17     javiti."  That was the line that was cut off on the print-out.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I'd like to do is if we could display them

19     side by side so the Chamber can actually see exactly what the witness is

20     talking about.  Yes, it will be 773A and C, and it will be page 3 of

21     773C.

22             I think we --

23             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We'll have to take the rubber band from the --

25     near the -- about a third of the way from the bottom, where you can see

Page 5076

 1     the words "Hocete mi javiti."  Just about a third down.  Down, down,

 2     that's correct.  All right.

 3        Q.   Now, what you were referring to, Ms. Frease, was the very top of

 4     the document on the right, 773A?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   And that's the line that cannot be read?

 7        A.   Right.

 8        Q.   And can you see that line on the document on the right, which is

 9     773C?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And can you read it into the record?

12        A.   "Hocete mi javiti da znam da ssaljem auto jer gore mi trazze

13     nemaju ni jedne."  The "ni jedne" is on the line that is possible to

14     read.

15        Q.   And can you see --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, this is a little bit problematic,

17     because we can't understand.  We hear the original version without

18     translation, and it is not recorded because we have a record in English.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I understand.  All right.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If you want to compare something, you should deal

21     with the language in a different way.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  In this case, it's not a comparison in

23     terms of what the substance of it is, because if it's possible, we can

24     just blow up the words and we can see that the words are the same.  And

25     the meaning of it really is irrelevant.  What we're concerned about and

Page 5077

 1     what I'd like to convey to the Trial Chamber is that the substances, that

 2     is, the language, the dots, the periods, the Xs, the Ys, are all

 3     identical in this material.  So it really doesn't matter whether there's

 4     a translation.  It's really more of a visual issue.

 5             I don't know if it's possible to blow it up in such a way that we

 6     can see the text so that you can follow just the words from one line to

 7     another, side by side.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I understand very well what you are doing, but we

 9     must have it on the same level, the portions which relate to each other,

10     so that we can compare it.  And you should help the Usher to find the

11     relevant portion.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Well, the relevant portion, for the

13     purposes of the document on the left, is the first five lines of that

14     document.  It ends with "Zdravo," and the first line that you can see is

15     "Ni jedne."  That's the document on the left, which is now gone.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Including the top line, the black line we see

17     there.  It's important to see that.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.  It's gone now, but I'm sure it

19     will be back.

20             THE WITNESS:  It's the top five or six lines of the document on

21     the left.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We need the document P773A on the left side of

23     the screen, and especially the top of that page.  Which page of that

24     document is it, Mr. Vanderpuye?

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It appears to be on the right page.  It's just a

Page 5078

 1     few lines down.  So if we can just go up on the document on the left,

 2     we'll be right there.

 3             There's the black line, and you have to go to the left now.  All

 4     right, now it's back at the top of the page.  If we can move it, fine.

 5     If we can't, then we can move the other --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We need -- we need the black line and the

 7     following 10 lines.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's fine, that's fine.  Okay.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And now on the same level, please, the same

10     portion of the right document.

11             THE WITNESS:  Down a little bit, down.  It should --

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please scroll up.

13             THE WITNESS:  The top line on the document should be the X that

14     starts with the letters "H-o-c-h-e-t-e," "Hocete mi javiti," and that's

15     just above the conversation at 928, six lines up in the conversation that

16     starts at 928.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  More, more, more.  No, the other way around,

18     please.  Yes.  Further, further, further, further, further.

19             Okay.  If it's not possible, on technical reasons, please carry

20     on.  If the witness could indicate to which line you are referring, that

21     would be helpful.

22             THE WITNESS:  Sure.  So on the document on the left --

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Actually, I have a great suggestion from

24     Ms. Stewart, which would be for the witness to actually mark the lines,

25     which I think she can do, and that will help everybody, I think.

Page 5079

 1             As you read them, you can mark them on both documents so that we

 2     can follow along.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That is really a great recommendation for

 4     everybody in the courtroom.

 5             THE WITNESS:  All right.

 6             So the first line is this one up here [marks], and it's the one

 7     where I said it's difficult to read, but you can see it [marks].  You can

 8     just make out enough of the letters, "Hocete mi javiti," and then it

 9     would be hard to say what that is, but when I look at the document on the

10     right, I can see that it matches up with -- it's two letters, right, with

11     "da," and it continues for the rest of the sentence.

12             The next line down is "ni jedne," which is identical.  Then we

13     can see that line, so it's identical both of -- so I'll say line 2 here

14     and line 2 there [marks].  And then the next line down just continues.

15             This is an example of why it was important and helpful to receive

16     the electronic print-outs from the ABiH and also from the MUP, because

17     with the original documents that we received, there were passages that

18     were missing just because of this photocopying issue.  So we would be

19     missing a couple of sentences and didn't know what they were.

20             Once we received the electronic versions -- and also the

21     note-books helped a lot in this, because through the note-books we could

22     also see that the conversation continued.  But the electronic versions

23     mirror the information that we originally received in the 550 pages.  And

24     you can see, from the typeset and from the sentence -- the length of the

25     sentences.  In fact, if you go down two more lines, you can see the same

Page 5080

 1     mistake where there are two periods put after the same sentence.  "Ajde

 2     molim vas.." should be just one period.  There's no reason for two

 3     periods.  It's a mistake, and the mistake is carried over also in the

 4     electronic version.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 6        Q.   Could you please mark that so that we can see exactly what you're

 7     talking about with the two periods on both documents?

 8             THE WITNESS:  [Marks].  Well, I think I wrote over them.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:

10        Q.   And thank you for that explanation.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could now just go to the bottom of the

12     page --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, we can't.  We'll lose the markings.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I will tender these, then, into evidence

15     at this time.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  These documents, P773A and 773C, will be

17     received.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And these are the original documents, and now the

20     documents with the markings will be received as separate documents.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  It will be received as Exhibit P864.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Carry on, please.

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

25             I just wanted to briefly go down to the bottom of the page of

Page 5081

 1     773A just to show the Trial Chamber what occurs there as well.  You can

 2     see the black photocopy line which covers part of the text of that

 3     intercept as well, and this is -- I can ask the witness.

 4        Q.   Was this something that was a consistent pattern in the

 5     photocopied material that the Office of the Prosecutor received, the

 6     500-and-some-odd pages?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  I'd like to actually get to --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, may I ask you a question?

10             Yesterday, we received these binders of different intercepts.  Is

11     this a document, P773, included in this binder?

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, it's not.  It's not included in that binder.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In that case, it would be very helpful if you

14     could get a hard copy of these two different intercepts so that we have a

15     better copy, so that we can read it, really.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll do that.  I'll have it available to you

17     after the break, Mr. President.  Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  And, of course, for the Defence as well.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I'd like to do is just to get to the

20     substance of this intercept.  And to do that, I will need to go to P773B,

21     which is the note-book, because I believe that's the one that has the

22     translation.

23        Q.   All right.  Ms. Frease, have you had an opportunity to review

24     this particular intercept, which I think is responsive to a question that

25     was put to you by Judge Nyambe yesterday, as concerns intercepts that

Page 5082

 1     were obtained in one location versus another location?  Have you had a

 2     chance to review this particular one?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And can you tell us, having reviewed this particular intercept,

 5     have you had an opportunity to compare it to any other materials?

 6        A.   Yes, to another intercept.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And having -- do you know if these intercepts were

 8     obtained at the same sites or at different sites?

 9        A.   They were obtained from different sites.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, have you had an opportunity to look at what the

11     substance of this intercept is?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And have you compared that against the other intercept?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And in terms of its substance, are they identical?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Why don't we have a look, then, at these intercepts.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If it's possible, I'd like to have -- I think

19     I'm going to have to do -- I'm going to have to ask that the

20     translation -- that we have this translation in the record, if it's

21     possible to have P369B displayed side by side.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But what about this document we have on the

23     screen now?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'd like to -- well, I'd like to display them

25     side by side, if it's possible.  Otherwise, we'll do it sequentially.

Page 5083

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In English or IN B/C/S?

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  369B, I believe is -- I think it's in English.

 3     I believe it's the English version or an English translation of another

 4     intercept which the witness has just talked about.

 5             All right, we'll have to go to the bottom of the page.

 6        Q.   Now, as you'll recall, Ms. Frease, the document on the left is

 7     from the northern facility, and the document on the right, as is

 8     indicated at the top of the screen, is from the southern facility.

 9        A.   Right.

10        Q.   And the timing on the document from the southern site is

11     0931 hours?

12        A.   Right.

13        Q.   The document on the left from the northern site is timed at

14     0928 hours?

15        A.   Correct.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's necessary to have the top of that page.

17     Otherwise, we can't see it.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  And I'd like to, if it's possible,

19     although I'm not sure if it is, to get these lined up somehow in e-court

20     so that we can see the language that we have referring to both of these

21     intercepts.  I know it's a bit difficult, technically, but --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The left one is okay.  The right one should be

23     scrolled up.  The other way around.  It's not possible to do it further.

24             Now we have it more or less on the same level.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  That looks pretty good.  Thank you

Page 5084

 1     for -- thank you very much for that.

 2        Q.   And we can go line by line through this one.  And the document on

 3     the left, which is the one at 0928 hours, starts off with:

 4             "Where is General Tolimir?"

 5             You can see on the right that this reads:

 6             "Is Tolimir around?"

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Can you tell us, having looked at these documents and having

 9     looked at the original language, is that substantively the same?  Was the

10     language the same or was it different?

11        A.   The meaning of it is the same.

12        Q.   Okay, all right.  Do you know if the words that were used,

13     written down by the operators, were the same or were they different?

14        A.   I don't remember.

15        Q.   All right.  We can take a look at that, then, as well in just a

16     moment.

17             But we continue down, and the second line says:

18             "Here, right next to me."

19             And that's on the document on the left.  On the right, it's:

20             "He's right next to me."

21             The same question.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Do you know if the language that was used in the originals was

24     the same, or was it identical, or was it slightly different?

25        A.   I'd have to look at both of them next to each other.

Page 5085

 1        Q.   Okay.  All right.  And if we continue down the document, you can

 2     see, on the fourth line, it reads:

 3             "Just a moment."

 4             X says:

 5             "Just a moment."

 6             And on the document on the right, it reads:

 7             "One moment, please," which is followed by a comment, it says:

 8             "Popovic speaking.  Hello."

 9             Do you see that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And on the document on the left, after "Just a moment," there's a

12     space, dot dot dot.  What does that indicate to you?

13        A.   That they couldn't hear what T said.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can I stop you for a moment.

15             Mr. Tolimir.  Mr. Tolimir.

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

17             These two documents were not recorded at the same time, according

18     to what is written here.  One is at 9.28 and the other one is 9.31.  This

19     is a major time difference, since there is no time difference, actually,

20     in the northern and the southern location.  It's the same time zone.  So

21     I don't know exactly what this is about.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, we had this problem already several

23     times, and it's up to the Prosecution to elaborate on that and to find

24     out what might be the reason for this difference.  We see the difference.

