1 Monday, 13 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody. The witness should be
6 brought in, please.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, Ms. Frease.
10 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome back to the courtroom.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I remind you to tell it the truth as the
14 affirmation still applies you made at the beginning of your testimony.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Mr. Tolimir has some more questions for you.
17 Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Peace
19 unto this house with a wish that this trial and this day may end in
20 keeping with God's will, not my will.
21 I welcome the witness, and I wish her a pleasant day.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
23 Q. [Interpretation] My first question would be: Did you investigate
24 that the BH Army corps had an analystical department dealing with
25 intercepts, and if so, what is your knowledge and the knowledge of the
1 teams of investigators about this analysis department? Thank you.
2 A. Could you clarify what you mean by analystic department.
3 Q. Did the 2nd Corps of the BH Army in Tuzla have an analysis
4 department analysing intercepts? Did they analyse intercepts, and do you
5 know anything about it, because you waited almost three years to get
6 those transcripts. Did you manage to find out if those transcripts had
7 been analysed during the war and how?
8 A. I know that the purpose of taking the intercepts was to send them
9 to the 2 Corps for 2 Corps analysis by their intelligence unit. So, yes,
10 they had -- my understanding is they had an analytical department that
11 was responsible for analysing the intercepts as they arrived.
12 Q. Thank you. Did you as one of the investigators the Tribunal,
13 because you were on the ground just after the events, had any contact
14 with anyone from that analytical department, and did you ask them for
15 access into those analyses, or did you perhaps seize the material that
16 they had?
17 A. I believe there are a couple of different time periods that you
18 mentioned in your question. One of them was immediately following the
19 events. Immediately following the events, no one from the Office of the
20 Prosecutor had contact, to my knowledge, with anybody in the military.
21 Q. Thank you. In order to deal with the issue of reliability and
22 authenticity of communications in light of the fact that this material
23 was disclosed to you only in 1998, can you comment on this statement of
24 the witness PW-32 from the transcript page 2176, lines 1 to 7. He said:
25 "By the nature of things, each operator had to have insight into
1 what was going on the ground. They knew these things by heart. Reports
2 were analysed in detail by the analytical department, and based on those
3 analyses instructions for further work were given."
4 That's the end of the quotation.
5 If there was any delay in the processing of the material, would
6 this information given by the witness mean that there was actually no
7 analysis of these intercepts?
8 A. With respect to the internal analysis that the army did of the
9 intercepts, the Office of the Prosecutor was interested in the raw
10 material so that we could look at the raw material. We, to my memory,
11 received few analytical reports from the 2 Corps that for our purposes
12 were not useful, relevant, or helpful, because we were interested in the
13 raw material that was being collected at the time by the operators so
14 that we could look at it on our own and make our own determination about
16 Q. Thank you. Could you explain what kind of analytical reports
17 were available to you?
18 A. I'm really basing this purely on memory. They would have been
19 something like a synopsis that might have gone into a larger report.
20 Some of the analytical information, also from memory, was of a tactical
21 nature, very low-level, sort of Motorola snippets of conversations, and
22 again nothing that was of significance or of relevance to our
23 investigation because we were interested in looking at the raw material,
24 not somebody else's version of what the raw material meant.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you tell the Trial Chamber when was the first
1 time when you gained access to what you call raw material as far as
2 intercepts are concerned.
3 A. On March 3rd, 1998
4 approximately 550 intercepted conversations. Following that, in
5 April of 1998, the Office of the Prosecutor took possession of
6 134 notebooks plus one additional notebook from 2 Corps. Also in
7 April of 1998, the Office of the Prosecutor took possession of 19 audio
8 reel-to-reel tapes from 2 Corps and also took possession of
9 13 reel-to-reel tapes from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo
10 Q. Thank you. Did all this material relate to the events in
11 Srebrenica and Zepa?
12 A. The material in the binder that we received on the
13 3rd of March, 1998, did relate to the events of Srebrenica and Zepa. The
14 time period of the material contained in that binder was from the
15 9th of July to the 31st of July, 1995. The material that we took
16 possession of in the way of notebooks in April of 1998, I believe
17 contained a broader range of dates and therefore would have contained
18 information about events outside of those two events, namely Srebrenica
19 and Zepa.
20 Q. Thank you. Please, because you said you received binders, were
21 those binders organised as these binders we handle here? Was this
22 prepared for your use or was it unsorted material relating to certain
23 events or perhaps sorted according to a certain chronology?