25     We have it on the screen and in the documents.

Page 5086

 1             Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

 3        Q.   As we continue down this document, and this is one of the reasons

 4     why we're comparing the substance of the document as opposed to the

 5     indicated time, which may reflect the time on a wall or somebody's watch,

 6     we're looking at the substance of the document, itself.  As we continue

 7     down you can see, close to the bottom of the document on the left, which

 8     is the document that's timed at 928 hours, it says:

 9             "Sir, there's nothing yet about this cousin of mine.  Popovic,"

10     it says, "did you manage to do find out anything?"

11             Do you see that?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And then the document on the right says:

14             "General, I don't have anything yet about that cousin of mine.

15     Popovic, have you managed anything?"

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And following that, it reads on the document on the right:

18             "There's nothing --"

19             That's the document, for the sake of the record, that's at

20     0931 hours:

21             "There's nothing."  That's what T says.

22             P says:

23             "Nothing."

24             T says:

25             "Nothing."

Page 5087

 1             You can see that substantively the same, almost, on the document

 2     on the left?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   If we can go further down on the document on --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you go further down, it would be helpful

 6     if the witness could explain.  Do you think about the reason -- what

 7     could be the reason of a different language of a quite similar

 8     conversation?

 9             THE WITNESS:  We'd have to look at exactly what the language is,

10     because sometimes it can be a matter of translation.  Other times, if

11     there is -- if there are slightly different words used, it can be how

12     somebody's hearing it, depending on the location that they're at, and

13     also how many times they've listened to it.  If something sounds very

14     similar and the meaning is "it's nothing," you could write it down -- you

15     could, for example, invert the order of the words, "nema nista," "nista

16     nema."  So it could have to do with how many times the operator has

17     listened to a particular conversation as well.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

19             Please proceed.

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

21             I don't know how much farther we can go down the page on -- okay.

22             What I'd like to do is just to basically go through to the next

23     page, I think it is, in the English translation on the left.  It's at the

24     end of the intercept.  I can't see from this here.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We need the next page on the left side of the

Page 5088

 1     screen.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's fine.  And if we can go to the next page

 3     in the document on the right.

 4             THE WITNESS:  There's a problem with the translation, I can see

 5     on the document on the right.  It's cut off, and so this would be a --

 6     the conversation wasn't finished, whereas on the original document there

 7     were a couple more lines.  So this is a classic example of, you know,

 8     sort of using documents that weren't complete and translations that

 9     weren't complete.  I think if we looked at the original document --

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:

11        Q.   We'll look at those in just a second.

12        A.   Okay.

13        Q.   I just want to get this off the screen, and we can be done with

14     it, and we can look at the original so we can actually compare the

15     language that was used by the operators, themselves.

16             But in this context, have you had an opportunity to review

17     this -- you've reviewed all of these conversations?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And in this context, is it the case that you have a conversation

20     purportedly between General Tolimir and Popovic --

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   -- concerning some cousin of Popovic who's apparently missing?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And in that context, you can see the conversation continues, and

25     Popovic says:

Page 5089

 1             "Well --"

 2             Well, Tolimir says:

 3             "How's it going with you?"

 4             And Popovic says:

 5             "Well, it's going well.  There are no major problems.  I am at my

 6     base today."

 7             Do you see that?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   It says:

10             "I have some things to do, so I'm staying here."

11             Right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And in this translation, it reads:

14             "Carry on working"?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And with respect to the document on the left, that last sequence

17     says:

18             "You just do your job"?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And it continues:

21             "Well, that's it.  Greetings, General."

22             "All the best to you."

23             "Thank you."

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I'd like to do is I'd like to look --

Page 5090

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We followed what you're reading there, but I

 4     can't find any similarity, perhaps except:  "You just do your job," on

 5     the right side.  "Carry on working."  That's all.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  You're right, and the reason for it is because

 7     it's on the other page of the document.  So for the purposes of

 8     expediency, I didn't have it displayed, but I can --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should go back to the previous page on the

10     left side of the screen --

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

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- in order to be able to compare anything.

13     That's perfect now.

14             Please carry on.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could move it up a little bit, I think we

16     can match them.  Okay, that's just fine.

17        Q.   In both lines -- the document on the left -- well, the document

18     on the right says:

19             "So -- so that I can tell the family I don't know what to do

20     anymore."

21             And that is in the middle of the page in the document on the

22     left, which reads:

23             "So that I can at least say," and there is a cross-out, it looks

24     like, "to the family.  I don't know what to do."

25             Then the document on the right says:

Page 5091

 1             "It seems that it's what I said it was."

 2             The document on the left reads:

 3             "Nothing, nothing.  It seems that we ... what I told you."

 4             The next line in the document on the left, it's:  "Yes.

 5             The next line on the document on the right is:  "What?"

 6             The document on the left then reads:

 7             "That there's nothing."

 8             The document on the right reads:

 9             "That there isn't, it seems bad."

10             Then the document on the left reads:  "Nothing," followed by:

11             "Apparently, there is nothing you can do."

12             And then:  "Yes, yes."

13             And those don't appear at all in the document on the right.

14             Then you can see after "Yes, yes," it says:

15             "Do you understand?"

16             And the answer is:  "I understand, sir."

17             "So how are things with you?"  That's the document on the left.

18             And then the document on the right it reads:  "Yes.

19             "You understand?"

20             "I understand, General.  How's it going with you?"

21             And then the documents are fundamentally are similar as they are

22     translated.  But what I would like to do is I'd like to actually look at

23     the original language that is used, which I think will facilitate a more

24     meaningful comparison.  Hopefully, we can do it pretty quickly.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll need 773C, please, in e-court, and I will

Page 5092

 1     need -- okay, we need 369B, the B/C/S version, please, in e-court.

 2     That's also a print-out.  So I should be comparing one print-out against

 3     another print-out.

 4             I think we'll need to go to page 3 of the document on the right,

 5     which is 773C.  Yes, it's the one we were just looking at at 9.28 at the

 6     bottom of the page.

 7             Okay, that's pretty good.  And then we can see "9.31" on the page

 8     on the left, and that's where we need to blow that up.  It's the second

 9     intercept.  All right.

10             Maybe we can do what we did before, and that's to go through it

11     line by line, and maybe we can mark them as we go so we can see the

12     language that's actually used.  And let's perhaps blow up the first four

13     lines of both intercepts so it will be easier to see for everyone.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And to enlarge it a little bit.  It is, I think,

15     only necessary to blow up the left part of that page.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The beginning of the lines.  We can't read it

18     properly in this way.  Please blow up on the left part of both pages.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Is the Chamber able to see that?  We can --

20     maybe we should just blow up --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's much better.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- and slide over as we read each line.  That

23     might be to do.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's much better now on the left side.  We could

25     do the same on the right side if we find the relevant part of it.  We

Page 5093

 1     don't need the end of the line.  Yes.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Almost right, except it's the wrong intercept.

 3     So we need to go down to "9.28," which is down.  There we go, all right.

 4     That's just fine like that one.

 5             And if it's possible, we can move the whole screen of the left

 6     part down so we can line up the -- we can line up the text.  Keep going.

 7     That's -- no, too far.  Up, up.  That's it.  Okay, now I think we're

 8     pretty close.

 9        Q.   Now, Witness -- I mean, Ms. Frease, are you able to go through

10     this and identify where there are differences in the language?  And if

11     you could, maybe you could mark that.

12        A.   On the first line of the document on the left, it says:

13             "Da li je tu negde Tolimir?"

14             The one on the right says:

15             "Gdje je Generale Tolimir."

16        Q.   Now could you -- if you're able can you tell us -- well, could

17     you say that in English so that we can understand if there is any

18     difference?

19        A.   The one on the left says:

20             "Is Tolimir somewhere around?  Is Tolimir around there

21     somewhere?"

22             And the one on the right says:

23             "Where is General Tolimir?"

24        Q.   All right.  Can you just mark that line so we know that there's a

25     difference in the language?

Page 5094

 1        A.   How would you like me to mark it?

 2        Q.   Just make a dot or a dash at the beginning of the sentence.  Oh,

 3     oh.

 4        A.   Oh, oh.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Better at the end of that line.  There's more

 6     space.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If you just mark it with "1," and then we'll go

 8     as we --

 9             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.  This marker is --

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

11             THE WITNESS:  -- having things disappear.

12             I would say that it's not a real substantive difference, but the

13     next line down says:

14             "Evo njega pored mene."

15             On the left.  And on the right, it says exactly the same thing:

16             "Here he is right next to me."

17             This is an unidentified person.

18             The next line down is identified as P, Popovic, identified at the

19     top of the conversation:

20             "Mogu li dobiti generala bogati, reci mu Popovic ga treba."

21             The one on the right says:

22             "Mogu ga dobiti recite Popovic ga treba."

23             So the difference here is that the one on the left included a

24     small swear word, I guess you could say, "bogati," "for God's sakes," or

25     something like that, where the one on the right doesn't have that.

Page 5095

 1     Otherwise, they are identical.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And I would like to ask the Court Usher to blow

 3     up the left part before -- please, no markings, but blow up the left one,

 4     on the left side of the page, so that it is the same size as on the right

 5     side.  We don't need the right side of the page.  Yes, further.  Yes.

 6             And now, Ms. Frease, you started to mark something.  You should

 7     do it again.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  [Marks].  So that's missing, with the other

 9     small difference is the one on the left says:

10             "Mogu li dobiti generala ..."

11             "Can I get the general?  For God's sakes, tell him that Popovic

12     needs him."

13             And the one on the right says:

14             "Can I get him?  Tell him that Popovic needs him."

15             Okay, so I can mark that [marks].  And the "Da" on the left is a

16     pronoun that refers to the general, "can I get him."

17             Okay.  So then the next sentence down is:

18             "Evo samo malo."

19             Said by X.  They're identical on both sides.  And that just

20     means, sort of, "Yes, sure, just a minute, just a second," and implied

21     with sort of, "Here, I'm giving him to you."

22             The one on the right -- sorry, the one on the left then says:

23             "It's Popovic speaking."

24             "E Popovic je, zdravo."

25             On the right, that sentence is not there.  It just says:

Page 5096

 1     "Popovic."

 2             Can I draw between these two?  Can I connect this and this?

 3     [Marks].

 4             And then the next line down says T is saying 'Zdravo," on both

 5     conversations.

 6             The next line down is P saying:

 7             "Je li tu Generale Tolimir?"

 8             "Is General Tolimir there?"

 9             The next line down is P saying:

10             "Zdravo ... jel tu Generale Tolimir."

11             "Is Tolimir there?"

12             And then T says on the left:

13             "I'm listening, go ahead."

14             "Slusam te," this is the familiar form of "you."

15             "Slusam te, reci."

16             "I'm listening to you, go ahead."

17             And on the right-hand side it says the same thing:

18             "Slusam te, reci."  And then it adds this little "ajd," which is

19     like "go ahead."  "Ajd," "Go ahead, talk to me."

20             On the left, it says:

21             "Gospodine generale, nemam joss nista za onog mog rodjaka

22     Popovic --"

23             This is cut off on the left.  Is it possible to expand it a

24     little bit?

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, it's not possible.  I think that it is not --

Page 5097

 1             THE WITNESS:  Necessary?

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- necessary.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Good.

 4             So these are the same conversation.  This would be my conclusion,

 5     that these are the same conversations recorded at two different sites.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Let me ask -- first of all, I'd like to tender

 7     this exhibit.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This marked exhibit will be received.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P865.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:

11        Q.   And let me just ask:  Is this something that you did in comparing

12     intercepted or apparently related intercepted conversations, in terms of

13     determining its authenticity, or reliability, or accuracy, with respect

14     to the work you did prior to the Popovic case and also with respect to

15     this particular case?

16        A.   Yes.  For a conversation like this, I probably would not have put

17     so much time into comparing line by line, but to have made the comparison

18     that these, in fact, were two versions of the same conversation

19     taken/recorded at two different sites.

20        Q.   And would that explain why there are parts of the conversation

21     that don't appear in one -- on one end of the communication or one side

22     versus another side?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Mr. President, and I apologise for the

25     delay, I think it's a good time to break.  It's been a bit slow going

Page 5098

 1     with this particular intercept, but I think I'll be able to pick up the

 2     pace and finish.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And we have to discuss the question which

 4     documents you offered were already exhibits, especially in the first part

 5     of your submission.  We are not sure if you tendered all of them or part

 6     of them.  You should make it clear later today.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Would you like me to do that immediately after

 8     the break, or before the witness comes in, or --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps we should do that, yes.

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

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We adjourn, and resume at quarter past 4.00.

12                           [The witness stand down]

13                           --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  First of all, Mr. Vanderpuye, I thank you for the

16     hard copies we received in B/C/S, the handwritten version, the version

17     with the black line on the top, and the other one we saw on the screen.

18             I would like to raise a problem with the numbers of the

19     documents.  If I recall correctly, you tendered only some of the

20     documents in the first part of the list, because they were not used with

21     this witness and admitted with this witness in another case; is that

22     correct?

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct, Mr. President, and I have --

24     well, I've gone through the list and I can articulate specifically which

25     ones I will be tendering through with her in this part and also with

Page 5099

 1     respect to the other documents that weren't used with her before,

 2     category 4 documents, I understand.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  Are you in a position to indicate which

 4     documents you are tendering from the first part of this list?

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I am.  Should I just --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I will admit -- I will move to admit

 8     P758.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which was used with this witness yesterday?

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, it was.  I will not move to admit at this

11     time P703 or P704.  That will be -- will have to come in through another

12     witness.  It's PW-070.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's not necessary to mention these you are not

14     tendering, only those you intend to tender.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay, I'm sorry.

16             P759 I will move to admit.  This is part of the packet of

17     materials that you have before you and I intend to qualify through the

18     witness.  P705.  I will move to admit P760 and 761.  These are the audio

19     materials that the witness referred to, Q1 and Q2, out of the Q1 through

20     19 series of audio material.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You mentioned P705.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I did, P705.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You want to tender that as well?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  I intend to -- that's in the packet also

25     of the materials that you have.

Page 5100

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you will examine the witness in relation to

 2     these documents?

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I may not be able to examine her with respect to

 6     every detail of every document, but she has a copy of the packet and

 7     she's reviewed it.

 8             I did mention 760 and 761.  These are the two tapes.  I will move

 9     to admit P762.  This is a map of the Zepa area.  I've not used it with

10     the witness yet, but I plan to use it with her only briefly pretty much

11     at the end of her testimony.  I will move to admit P763.  That's the

12     index of code-names that was shown to the witness yesterday.  I will move

13     to admit P776A and 776B -- oh, I'm sorry, 766A and 766B.  Those are

14     intercepted conversations which are contained in Q2, which is the --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We need only the numbers, not an explanation,

16     because we have the list.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I'll move to admit P702, P773A, B and C.

18     I think you may have --

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You're recorded with "P702."  That must be a

20     mistake.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It is P702.  That, I believe, was marked but not

22     admitted.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm very sorry.  I don't see it on the list.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have it at page 5 of my exhibit list.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay, I see it now.  It's not in numerical order.

Page 5101

 1     Thank you.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Sorry.  All right, then, P773A, B and C.  P774.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You indicated not to tender this document with

 4     this witness?

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.  I'm sorry.  Thank you very much,

 6     Mr. President.  I appreciate that.

 7             P699, that's also in the packet of materials that you have.

 8     P701, P775, P776, P777, P778.  Then I'll move to admit also P698, P780,

 9     P781, P782, P783, P784, 85, and 86.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Would you like me to go over the last category

12     or should we save that for later?

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, we just started with this procedure.  We

14     should continue.

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

16             With respect to the last category of material, I will move to

17     admit P856, P858, P840C.  It should be audio material.  And then I will

18     move to admit P859, P860, and P863.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You mentioned P840C?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  P840C.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm not sure if this is a correct number.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have it as 65 ter 2899C.  It should be the

23     audio material of the April 20th, 1995, intercept.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If I'm not mistaken, we have received it already.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 5102

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That was admitted yesterday with the other

 2     package.  That was part of the third category.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Well, thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 5             First, you should continue with your examination, and we hope

 6     that you will finish quite soon.  And the witness should be brought in,

 7     and then we will see how you deal with these different documents.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please sit down.  Mr. Vanderpuye is continuing

10     his examination.

11             Mr. Vanderpuye.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

13        Q.   Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.

14        A.   Good afternoon.

15        Q.   I want to take you to yet another area, and that relates to some

16     other intercepts which I think you have in a binder in front of you

17     there.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And I just want to qualify this material first.  Have you had an

20     opportunity to review it?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And does that consist of the material that's indicated in the

23     index of this binder?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And your binder consists of 12 documents, together with

Page 5103

 1     corroborating materials, does it?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And have you had an opportunity to listen to audiotapes

 4     concerning these -- concerning this material?

 5        A.   Not to all of it, but to some of it I have.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And have you had an opportunity to review the transcripts

 7     of the audio materials for all of the tabs where audio material is

 8     indicated and available?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And having done that, were you able to ascertain or at least

11     analyse the authenticity or reliability of these materials?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And can you tell us what, if anything, your view is with respect

14     to these documents?

15        A.   The sources of some of this material are new to me, but they

16     reinforce both -- to me both the authenticity and the reliability of the

17     material that I've reviewed.

18        Q.   Now, I'd like to -- if you could maybe -- could you expand for

19     the Trial Chamber and tell the Trial Chamber what you looked at, in terms

20     of comparing these documents, or how you were able to compare them in

21     order to arrive at the conclusion that they were at least reliable and

22     accurate, if not authentic?

23        A.   Well, I looked at them in a similar way that I used to review the

24     previous documentation.  So that entailed looking at dates, times,

25     participants, the substance of conversations, I'd say the subject matter,

Page 5104

 1     some details within conversations that seemed very unique, factors like

 2     that.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  I'd like to go over just a few

 4     examples of this, because it is quite extensive.  But let's start with,

 5     for example, tab number 1.  And I think we may need in e-court -- I think

 6     I can give you the P number for this one.  All right, it should be P786.

 7     The very first one should be in e-court, P786.  Okay, I think we have it

 8     here.  All right.

 9        Q.   Now, with respect to tab 1, were you able to compare this against

10     other materials?

11        A.   Contained within this folder?

12        Q.   Yes, contained within the folder.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And what did you compare it against?

15        A.   Well, the two conversations here -- there are two versions of a

16     conversation here.  One of them, the top one, is apparently from a

17     Croatian source, and the second one is from the -- is a transcript made

18     by the SDB in Tuzla.

19        Q.   And the SDB in Tuzla, are they in any way related to the

20     Croatian-sourced materials or intercepts that you reviewed, as far as you

21     know?

22        A.   As far as I know, they are not.

23        Q.   Do you know whether or not they exchanged information

24     particularly of this nature during the course of the war?

25        A.   I'm not aware that they exchanged such information.

Page 5105

 1        Q.   And in terms of this particular intercept, can you tell us what

 2     specific features you looked at in terms of determining whether or not

 3     they were of the same conversation, in fact?

 4        A.   Start with the date, the date is mentioned as the 8th of July,

 5     1995.  On the first intercept, the time is noted at 1517.  On the second

 6     version, it's noted as 1530.  So for me, that's a -- that's reasonably

 7     proximate.

 8        Q.   If I can just interrupt for a second and put on the record that

 9     the second document you're referring to is the SDB intercept?

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   And that's report number 512?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   And that is P306, just so the record is clear.

14             I'm sorry, please continue.

15        A.   So the first conversation is a summary of a conversation, the

16     Croatian intercept, and it says that it's taking place between the

17     interpreter of General -- this person wasn't quite sure who, whether it

18     was Micolai -- it is written down as "Micolai," but it is

19     General Nicolai, most likely, the UN general, and an unidentified person.

20     They mention here:

21             "One of the generals from the Main Staff of the VRS, the Army of

22     Republika Srpska."

23             And then they summarised the conversation.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I ask a question?

25             If I look at the B/C/S version, I only see the word "Micolai"

Page 5106

 1     with an M at the beginning.  In the conversation, there's

 2     "General Micolai," and then with a question mark, "Nicolai."

 3             THE WITNESS:  The translators used back-slashes to denote that

 4     they were making an assumption.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That it should be the General Nicolai from the

 6     Netherlands?

 7             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Nyambe has another question.

 9             JUDGE NYAMBE:  At page 48, lines 2 and 3, you are saying:

10             "On the first intercept, the time is noted as 1517.  On the

11     second version," of the same intercept I assume, "it is noted as 1530,

12     and that is reasonably proximate."

13             So there can be a difference of 15 or so minutes between the

14     recording of the same intercept by two different sites?

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  How such a thing can happen is, for example,

16     on this first one it's possible that the person would have recorded when

17     the conversation started, and on the second one they may have recorded

18     either when the conversation ended or when they typed it and sent it to

19     their headquarters.  So a 13-minute gap is not -- in this context, is not

20     a -- I would say not significant.

21             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  Would you like me to

24     continue or do you -- okay.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please carry on.