24 A. It was a single binder that we received that was sorted
25 chronologically by date and time.
1 Q. Thank you. After taking possession of all this material that you
2 mentioned in your previous answers starting from 3rd March 1998 onwards,
3 did you or anyone from your team look into the possibilities, into the
4 capacity of the BH Army and the 2nd Corps to intercept conversations?
5 A. Yes. As has been stated, an expert from the US organisation
6 called ATF, standing for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, visited the two
7 sites, examined the equipment, examined the antennas, and reported on the
8 capability of units at those sites to intercept communication, and to
9 intercept communication from the directions that they had indicated.
10 Q. Thank you. Please, since you said that these were experts who
11 analysed these capabilities, did they submit your report to you, the
12 people in the Tribunal who engaged them to do this work?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. Does this report contain any indicator of the
15 capabilities of the BH Army on the southern and northern sites to select
16 the information that was made available to you?
17 A. I don't understand your question.
18 Q. This expert, did he or she analyse the capability of the BH Army
19 and the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina to intercept the communications on
20 the air in the scope that is covered by the material made available to
21 you? Were they capable of intercepting that amount of communications?
22 A. I would suggest that you refer to the expert's report.
23 Q. Thank you. That's no problem to refer to the report, but you as
24 an investigator who looked into all of this, do you know if any expert
25 report has been made about the capability of these particular teams at
1 the southern and northern location with the number of personnel they had
2 to intercept that amount of communications? Did you investigate that?
3 A. Yes. My memory also is that one of the intercept operators noted
4 that he thought that there would have been even more communication than
5 what there was given the events on the ground.
6 Q. Thank you. The record doesn't show that my question included
7 also this: Was the number of personnel at southern and northern
8 locations realistically sufficient to collect all this information in
9 that period of time? I would like the number of personnel to be recorded
11 A. I don't remember the number of personnel and I believe there have
12 been a number of radio intercept operators including squad leaders and
13 commanders who have been here to testify who could give you a much more
14 accurate number; but my recollection is that each of the operators was
15 responsible for working on at least a couple of the reel-to-reel machines
16 at a time and therefore could record at least a couple of conversations
17 at a time and had the ability while recording to also continue to listen
18 to further conversations. In this way, they were able to monitor several
19 channels and several frequencies at any one time. On top of that, if you
20 consider that there were two sites and at one site that there were three
21 units working, I believe there were sufficient personnel and equipment to
22 record the conversations.
23 Q. Thank you. From your discussions with operators, are you aware
24 that they had at most three recorders at one facility and only one at the
25 other facility? Do you know that from taking interviews from the
1 operators, from doing interviews?
2 A. That is not my memory of what they said.
3 Q. Thank you. In the course of direct examination, you made the
4 assertion that intercepts were used in realtime. On page 5000 in this
5 case, lines 1 to 13 of 7 September this year, you said:
6 "They used the material in realtime to forward it to their
7 command posts or to protect their personnel, or they conveyed the
8 information they considered relevant."
9 If you look at that page of the transcript, do you think I quoted
10 you correctly? Can you remember what you said?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you have any evidence or any indicators showing
13 that the intercepted communications were used by the BH Army in realtime
14 and that the army indeed acted to protect its personnel by passing on the
15 information contained in the intercepts?
16 A. One example comes to mind, and I'm referring to a summary of an
17 Excel table of intercepted communication relating to this case. The one
18 conversation that comes to mind is one that I believe took place on the
19 15th of July in which Semso Muminovic, one of the Bosnian military
20 commanders, and Vinko Pandurevic, the commander of the Zvornik Brigade,
21 were in touch with each other, Muminovic trying to get in touch with
22 Pandurevic in order to create a corridor so that the column could get
24 I believe that the contact began on the 15th of July, and I
25 believe that the -- that a corridor was opened on the 16th of July. I
1 could confirm this by going through these documents. And then I believe
2 this is further verified by a written report that Vinko Pandurevic wrote
3 on the 17th of July.
4 This information came through not only in one conversation here,
5 but it came through also from, I believe, the president's office through
6 to the Main Staff who was then informed of Pandurevic's actions.