Page 5107

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

 2        Q.   With respect to the intercept, itself, did you look at the

 3     substance, that is, what the intercept was referring to, in terms of

 4     analysing whether or not there was any confluence or overlap between the

 5     two or whether or not, in fact, they reflected the same conversation?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And in this conversation, can you tell us what you looked

 8     at?  What gave you the impression that it was the same conversation?

 9        A.   The people who were speaking were identified as a General Nicolai

10     and an interpreter of General Nicolai's and then somebody -- a general

11     from the Main Staff of the VRS, and then the contents -- who was an

12     unidentified person in this first conversation.  And the content of the

13     conversation was summarised as that the unidentified person conveyed

14     information that the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina had six armoured

15     personnel carriers in the area.  That's one point.

16             So maybe we should go to the --

17        Q.   Okay, we can do that.

18        A.   -- corroborating --

19        Q.   Or maybe if you can identify if there is anything -- if there are

20     any other points on this document, and then we can look at the next one.

21     How ever you prefer.

22        A.   Okay.  So the six armoured personnel carriers, and that they are

23     in the areas of Zepa and Srebrenica.  Then person X is asking to warn the

24     ABiH officers to stop the assaults.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Can we go to, please, P306.

Page 5108

 1             Okay, I think we have them on the screen now.

 2        Q.   And as you've indicated, this document is report number 512 from

 3     the SDB, and it indicates a time of 1530 hours?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And it indicates that there was a conversation recorded between

 6     the UN General Nicolai with one of General Mladic's deputies it says?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And it says:

 9             "We could not hear General Nicolai -- we could not hear

10     General Nicolai and his interpreter, Svetlana, at all."

11             Right?

12        A.   Right.

13        Q.   So the person speaking in this intercept is X?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   And X would be the unidentified VRS general?

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Could we go to, please, the second page of this

18     document.  In the English only, yes.

19        Q.   And do you -- can you tell us what -- if you can find the

20     references that you've indicated that are present in the Croatian-sourced

21     intercept in this document, on this page.

22        A.   X, partway down the page, says:

23             "What I want to say to the general is that in the last couple of

24     days, the Muslims, using six UNPROFOR armoured personnel carriers in the

25     area of Srebrenica."

Page 5109

 1             And then he goes on to say:

 2             "Your commander in Srebrenica is probably aware that we found

 3     these APCs precisely in the area between Zepa and Srebrenica."

 4             "Could you please caution your forces to remove all Muslims'

 5     heavy weapons, especially the APCs?"

 6             And then it's a bit unclear.  It says "or to give us precise,"

 7     and that's the end of the conversation.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:

10        Q.   This particular conversation reflects the six APCs, armoured

11     personnel carriers?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And it reflects the fact that they were in the areas of Zepa and

14     Srebrenica?

15        A.   Right.

16        Q.   And it also reflects the fact that the VRS general asked

17     General Nicolai to warn the ABiH officers to stop the assault actions --

18        A.   Right.

19        Q.   -- on the other one.  And on this one it's indicated:

20             "Caution your forces to remove all Muslims' heavy weapons," it's

21     a spelling mistake, I think, in the -- "especially the APCs"?

22        A.   Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   And in your view, was that a sufficient basis to conclude that

24     these two documents correspond essentially to the same conversation?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5110

 1        Q.   And were you able to ascertain who the VRS general is that's

 2     mentioned in this MUP intercept, that is, the SDB intercept?

 3        A.   Later in some of the SDB reports, they mention that they were

 4     able to ascertain that in this report number 512, it was General Tolimir

 5     who was the one who was speaking.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  What I'd like to do is to turn, if

 7     we could, to tab number 4.  That's P310.

 8             Okay, I see that we have the document in front of us now.

 9        Q.   Now, what I'd like to do is, first of all, indicate what it says.

10     This is a document that is headed "Army of the Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2nd -- Command of the 2nd Corps," and it talks about

12     a radio relay station, indicating the northern site.  And it's dated

13     9 July 1995.  And within this report, there is a report that's attributed

14     to the CSB, Security Services Centre, SDB, State Security Service of

15     Tuzla, dated also 9 July 1995, and it's report number 21.

16        A.   521.

17        Q.   521.  Did you have an opportunity to review this intercept?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And is this the intercept that you've indicated reflects the

20     identity of the participant in the first conversation that we've just

21     looked at?

22        A.   I guess I would say perhaps indirectly since --

23        Q.   All right.  Have you had an opportunity to review this particular

24     intercept?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5111

 1        Q.   And the conversation within it?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And were you able to compare that to a transcript of a

 4     conversation that was recorded independently and was the subject of a

 5     search, that it was retrieved during a recent search?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And in that conversation, were you able to establish a connection

 8     between these two intercepts, that is, the MUP intercept from SDB and the

 9     transcript of an intercept?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  That is indicated here, and it's

12     65 ter 52 -- 5624A.  I have it as P698.

13        Q.   And can you tell us what about the features of this particular

14     conversation were you able to compare?

15        A.   There are -- this requires a little bit of patience and flipping

16     through the various pages, because there are, I think, four versions of

17     this conversation.  Right, or is it three?  Three, three versions of it.

18             So, I have noted, say, five points that I think are significant

19     in the conversation that come through, and that's in addition to the date

20     and the time and the people who were talking.

21             May I work through this in my -- using my own initiative, since I

22     find it a little confusing and I would like to --

23        Q.   Okay.

24        A.   I don't know.

25        Q.   What I'd like to do, I think it might make things a little

Page 5112

 1     easier --

 2        A.   Okay.

 3        Q.   -- is I believe we have the audiotape for this particular

 4     conversation, and it might be useful to play the audiotape, and at the

 5     same time we can follow this particular intercept, so that we can see --

 6     and this is independently, and we can see whether or not the audiotape --

 7     or the intercept tracks the audiotape from a different source.  That

 8     might be the most efficient way to do it.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we do that, Judge Nyambe wants to have a

10     clarification.

11             Please.

12             JUDGE NYAMBE:  At page 54, line 25, and 53, you refer to this

13     report number 512.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  512 relates to the first tab here, which

15     is the intercept, MUP origin, that indicates a time of 1530 hours on

16     8 July.

17             JUDGE NYAMBE:  It's 8 July?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.  And in this intercept that we've

19     now been discussing, which is report number 521, there is a reference to

20     that -- there is a reference to report number 512, and it says:

21             "We recorded a conversation between General Nicolai and the

22     aggressor army Officer X.  General Nicolai was looking for

23     General Mladic.  The switchboard said that he was in the field.

24     General Nicolai then asked for the officer of the aggressor army with

25     whom he spoke in our conversation number 512."

Page 5113

 1             So what I propose to do or what I'd like to do is to play a

 2     recording of that conversation, or a recording of a conversation, from a

 3     different source other than the MUP so that the Trial Chamber can hear

 4     the translation of that conversation, and at the same time look at the

 5     MUP transcript to see if it tracks the conversation that's on the tape.

 6             JUDGE NYAMBE:  While that tape is playing, we should be looking

 7     at 521?

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  521.

 9             JUDGE NYAMBE:  521.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  521, that's right.

11             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I think the booths have the transcript,

13     and it should reflect 5624A, and that's what I would like them to read as

14     the tape plays.  And at the same time I would like to have displayed on

15     e-court -- I think we do already -- yeah, we just need to display just

16     the MUP transcript.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think I've got it.  Ms. Stewart has provided

19     me with an explanation, and I would ask the Court, then, to follow along

20     in the packets, because I understand that it can't be displayed in

21     e-court at the same time.  So that would be under tab number 4.  It's the

22     very first intercept, and hopefully you'll be able to pick up, in the

23     translation of the tape, where it meets this transcript.

24             JUDGE NYAMBE:  And just for the sake of clarity, when you say

25     "under tab 4," it is the document behind tab 4?

Page 5114

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The document behind tab 4.  It should say:

 2     "CSB/SDB, 9 July, report number 521."

 3             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

 4                           [Audio-clip played]

 5             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Hello."

 6             "Yes."

 7             "General, sir, I wish you a good day.  I'm calling you on behalf

 8     of General Nicolai.  Let me hear him out and translate."

 9             "Good afternoon to you ... and General Nicolai too."

10             "Good afternoon to you.  And after yesterday's events, I would

11     like to tell you ..."

12             "Hello.  I can't hear anything.  You'll have to repeat it all."

13             "Hello, hello."

14             "Hello, yes."

15             "I did not understand anything.  It's very difficult to

16     understand.  Could you please repeat?"

17             "Yes.  After the events from yesterday, at least, I want to tell

18     you that I appreciate at least the co-operation of your forces towards my

19     soldiers who were forced to leave their observation post.  Your forces

20     enabled them to reach Bratunac safely.  However, I want my soldiers to

21     return to their base in Potocari, where they are stationed anyway and

22     which is located in the Srebrenica enclave."

23             "Okay ."

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, we're not able to follow the

25     whole text, only the beginning.

Page 5115

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  It appears that -- it appears that there

 2     is an error.  Just bear with me one moment and I'll see if I can

 3     straighten that out.

 4             Let's keep going.  I think it's the right one.

 5                           [Audio-clip played]

 6             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I have one more question for you,

 7     but I would like to hear your answer to this first."

 8             "One more time, I say hello to General Nicolai.  Please accept my

 9     condolences for the death of a UN staff member in Srebrenica.  And I'm

10     going to pass his proposal to his staff currently located in the

11     territory of Republika Srpska."

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Is the Chamber able to follow at this point?

13     We've just heard the middle passage on the second page.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's correct.

15                           [Audio-clip played]

16             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Hello."

17             "Yes, I'm listening."

18             "Very well.  I expect that they will be enabled to return to

19     their base today, and that same instructions you are going to give to

20     your subordinate commanders."

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The last part was not -- what we heard was not

22     part of the English translation of the transcript.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, are you saying that it's not in

24     the record of the proceedings or it's not on the transcript that you have

25     in front of you?  I was unclear about that.

Page 5116

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We heard, like you, I suppose, the part which we

 2     see on page 2 of the English version of the transcript:

 3             "Please accept my condolences," and so on.

 4             And it stops:  "Yes, I'm listening."  And everything what was

 5     heard later was not part of this translation of the transcript.  We

 6     couldn't follow.  That's on the record.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The translation that I've asked you to look at

 8     is a translation of the MUP version of this intercept.  What you're

 9     listening to is a tape that is not the MUP version of the intercept, but

10     a completely independent tape.  So -- but you have a copy of that

11     transcript.  It's also behind the MUP one.  But I wanted you to look at

12     this MUP transcript to see if you can follow the otherwise independent

13     conversation taken by a completely different agency to see if there's --

14     to see if there's an overlap or confluence among those --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I see this is at the end of the pages of tab 4,

16     at the very end, we have the B/C/S version, and before that, three pages

17     of the English translation of that B/C/S version.  And we see there, on

18     page 2 of this English version, mentioning the condolences for the death

19     of the UN staff member, and then it goes on, I think, as we heard it now

20     on the audio.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE NYAMBE:  As I understand you, Mr. Vanderpuye, what we have

24     in the folder, page 2, is the MUP transcript.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

Page 5117

 1             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  And what we're hearing audio is an

 2     independent recording of this MUP conversation?

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

 4             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  But just to be fair to you, there is -- a

 5     lot of the conversation here does not appear in the MUP?

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.  And, in fact, what you can see

 7     in the MUP conversation or in the MUP transcript is that there's only one

 8     half of the conversation that's recorded.  It's all X speaking, because

 9     it says, at the beginning -- at the beginning, you can see after that X

10     responded, and it's only X that follows in the transcript.  So what

11     you're hearing is one side of the conversation -- what you're seeing is

12     one side of the conversation, and you're hearing the other side of the

13     conversation as well.  And that's reflected in the transcript, although

14     unfortunately it's not coming off as I'd hoped.  It's reflected in the

15     transcript of the tape-recording that you're hearing now.  So there are

16     parts of the tape-recording that are being translated to you that you

17     will not see in the MUP recording -- MUP transcript.

18             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  I understand, I hope.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think we're almost there, I think we're almost

20     there.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But we realise the difficulty the witness was

22     going through during her work with the OTP.

23             Mr. Tolimir.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             Mr. President, this audio-recording indicates that the

Page 5118

 1     transcription was selective and that they left out what didn't suit them.

 2     You could see in the first transcript, which was erroneously shown here

 3     by the Prosecutor, that General Nicolai was thanking us for releasing or

 4     letting his soldiers go, and here the general and the Prosecutor claim

 5     that he was not thanking us that we had captured them.  So you can see

 6     how facts can be twisted.

 7             I would like to have this entire transcript shown, if it is

 8     available, so that we can see what this is all about.

 9             Thank you.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, what is your position to that

11     objection?

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Well, I don't think it really pertains to the

13     issues that are before the Court just now.  That's number 1.  Number 2 is

14     that he does have a copy of the transcript, and he has the tape as well,

15     and he's perfectly free to either play it or to review it and to raise

16     any objection that he has as to either its content or any interpretation

17     of it.

18             Ms. Frease, I should emphasise, is not engaged in analysing the

19     factual context or the meaning of these intercepts.  She's simply engaged

20     in comparing the two to determine whether or not they are reliable and

21     they are authentic.  And when you have two versions of a conversation

22     that are independent of one another, then I think that's a relevant

23     issue, in terms of what Ms. Frease is here to testify about.  And

24     clearly, there's another one that I will play to the Court where you can

25     actually listen to the voice on the tape and ascertain for yourself,

Page 5119

 1     I think, relatively important information from it.

 2             But in this particular instance, all I want to do is to

 3     illustrate that there is a MUP version of this material and there is a

 4     secondary version of this material that's not related to the MUP, where

 5     the two clearly coincide and identify these two documents or these two

 6     instances as the same conversation.  That's all.

 7             So whether or not it means one thing or another is completely a

 8     different story.  She's not a military analyst.  We're not making any

 9     representations as to the circumstances that are attendant to the

10     intercepts, other than the fact that they overlap.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now, I would appreciate if we again can continue

12     with our examination of the witness.  We were discussing the video and

13     audio -- not the video, the audio and different transcripts.  We should

14     continue the examination of the witness.

15             But first, Mr. Tolimir.

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

17             I wasn't addressing the question to the witness.  I was making an

18     objection about the way of the Prosecutor's questioning of two witnesses

19     about one and the same event.  My objection was that they were serving

20     the Trial Chamber information that they wanted them to know and were,

21     therefore, influencing the opinion of the Trial Chamber.

22             As far as General Nicolai was concerned, he said that the Serbian

23     soldiers did not save the Dutch soldiers.  But at the beginning of the

24     transcript, we saw that they did and that he was thanking.  So this is

25     serving up information to the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution would

Page 5120

 1     like the Trial Chamber to have.

 2             Thank you.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The Chamber will give weight to everything which

 4     is in front of the Trial Chamber, at the end of the day, and we have much

 5     material about this conversation and especially with the involvement of

 6     General Nicolai.  We have his full testimony, with all additional

 7     exhibits.  And we will examine that very carefully, you can be sure.

 8             We should continue the examination of the witness in order to

 9     save time.

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

11             I just want to point out we're not quite at the end of the tape,

12     which goes through to 16:41:9 in the counter, but I think we can move on

13     from this point.

14             What I would like to do, though, is I would like to refer the

15     Trial Chamber, if I could, to the last -- I'd like to refer you to the

16     last page of the MUP transcript.  That should be page 3 behind tab 4.

17     And at the same time, I'd like to refer you to the last page of the

18     transcript of the audio material which you just heard, and that's -- for

19     the record, it's P698.  And I don't know if it's possible to display

20     these both in e-court, but I'll ask maybe the witness if she could read

21     those out into the record so it's very clear what the basis of her

22     conclusions are with respect to this material.

23             So it should be page 3 -- if we're doing it in e-court, it's

24     page 3 of P310.  There we go.  And it should be page 3 of P698.

25             I think we've got the same document on both sides.  We should

Page 5121

 1     have, on one side, P310, and on the other side, P698.  Is that what we

 2     have?  Okay.  No, that's not what we have.  The left one, P310, should

 3     have an ERN reading "0320-5142."

 4             Well, you know, since we all have the binders in front of us,

 5     maybe we should proceed that way.

 6        Q.   Ms. Frease, would you mind reading into --

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Why don't we leave what we have on the screen

 8     now.  Okay, we've got it.  Okay.

 9        Q.   What I'd like to do is compare this attribution to X on the left

10     to what we have on the right.

11        A.   So first you'd like me to read the attribution to X on the left,

12     the last --

13        Q.   Yes.

14        A.   Okay.

15        Q.   First, let me ask did you consider --

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   -- what you have in front on the screen, and then tell us what it

18     says and why you considered it important.

19        A.   The SDB intercept says -- the last sentence is, again, attributed

20     to X:

21             "I'm going to issue necessary orders immediately by telegram so

22     the Muslims cannot listen to it and create obstacles.  I hope we are

23     going to have a positive outcome of what we have agreed here.

24             "Regards to you, Svetlana, and to the general.  Thank you for

25     your patience and understanding."

Page 5122

 1             On the document on the right, the transcript of the tape, it's

 2     attributed to General Tolimir.  It says:

 3             "Thank you, General.  I am going to issue necessary orders

 4     immediately by telegrams so that the Muslims cannot listen to it and

 5     create obstacles.  I hope we are going to have a positive outcome of what

 6     we have agreed here.  Regards to you, Svetlana, and to the general.

 7     Thank you for your patience and understanding."

 8             And then that one continues because it's possible for them to

 9     hear the interpreter on that side, and she says:

10             "Thank you.  That is all for now."

11             And his response is:

12             "This is all for now."

13        Q.   And did you consider that important in linking these two

14     conversations to one another as one and the same?

15        A.   Yes.  There were other factors as well, but yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  And could you tell us, briefly, what those are?  You don't

17     necessarily have to show us, so that we can move along in terms of time,

18     but --

19        A.   Sure.  There were two other points in comparing the MUP

20     transcript to the audio transcript, and the two other points are found

21     earlier in the conversation, where X says:

22             "One more time, regards to General Nicolai.  Please accept my

23     condolences for the death of a UN staff member in Srebrenica.  I am going

24     to pass his proposal to his staff currently located in the

25     Republika Srpska."

Page 5123

 1             And then the other one is a few lines down and talks about -- he

 2     says -- X says:

 3             "I am not informed that my commanders prevented the evacuation of

 4     the body by land.  I would ask the general to send by land his team

 5     towards Bratunac, and I will immediately order that they are accepted and

 6     escorted to Zvornik."

 7             And then it goes on to talk about the helicopter flight that will

 8     take the body out.

 9        Q.   With respect to this particular intercept, did you review also a

10     UN report?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And that's, for the record, P682.  Maybe we can have that

13     displayed on the screen and you can tell us how that figured in your

14     review of this material.

15        A.   I also consider this document to be very strong corroboration of

16     the SDB document and the audio transcript or the audiotape that we heard,

17     for a number of reasons:  One, because of the date, it having taken place

18     on the 12th of July; the fact that the telephone conversation indicates

19     that it's between General Nicolai and General Tolimir, and that it's

20     taking place at, they indicate here, 12.30.  The SDB intercept records

21     the time at 12.40.  So, again, I consider that close enough in time that

22     it's significant.

23             And then there are five paragraphs in this document.  They are

24     notes written by Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter about the conversation that

25     his general had with General Tolimir.  And if you go through each of the

Page 5124

 1     paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you go through the transcript that we --

 2     you go through the audiotape of the transcript that we just heard, you

 3     will find the same content in the audiotape of the transcript as one -- I

 4     could go through and show you where they are.

 5             Some of the conversations relate to information that is being

 6     conveyed by General Nicolai, and some of it is information that's being

 7     conveyed by General Tolimir.

 8        Q.   Could you just -- without necessarily directing us to where,

 9     specifically, it is in the audiotape, could you just say what those --

10     what those specific aspects are that you -- that you're referring to in

11     the UN report that's reflected in the audio?

12        A.   Okay.  So the first point would be the fact that the interpreter

13     is saying that:

14             "Your forces," the Serb forces, in other words, "enabled them,

15     "the UN forces," to reach Bratunac safely.  However, I want my soldiers

16     to return to their base in Potocari, where they are stationed anyway, and

17     which is in the Srebrenica enclave."

18             So that is reflected in the first paragraph of

19     Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter's note.

20             The second point is on the next page of the transcript where

21     General Tolimir is sending his condolences for the death of the UN staff

22     member in Srebrenica, and that's reflected in the second paragraph of

23     the -- of Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter's note.

24             The third point is a couple of lines down, where it says -- it's

25     the interpreter now speaking on behalf of General Nicolai, and says that:

Page 5125

 1             "General Nicolai --"

 2             Well, she's saying:

 3             "I expect that they will be unable to return to their base today

 4     and that the same instructions you are going to --" sorry, "and that the

 5     same instructions you are going to give to your subordinate commanders."

 6             And that's reflected in paragraph 3 of the UN note.

 7             The next point, point 4, I would say, has to do with the

 8     transportation of the body of the deceased Dutch soldier by land to

 9     Zvornik, and then by helicopter from Zvornik to Tuzla, to Zagreb.  That's

10     reflected in the fourth paragraph of the UN note.

11             And the final point has to do with General Tolimir's comment that

12     he was not informed by commanders that the body had been prevented -- the

13     body was not being allowed to be evacuated by land.  That's reflected in

14     the fifth paragraph of the UN note.