7 Q. Thank you. Was this information gained by virtue of the fact
8 that Semso Muminovic and Vinko Pandurevic informed their superiors about
9 their conversation or because intercepts were recorded by operators as
10 taking place at a certain time, on a certain date?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. I am asking you, in fact, about the speed of conveyance of this
13 information passed by operators to the users in the BH Army,
14 Alija Izetbegovic, Rasim Delic, and other decision-makers. Do you have
15 any evidence that these decision-makers in the BH Army actually ever
16 received any of this information contained in intercepts?
17 A. I believe that that's a question that would be more appropriately
18 put to a different witness.
19 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you this because in your evidence here,
20 like all the operators, focus on the noting of information into a
21 notebook or a transcript, but nobody mentions the fact that this
22 information was supposed to be passed on for operative use to those who
23 made decisions. Did you investigate whether this information ever came
24 into the hands of users at a higher level, people who made decisions, at
25 any level?
1 A. What we were told in the course of the interviews and
2 investigation was that once the material was written down in the
3 notebook, it was typed up and it was sent to their headquarters for
4 further action. From our standpoint as a member of the Office of the
5 Prosecutor investigating the events of Srebrenica and Zepa, what was
6 important, again, was the raw information so that we could work with it
7 and develop it independently.
8 Q. Thank you. I would like to know if the end users ever saw that
9 information, or did they see it only here after this trial, after your
10 presentation and the presentations of the Defence teams at trial. Thank
12 A. I can't answer that question. I wasn't an end user.
13 Q. Thank you. And can you answer this: In the binders that you
14 have before you during your testimony as well as all the other operators
15 who testify here, they also have similar binders. Do they contain a
16 written proof that the information was used by the end user such as the
17 president of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
18 Rasim Delic and his associates or end users of that kind and at that
19 level? Thank you.
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Thank you. Is there a single intercepted conversation which was
22 obtained from the level of the army, the Presidency after their
23 processing and the order as to what to do in view of the fact that they
24 were privy to such information? Do you have any such thing in the files
25 of the Prosecutor's office?
1 A. I remember an intercept on the 12th of July in which the
2 military, VRS military, was asking for buses and trucks from specific
3 municipalities. The Office of the Prosecutor then obtained orders from
4 the Ministry of Defence from Republika Srpska. I believe they were two
5 different orders that detailed the need for buses and trucks from
6 precisely the same municipalities as specified in the radio communication
7 that came through on the 12th of July, captured by the Bosnian military
8 from VRS personnel on the ground.
9 Q. Thank you. When it comes to the intercepts of the BiH Army, were
10 they intended for use by users in Republika Srpska or, rather, by users
11 in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
12 A. Logically by users of -- by users in the Federation of Bosnia and
14 Q. Thank you. Please, could you say whether during the
15 investigation of those documents and during reading, diligently reading
16 those documents, could you notice that any of the documents had been
17 studied by any of the officers from the General Staff of the BH Army or
18 the presidency of BiH, did they make a note on any of them? Did they
19 append an order or an instruction on -- of any kind on the margin of such
20 a document if there was indeed such a document? Thank you.
21 A. I can't say who made notations, but I believe that on some of the
22 printouts that we initially received there were some handwritten
24 Q. Thank you. The printed examples that you're mentioning, have
25 they been included in the binders and shown to the Trial Chamber, and
1 also, has the Office of the Prosecutor disclosed such documents to the
3 A. I'm --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, but the
7 witness has already started answering the question. Thank you.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, in terms of the disclosure
9 obligations of the Prosecution, I don't know that that's an appropriate
10 question to put to the witness since the witness was not part of the
11 pre-trial proceedings with respect to this case. So I think that's a
12 completely inappropriate question to put to this witness. In terms of
13 whether they exist or not, that's a completely separate issue, but in
14 terms of whether or not the Office of the Prosecutor disclosed that to
15 the Defence in this case, it's not something that this witness is privy
16 to, and I think the accused is well aware of that.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are in the best position to answer this
18 question: What was disclosed to you and your Defence team? And if that
19 material was complete or not, you should discuss with the Prosecution.
20 They have the obligation to disclose the material and what they have, and
21 that should be discussed among the parties.
22 Please carry on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank
24 you. I no longer need an answer to my question.
25 Could the court please produce P787 in e-court.
1 Thank you.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. We see the document in the Serbian language, and since you speak
4 Serbian, while we're waiting for the English version I can still ask.
5 In the Serbian version you can see that it says -- there's a
6 remark by the chief who requested the information and the name of the
7 person that he sent the letter to, and that person's name is Eso. This
8 document was disclosed by the Defence, and that's why I asked whether
9 you've seen a transcript of an intercepted conversation with similar
10 annotations on the margins appended by a superior officer or an officer
11 from a superior command. Thank you.