15        Q.   All right.  Thank you very much for that.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'd like to go to tab number 5.

17        Q.   Before I do, let me just ask you this:  As I indicated in

18     response to a question from Her Honour Judge Nyambe, in this tab 4, P310,

19     MUP intercept, we have an attribution of -- well, it says that the

20     same -- the same officer of the aggressor army is the person who spoke in

21     report number 512?

22        A.   Right.

23        Q.   And that is -- corresponds to the communication in tab number 1,

24     which I think you can see.  Did you consider that, in terms of reaching

25     the conclusion as to who was speaking in the conversation that's under

Page 5126

 1     tab number 1?

 2        A.   Yes.  And then also under tab 6, to go to the reliability of the

 3     MUP information, the MUP had made -- the SDB had made a note where they

 4     say -- this is under tab 6, under record number 528.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  That will be, for the record, P312 -- I'm

 6     sorry, P314.  It is a MUP report number 528, and you'll find that under

 7     tab 6, and it's the third-to-last page in that tab.

 8        Q.   And could you just tell us what that says?  We can avoid

 9     displaying that in e-court.  What gave you that impression?

10        A.   It says that -- the SDB made a notation, and I quote:

11             "It should also be pointed out that in the record number 512, a

12     person X was, in fact, aggressor Officer General Tolimir, which we

13     subsequently found out."

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  What I'd like to do now is go to

15     tab 5.

16        Q.   And in this case, can you tell us if you had an opportunity to

17     compare the intercepts and the materials that are under that tab?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  For the record, tab 6 contains P701.  Tab 5

20     contains P699, P311, P680, and P700.

21        Q.   Can you tell us how you went about reviewing these documents and

22     what, if anything, you found among them?

23        A.   I went through a similar process as we've just been through,

24     always starting with the date and the time, and then looking for

25     information that is somewhat unique, that stands out as being very

Page 5127

 1     specific to a particular conversation, in addition, of course, to the

 2     participants, the people who are noted as speaking.

 3        Q.   And in respect of this particular material, can you tell us what

 4     you found among it -- among these documents that corresponded to one

 5     another, if anything?

 6        A.   This conversation took place on the 9th of July, 1995.  The first

 7     entry is a Croatian intercept that's recorded at 1755.  The MUP

 8     intercept -- the SDB intercept notes the 9th of July, 1995, at a time of

 9     1815, so that's 20 minutes later.  The next entry are again UN notes made

10     about the conversation on the 9th of July.  This time, the time is noted

11     as 1750, so close to the time of the first -- the first notation --

12     closer to the time of the first notation.  And then the final entry is a

13     transcript of the conversation that does not note a time or a date.  It

14     can't.  It's an audio-recording, so it doesn't have that.  But we can see

15     that the conversation took about 15 minutes.  So that also -- could also

16     help account for the difference in time between when these took -- when

17     the various agencies recorded that the conversation took place.

18             In addition to that, the person -- the persons noted as speaking

19     in the first conversation, in the Croatian summary of this conversation,

20     is General Tolimir and General Micolai.  The SDB conversation notes the

21     same participants, though they note UN General Nicolai and say "probably

22     Talimir."  So, yeah, they spell it T-a-l-i-m-i-r.  The third entry are

23     the UN notes, which note that the conversation took place between

24     General Nicolai and General Tolimir.

25             And then there are three or four points in the conversation that

Page 5128

 1     run through these four different versions of that conversation.  The

 2     first one is the fact that -- in the brief summary, the Croatian summary,

 3     that General Nicolai demanded that the VRS forces urgently withdraw some

 4     4 kilometres to the south of their present locations.  That's one point.

 5     Another point has to do with -- during the conversation, Tolimir denied

 6     that the VRS forces were around 1 kilometre from Srebrenica and claimed

 7     that the VRS forces in this area were not conducting offensive

 8     operations.  And the third point in this summary is -- has to do with a

 9     UN helicopter flight that was arranged to take place the evening of the

10     9th of July from Tuzla-Zvornik-Split -- sorry, Tuzla-Zvornik/Tuzla-Split

11     route for transporting the body of the UNPROFOR DutchBat soldier.

12             So in looking at the -- I guess I would turn to the telephone

13     conversation between General Nicolai and General Tolimir, and in the

14     first paragraph, both the 4 kilometres and the 1 kilometres are

15     mentioned.

16             In the fourth paragraph down, the route of the dead soldier is

17     mentioned from the Zvornik Stadium -- this will come up in the

18     transcripts, but the Zvornik Stadium, and then the helicopter going

19     en route from Tuzla to Zvornik.

20        Q.   Just for the record, you're referring to P680, and that's the

21     UN report --

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   -- dated 9 July 1995 at 1750 hours.  Thanks.

24        A.   And then on the transcript, there's also mention of the

25     4 kilometres and the 1 kilometre -- mention of the 4 kilometres a couple

Page 5129

 1     of different times.

 2             And then also there are additional details that come up in the

 3     actual transcripts, and a couple of those have to do with the UN soldiers

 4     being allowed to return to their base in Potocari.  And then there is

 5     also a grid here that is discussed for the -- that has been crossed, and

 6     that's grid 735838.

 7             There is also reference to the fact that the UN had prevented --

 8     managed to prevent the ABiH forces from taking their heavy weapons from

 9     the collection point, and that -- and:

10             "We are therefore forced to defend the safe area."

11             That comes through also in paragraph 3 of the UN report, notes

12     from the report, that specific grid, 735838, and the fact there's an

13     acronym here, "WCP," used in the UN report, which is the weapons

14     collection point, which is referred to in the transcript, the lengthier

15     transcript, the final transcript.

16        Q.   When you say "the lengthier transcript," you're referring to the

17     transcript of the audiotape?

18        A.   That's correct.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  And for the record, that is P700.

20             THE WITNESS:  And then there's also -- you know, it's a small

21     point, but in the audio transcript, on page 3 there's this reference to

22     the helicopter flight from Zvornik-Tuzla and from Tuzla to Split, which

23     is the route that was first referenced in the Croatian summary of that

24     conversation, where they say:  "Tuzla-Zvornik/Tuzla-Split route."

25             That's a general overview of the analysis among those four

Page 5130

 1     sources.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 3        Q.   What I'd like to do is I'd like to play a little bit of this

 4     recording.  It's quite long, and it's only for the purposes of, one,

 5     having you, Ms. Frease, confirm that it is the tape that corresponds to

 6     this transcript.  And I think it would also benefit the Trial Chamber, as

 7     this particular intercept is attributed to General Tolimir, to be able to

 8     hear the voice that's on the tape.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  So I don't think that there's any translation

10     that's necessary for these purposes, so that you can actually hear the

11     speakers on the audio material.  It's tab 5.  It's 65 ter 3466A.

12        Q.   And, Ms. Frease, I'd just ask you to follow along in the

13     transcript so you can confirm that it's the right one.

14        A.   Yes.

15                           [Audio-clip played]

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I think that's all I need to play,

17     I think, at this point.

18             We're just about done.  There are just a couple of documents I

19     wanted to show the witness that we'd spoken about a little bit earlier,

20     in terms of qualifying them, and then I will conclude my direct

21     examination.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That would be appreciated because of the length

23     of the whole examination.

24             But I think we should have our second break now, and we will

25     resume at 10 minutes past 6.00.  We adjourn.

Page 5131

 1                           --- Recess taken at 5.41 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Ms. Frease, we just left off with tab 5 of this group of

 6     12 intercepts, with related documents, and I just wanted to -- I wanted

 7     to ask you if you could refer to tab 10 of this binder.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  For the record, tab 10 contains two documents.

 9     The first one is a Croatian intercept, and I just -- I'm looking for the

10     P number.  I don't have it written on my folder here.  It's 65 ter 5554.

11     And the second document is a MUP transcript.  It's P315.  The first one

12     is P775.

13        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to review this document?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And in relation to this document, were you also able to hear

16     audio materials relating to this intercept?

17        A.   I don't remember.

18        Q.   All right.  But you did review the transcript of it?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Okay.  And did the transcript conform to the -- well, the

21     transcript of the MUP intercept conform to the Croatian intercept?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And can you tell us how?

24        A.   The conversations are listed as taking place on the 10th of July.

25     The Croatian version, at 2010; on the SDB MUP version, at 2015.  The

Page 5132

 1     participants in both conversations are listed as General Janvier,

 2     Bernard Janvier, and General Zdravko Tolimir.  The substance of the --

 3     well, the summary by the -- done in the Croatian intercept says that

 4     General Janvier demands that the VRS stop attacking the UN troops south

 5     of Srebrenica and to retreat to their previous positions from the

 6     previous evening.

 7        Q.   Did you find that reflected in the conversation?

 8        A.   I have not marked it here, but yes.  The Croatian intercept goes

 9     on to say that:

10             "General Tolimir promises he will establish contact with the

11     commander of the Serbian unit located south of Srebrenica and order to

12     stop the attack."

13             So partway through the transcript, he says that he'll check with

14     the commander in the area:

15             "He hasn't reported to me that there's been any attack.  I'll

16     check this information and will be in touch."

17        Q.   Well, if you look over on page 3 of the MUP transcript, do you

18     see a reference here where it says -- about the fourth entry --

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   -- where it says:

21             "Yes, I do.  Tell the general that, in the first place, I will

22     establish contact with the units in order to prevent the conflict

23     situation between UNPROFOR and the VRS.  Translate."

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And you can see that reflected in the Croatian intercept, do you,

Page 5133

 1     at about three or four lines from the bottom?

 2        A.   Yes.  General Janvier has information that the VRS members are

 3     attacking the UN members with two tanks, it says here.

 4        Q.   And it says:

 5             "General Tolimir promises that he will establish contact with the

 6     commander of the Serbian unit located south of Srebrenica."

 7             Is that -- did you consider that as corroborative, at least, of

 8     these two documents?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And do you recall listening to any tapes in which General Tolimir

11     actually introduced himself?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And do you see -- in this particular document, page 2 of the MUP

14     transcript, it reads:

15             "T:  I am listening to you.  Give General Janvier my regards."

16             And P says:

17             "General Janvier sends his regards, as well as says good evening,

18     General."

19             T says:

20             "Good evening, General, sir.  My regards.  General Tolimir

21     speaking."

22             Do you recall listening to an audio of this particular intercept?

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   And do you recall listening to an audio, separate and apart from

25     the MUP audio, of this particular conversation?

Page 5134

 1        A.   Yes.  I believe the other audio starts at a different place than

 2     this -- than this transcript.

 3        Q.   And was that the audio of material that was obtained by a search,

 4     a recent search?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And did the audio conform to the transcript, as you listened to

 7     it and read the transcript, from a certain point forward?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And the audio that was obtained as a result of a seizure started

10     at a different point beyond the introduction that's attributed to

11     General Tolimir in this conversation?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   And was it the case that the MUP audio contained the introduction

14     that we see in the transcript here?

15        A.   That's my recollection, yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  And with respect to all the materials in here, have you

17     had an opportunity to go through them carefully to determine whether or

18     not they coincide with one another?

19        A.   I have had an opportunity to go through all of them.

20        Q.   And do they, in your opinion -- do they corroborate one another

21     so as to support the idea that they are authentic and reliable?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   I wanted to show you just a couple of other documents before we

24     get -- we're finished.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could just have, in e-court, please,

Page 5135

 1     65 ter P859.

 2        Q.   This is unrelated to this material, but has to do with the binder

 3     of photocopied intercept material that we referred to earlier in your

 4     testimony.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  For the record, that is Exhibit P859.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.

 7        Q.   Do you recognise that binder?

 8        A.   I do.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And what do you recognise it to be?

10        A.   I recognise it to be the original binder that we received the

11     550 pages or so of transcripts from the ABiH, Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

12     of intercepted conversations in July, from the 9th of July to the

13     31st of July.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  And if we could just have a look at P860.

15             I see it's invisible.

16        Q.   Are you able to see it at all on your monitor, Ms. Frease?

17        A.   Oh, that slight typewritten -- no, not really.

18        Q.   Okay, that's all right.  We'll see if we can get a better

19     photocopy to the Trial Chamber on this one.

20             But let me ask you if you recall -- do you recall that the binder

21     of material came with a receipt indicating that it contained 548 pages or

22     about that number of pages?

23        A.   I remember that there was a cover page.  I don't remember that it

24     said "548 pages," but in my mind it's always been 550 pages.  That's just

25     a number that --

Page 5136

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Thank you for that.  I wanted to

 2     show you another exhibit, which is 863, P863.

 3        Q.   All right.  Have you seen this document before?  Do you recognise

 4     it?

 5        A.   Yes.  I haven't seen it for a long time, though.

 6        Q.   And this is a document that's entitled "Report of the Visual

 7     Information Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire-Arms"?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   In it, it talks about specimens Q1 through Q19 received from the

10     G2 headquarters of the 2nd Corps of Bosnia-Herzegovina Army?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And does this relate to -- what does this relate to, if you can

13     just tell us briefly?

14        A.   It relates to the 19 tapes that Jack Hunter took possession of on

15     the 25th of April, 1998, at -- from -- that he was given at 2 Corps

16     headquarters in Tuzla.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Thank you for that.  Just bear with

18     me for one moment.

19             All right.  I just want to show you one last thing, and that's a

20     map.  It's P762.

21             Okay, I think that's fine.  If you could just blow it up a little

22     bit in the area of Zepa.

23        Q.   Do you recognise this, by the way, Ms. Frease?

24        A.   Not specifically.

25        Q.   Okay.  Does it represent locations that are indicated in the

Page 5137

 1     intercepts that you reviewed in preparation for either this testimony or

 2     the Popovic case?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Can you tell me or tell the Trial Chamber what those

 5     locations are?

 6        A.   Stublic, Zepa.  Those are the only two that I remember from the

 7     intercepts.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

 9             THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That concludes my direct examination, finally,

11     and I appreciate the Trial Chamber's indulgence.

12             Thank you, Ms. Frease.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

14             The examination-in-chief took a long time, much longer than

15     expected.  We will come back to your tendering of exhibits, not to use

16     more court time with these procedural matters.

17             So, Mr. Tolimir, it's now up to you to start your

18     cross-examination of the witness.

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

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] I would like to greet the witness.  Since we

22     speak the same [as interpreted] language, we'll pause between questions

23     and answers.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could all background noise

25     please seized and could Mr. Tolimir be asked to turn his microphone

Page 5138

 1     towards him.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Could you please clarify for the Chamber, what is your

 4     understanding of authenticity and reliability of certain material, since

 5     you mostly addressed the issue of authenticity and reliability, both you

 6     and the Prosecutor, during examination-in-chief?

 7        A.   I understand the word "authenticity" to talk about the

 8     genuineness of material, whether it is what it purports to be, whether it

 9     comes from the sources that it purports to come from.  And the term

10     "reliability" I would use to describe the consistency within that

11     material, the content of the material.  That would also, in this case, go

12     to the procedures that were followed in order to create it.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15        Q.   Please tell us whether the document you saw for the first time,

16     the one you referred to yesterday, dated sometime in 2008, is also

17     authentic.  It was line 1 through to 7, page 67.  Is it, in your opinion,

18     authentic, although you saw it only then?  And based on that document you

19     saw for the first time, you mentioned the authenticity of another

20     document shown to you by the Prosecutor.  For reference, it is page 67,

21     lines 1 through 7.

22        A.   I'd like to know the specific document to which you're referring.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please give us the document number so

24     that we can have it on the screen and the witness knows what she's asked.

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

Page 5139

 1             The document was shown yesterday at page 67, lines 1 through 7,

 2     when the witness addressed the issue of authenticity.  Maybe the document

 3     was number 67, although I'm not certain.  I wasn't able to write it down.

 4     I didn't have time to note down the exact reference.

 5             To remind the witness, it seems to have been a document from the

 6     Krstic and Popovic case.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I think the witness has seen so many

 8     documents in the course of the examination, it is necessary to identify

 9     it.  Otherwise, we are all lost and don't know what you're talking about.

10     Please, with the assistance of your team, it should be possible to find

11     out the correct number of that document.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             I think I gave the right reference, line 1 to 7, page 67.  And my

14     legal consultant believes it is P785.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We will try to have it on the screen.  We were

16     asking not for the reference of yesterday, but for the document number.

17     P785.

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The document P785 is a map.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             I did manage to note down that it was a map.  But could we please

22     have page 67, lines 1 to 7, shown to the witness?  I believe we all

23     recall the situation when she was asked whether it was authentic, and the

24     witness said that she saw it for the first time in the Krstic and Popovic

25     case in 2008, I believe.  You even asked whether it could be authentic

Page 5140

 1     for the simple reason that you saw it in 2008, if you recall that.  I

 2     don't have the transcript before me and I have to follow my notes.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, we are all in the same position.

 4     Even if we see the transcript of yesterday, I'm not sure if we find the

 5     correct document.  We have to show the document to the witness.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we please have

 7     page 67, lines 1 to 7, in e-court.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I think I have a reference and

 9     that might facilitate matters, I think.  It's page 5.028 in the

10     transcript, I believe, and maybe I can read it into the record so that

11     Mr. Tolimir can verify that that's the right one, and maybe we can

12     proceed.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That would be helpful.  Thank you very much,

14     Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

16             It reads as follows:

17             "And in connection with what case did you prepare this

18     authentication binder of material?"

19             "The first time was for the Krstic case."

20             "And did you prepare a second one?"

21             "Yes."

22             "When was that and for what purposes -- when was that and for

23     what case?"

24             "In the Popovic case."

25             This is the only reference to first time that's in the vicinity

Page 5141

 1     of the transcript that Mr. Tolimir is referring to, and it's page 68 of

 2     yesterday's transcript, but there's no reference to a document at page 67

 3     that the witness has said was the first time that she's seen it.  So

 4     perhaps that -- I don't know if that actually -- perhaps that clarifies

 5     the situation, but it certainly doesn't seem to indicate that page 67 is

 6     the right one.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And I think now we see the problem.  We don't

 8     have the -- and especially the Registry doesn't have the page number 67,

 9     because it is now added to the previous transcripts and it's now about

10     4.900 and something, so that the Registry is not in the position to

11     identify this portion of the transcript of yesterday by the page numbers

12     of yesterday's transcript alone.

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

14             But you can see here what my problem is.  From the beginning,

15     three years that I've been here, I did not get a transcript from a status

16     conference, never mind from the proceedings.

17             Mr. Vanderpuye now has read the transcript, which is in English,

18     which I'm unable to use, and I'm handicapped there.  And you remember the

19     witness saying this yesterday.  Perhaps if Mr. Vanderpuye would be kind

20     enough, he could read to us what you said, what the Presiding Judge asked

21     the witness.

22             My question was:  Is it an authenticity matter, when you see the

23     document for the first time, and you confirm whether it is the document

24     that the Prosecutor is putting his questions on?  Thank you.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm just looking at the transcript of yesterday

Page 5142

 1     and trying to find the portion where I am putting questions to the

 2     witness.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             This is from that part that Vanderpuye has read out.  He read out

 5     the reference that I was talking about.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If you are referring to that part of the

 7     transcript of yesterday which Mr. Vanderpuye was reading, then you should

 8     put the question to the witness again.  Perhaps that was helpful to

 9     understand the background of your question.  I don't find it at the

10     moment, like you don't.

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

12             Since I don't have the transcript, I'm going to rephrase the

13     question.

14             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Would any document be authentic that is drafted today, but

16     discusses events that took place at the time of the events in Srebrenica?

17     Thank you.

18        A.   In the context of what we've been discussing, the documents that

19     I've been referring to relate -- relate to or were created, in large

20     part, at the time of those events.  In general, I guess I would probably

21     say no.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Please, are you able to clarify what the difference

23     is, in your mind, between the term "authenticity" and the term

24     "reliability"?  Thank you.

25        A.   Yes.  I think I tried to do that above.  To me, "authenticity"

Page 5143

 1     goes to the genuineness of the document, to the agency or individual that

 2     created it, where the reliability of the document refers more to -- one

 3     way to think about it is the internal content, the internal procedures

 4     that were followed in the creation of that document.  That's the way that

 5     I think about those two issues.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Do you recall when Mr. Vanderpuye asked you yesterday

 7     whether you had taken part in the interception of the conversations, and

 8     you said, Yes?  This was on page 56 of the transcript.  Probably we would

 9     need to add a number to it.  I mean, it was line 8, minute 21.  This is

10     what I'm able to note down.

11             He also asked you on page 57, line 13, whether you had taken part

12     in the creation of the database, and you answered:

13             "Yes, I was engaged in the entire process."

14             Later, he asked whether you testified here about the authenticity

15     of the creation of the database, and you said:  "Yes."

16             So what you authorised, you state that it is authentic.  I'm not

17     denying that.  But based on what you compiled or authored, can it be

18     authentic in relation to something that happened 15 years ago,

19     particularly when we see that there are differences in the content?

20     Thank you.

21        A.   Thank you.  I don't recall saying that I had taken place in the

22     interception of conversations.  If that is anywhere in the transcript, it

23     should not be.

24        Q.   Thank you.  In the transcript, it said that you compiled

25     databases, you created databases.  Perhaps the translation was wrong.

Page 5144

 1     Tomorrow, we are going to provide the transcript lines and these pages

 2     the way that they are marked here from the markings of the Registry, and

 3     then you will be able to see that.  And then when my legal advisor sees

 4     the original, the transcript, since I don't have it, I have no intention

 5     of asking you anything that you didn't say.  If you didn't say something,

 6     I apologise immediately, but we will check this tomorrow.

 7             All I want you to do now is to tell us whether there is a major

 8     difference between the way a lawyer, an artist, or an architect

 9     understands the term "authenticity," or a scientist.  The same would

10     apply for the term "reliability."  Would a philosopher or an analyst or a

11     lawyer understand this term differently?

12        A.   I'd like to go back to one of your previous questions or

13     statements that said that I had testified also yesterday about the

14     authenticity of the creation of the database.  Again, I do not believe

15     that I was asked that question and that I would have responded to it

16     positively, only that I was involved in creating a database.  But that is

17     a question that's very separate from the authenticity of the material

18     that was entered into the database.

19             When we analysed the material, when we entered the material into

20     the database, we were extremely careful not to summarise the

21     information and not to put our own interpretation on the material that we

22     entered.  I was extremely strict on this point with myself and with other

23     team members.  We used the words --

24        Q.   Thank you.

25        A.   We used the words that came through in the material that we were

Page 5145

 1     using.  We did not alter the words that came to us, and that was very

 2     important.  It was a very important internal principle, because as

 3     information comes in on an investigation, words can take on new meanings.

 4     And if, internally, we were putting our own meaning on words, it could

 5     alter the way that those conversations could later be interpreted by

 6     another member of the investigation that had received other information.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please look at the transcript from yesterday,

 8     page 5017, lines 13 to 14.  And if you can tell us what is stated there,

 9     because I don't know English and I wrote down what I said back to you.

10     You said:

11             "I took part in that whole process.  I was very engaged."

12             Thank you.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'm quite confident that the

15     witness doesn't have a copy of the transcript in front of her.  I have

16     found the indicated page and reference by Mr. Tolimir, which I can read

17     into the record, and perhaps Mr. Gajic can read it into the record so the

18     witness is clear -- oh, Ms. Stewart advises me that she can show it on

19     Sanction so the witness can see it.

20             THE WITNESS:  Which lines?

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think it was 13 and 14, page 5017.

22             THE WITNESS:  And the question was:

23             "And were you involved in any way in assembling or putting all of

24     these intercepts together in 2006 for the Prosecution?"

25             Is that the question?

Page 5146

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             That is how it was translated back to me, and this is what I

 3     literally wrote, because I'm writing down, like a stenographer, exactly

 4     what is being interpreted back to me.  So I cannot be blamed for what I

 5     heard yesterday.  What I hear is what I take at face value.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, just to clarify one matter, nobody

 7     is blaming you.  Especially the examination of this witness, with so many

 8     different documents, it's very complicated for all of us, including you.

 9     No problem at all.  Nobody is blaming you.

10             And I think now the witness has heard this part and could see it,

11     and I think we should wait for the answer.

12             THE WITNESS:  My answer is, yes, that I was involved in

13     assembling and cross-referencing and putting together the intercepts for

14     the Popovic trial.  I was not responsible for the final selection of the

15     intercepts, but I was certainly very involved in compiling the various

16     versions of the intercepts as we've been discussing; the note-books, the

17     print-outs, the electronic versions, all of that material, and the

18     transcript -- and the audio.

19             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20        Q.   Earlier, towards the end of the examination-in-chief, we saw a

21     document that accompanied an audio-recording.  And we saw that the

22     document, the transcript, follows the audio up to a certain point in

23     time, and then you can hear the audio segment, but this is not recorded

24     in the transcript.

25             Can you please tell me whether that transcript is both authentic

Page 5147

 1     and reliable?  Thank you.

 2        A.   Could you clarify which audio-recording and which transcript

 3     you're referring to, please?

 4        Q.   Thank you.  I think that that is document P306, which was

 5     recorded at 1517 hours, and I'm thinking of the document P512, which was

 6     recorded at 1530 hours.

 7             Does this speak to the authenticity and reliability of these

 8     documents, in line with the criteria of a court?  Thank you.

 9        A.   In my view, this --

10        Q.   Thank you.  We can see both documents here that were recorded at

11     1530 hours.  We need P306, which was recorded at 1517 hours, and the

12     document by the SDB, 512, which was recorded on the 8th of July at 1530.

13             And you said that this was not a significant difference.  I'm

14     asking you whether they speak to the reliability and authenticity of each

15     one.  And this is in tab 1 of your binder.

16        A.   Thank you.  In my view, this goes to -- more to the genuineness

17     and to the -- you could say genuineness or authenticity of the sources of

18     both of these conversations, one that was picked up by the Croatians, and

19     the other that was picked up by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- or,

20     sorry, by the MUP, by the SDB.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'm sorry, I just want to

22     intervene.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.  I just want to intervene for a

25     moment.

Page 5148

 1             Mr. Tolimir is referring to P306, which is, in fact, the MUP

 2     intercept that's indicated at 1530.  The Croatian report is at 1517.  And

 3     for the record, that's P786, just so that we can get that in e-court if

 4     he needs it.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  I was told the first number

 6     we received was the wrong one.

 7             Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.

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

 9             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   While looking at the document on the right-hand side, the

11     Prosecutor also played the audio-recording, in which we could follow a

12     part of the conversation.  Later, Judge Nyambe asked, Why wasn't the

13     entire footage reflected in the transcript.

14             So my question is:  Does this satisfy the criteria of

15     reliability, because something could have been said there that was quite

16     important to the accused or for one of the parties in these proceedings?

17     There is a difference of 20 minutes here.  In those 20 minutes, we're

18     going to find, in these note-books, scores of other conversations that

19     last for a minute or two minutes.  Thank you.

20        A.   I believe your second reference to the audio refers to tab 4.  Is

21     that possible?  So we've moved on from tab 1 to tab 4; is that correct?

22        Q.   Thank you.  It's possible, because you know this better because

23     you looked at those documents.  But I just remember what happened just

24     now.  We saw -- and Judge Nyambe asked you whether this was a small time

25     difference here.  That is why I'm asking you why a part of the text is

Page 5149

 1     missing, whereas it can be heard in the audio-recording.  So what I'm

 2     asking you is:  Would this indicate that -- would the authenticity

 3     principle apply to this?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Tolimir is asked to repeat his question.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I think we're talking about two different things.

 6     The first one we were talking about, tab 1, where one of the -- where the

 7     Croatian intercept records a time of 1517 and where the BiH MUP, SDB,

 8     police intercept, records the conversation at 1530.  I mentioned that's a

 9     difference of 13 minutes, and to me that's not a significant difference,

10     because it's possible that the MUP -- that the police could have recorded

11     the time when the conversation ended and not when the conversation

12     started.  And then there's also just a factor of people's watches or the

13     clocks that they're looking on the wall.  I'm sure that if we all compare

14     the times that we have on our watches now, they're going to be different.

15     So that's one issue.

16             The second issue, I think, does relate to tab 4, where we were --

17     the Prosecutor asked us to look at the MUP transcript while playing a

18     longer version of that same transcript.  And what one should note in the

19     MUP transcript is that because of their location, as we've discussed

20     before, they were only able to hear one side of the conversation.  So

21     I think that was the one where I went through five points, and really

22     only points 2 and 5 --

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Thank you.  That is a different question.  We will come to that.

25     Thank you.  This is a different question.  We are going to discuss the

Page 5150

 1     contents -- I just want to finish.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to finish what I was

 3     saying, if I may, Mr. President.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   If you, in your analysis of short conversations that we had here,

 6     miss out one word only, or part of a sentence, or an entire sentence,

 7     because we could see that a few sentences were missing from the text that

 8     we were looking at today, could that change the content of the entire

 9     conversation or the flow of the entire conversation?  Thank you.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And also re-telling it, as we could see today on the

12     left-hand side, a kind of summary or re-telling, the process of

13     re-telling also possibly can change the whole course of a conversation,

14     as you can see.  Perhaps you can see here some examples.  You have the

15     place where it says "General Nikolin" instead of "General Nicolai," so

16     one letter can change the sense, and we are re-telling, summarising, this

17     conversation.  So could you please tell us whether this summary

18     process -- the process of summarising can also change the course of a

19     conversation?  Thank you.

20        A.   Well, in this exercise, what we were doing was talking about the

21     authentication of the intercepts, as a whole, and the process that I and

22     my colleagues undertook to ensure that the intercepts were genuine or

23     authentic.

24             Now, in the Croatian intercepts, in the ones that we mostly have

25     here, you do find summaries, and my sense of why that is the case is that

Page 5151

 1     these were not of a high priority for the agency that was intercepting

 2     them, so they wrote a summary.  There isn't -- I haven't seen anything in

 3     the summaries --

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Just -- just answer my question.  Thank you, thank

 5     you.  I apologise.

 6        A.   I haven't seen anything in the summaries that contradict the

 7     longer transcripts that we have that were completed by other agencies or

 8     other bodies.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  It has shown in front of this Tribunal that

10     General Gvero and I spoke with General Nicolai.  How could you tell here

11     who was speaking with General Nicolai, myself or Gvero?  The

12     Trial Chamber heard both transcripts.  And does this summarising change

13     the sense?  And I'm not asking you anything else.  I know how things came

14     about or how they were created, but this is all I'm asking you.  Thank

15     you.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And this is, indeed, the last question.

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

18     sorry for exceeding the time.

19             THE WITNESS:  We went through a process to show that it was you

20     speaking in this conversation, through looking at other conversations

21     that were recorded by the SDB in Tuzla referencing these various numbers.

22     And I guess at that point, one does get into the reliability and the

23     process that was used and that was followed by the particular agencies,

24     which is why I consider the material to be both authentic and reliable.

25     And in this particular example, we could go through, again, if necessary,

Page 5152

 1     the process that was used to determine that the general speaking to

 2     General Nicolai was you.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have to stop here for today.

 4             First of all, I would like to express my and the Chamber's and

 5     the participants' apologies to the interpreters, to the whole staff of

 6     the Tribunal, for the extended sitting.  We are running out of time.

 7             But talking about time:  The clock in the courtroom shows some

 8     seconds after 10 minutes past 7.00, the LiveNote shows 1908 hours, and my

 9     private clock shows me seven minutes past 7.00.  This is only a remark to

10     the exact time we are following.

11             We are running out of time.  We have to continue the day after

12     tomorrow, because tomorrow is a UN holiday.  We are not working tomorrow.

13     On Friday, in the afternoon, 2.15, in Courtroom III.

14             We have to adjourn, and please be reminded that it is not

15     permitted to have contact with either party about the content of your

16     examination during the break.

17             Thank you very much.

18             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We adjourn.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day of

23                           September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.