12 A. No.
13 Q. Thank you. In the right-hand side corner it says "A/A." That's
14 ad acta, something used by people speaking the language that both you and
15 I speak, A/A standing for ad acta. Every document has to show that it
16 has been filed, and a superior officer has to include an instruction to
17 the archives as to how the document would be kept.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we have a look at
19 another document, which is P788. Thank you.
20 We see it on the screen now. The title is "OA." This is the
21 abbreviation in the Serbian language. OA stands for an operative
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. My question to you is this: Did you ever see a document
25 pertaining to this operative operation conducted by the intelligence
1 department under the code-name The Truth?
2 A. No. I don't remember seeing any such document or reference.
3 Q. Thank you. You see Chief Brigadier General Jusuf Jasarevic says
4 whatever he said, and he sent this document to the command of 2 Corps,
5 and the officer in the 2 Corps command wrote:
6 "Check where the -- who's got these audio recordings."
7 Hajro wrote that and that was also translated into English. I'm
8 sure you can see it and you can see the signature of the superior officer
9 who instructs his subordinate as to what to do with the document. This
10 document was used by the Defence during your examination and tendered it
11 into evidence in its present form, and this also confirms that there
12 indeed was an operative action under the name Truth.
13 Did you notice this during your analysis of the documents that
14 were made available to you on the 18th of August? Did the Prosecutor
15 ever investigate the operative action Truth conducted by the 2 Corps --
16 or, rather, its intelligence and security department? Thank you.
17 A. I don't know, and the 18th of August of what year?
18 Q. 1995. We analysed this document last week. I don't want to go
19 into its content. My intention was to show you that the superior officer
20 always put something on the margin in order to instruct his -- his
21 subordinates about the documents.
22 Since you've seen the documents with annotations on the margins,
23 did you see any of the intercepts that you are testifying about here as a
24 witness with such handwritten added annotations on the margins? Thank
1 A. If there were handwritten annotations on the margins, the ones
2 that I was referring to a few minutes back would have been on the margins
3 of that original binder of 550 pages. My memory is that there were some
4 handwritten notes on those pages.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, on page 13, line 8, your words were
7 recorded by:
8 "This document was used by the Defence during your examination
9 and tendered into evidence ..."
10 I don't think that -- because it's a P document that the Defence
11 used it and tendered it. It was the Prosecution.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I said
13 that the Defence used this exhibit in the examination of the witness last
14 week, and this document can be found in the Prosecutor's file, and it
15 bears an ERN number, 0261655. I just wanted to demonstrate an example.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it was not tendered by the Defence but by the
17 Prosecution. I just wanted to clarify this. Please carry on.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I did
19 not want to discuss this. I just wanted to show some examples for the
20 witness's benefit, to show her what margins are and what annotations on
21 the margins are.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber whether you as an
24 investigator of this Tribunal investigated why all the documents that are
25 presented here in trials against different accused originate from the
1 company for interception, and there's no single document that would
2 originate from other command levels within the BiH Army, including the
3 documents that have been presented to you during your trial. Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that that
6 statement fundamentally misstates the record of these proceedings. The
7 accused is well aware that the intercept information came from a number
8 of sources. He's cross-examined witnesses from the 2nd Corps. He's
9 cross-examined witnesses -- or at least a witness from the 21st Division.
10 He's cross-examined witnesses from the State Security Services, and I
11 think that to -- to represent to this witness in any shape or form that
12 all of the documents came from the 2nd Corps fundamentally is incorrect,
13 and I think it places the witness at an unfair advantage. And if he has
14 a precise question, I'd ask that he frame it that way.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And, Mr. Tolimir, what do you mean by "that have
16 been presented to you during your trial"? What do you mean by that? It
17 was recorded that way. Perhaps you rephrase your question and put it to
18 the witness.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'll
20 rephrase indeed.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Is there a single intercepted conversation that has been
23 presented to you during your testimony and the testimonies you provided
24 during the Popovic and Krstic trials that originates from a different
25 level and excludes those at north and south site and the companies at
1 those sites? And there's no other level in -- in the BiH Army or the
2 state security of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thank you.
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. As an investigator, does this mean to you that the
5 analysis has not been done thoroughly, that it hasn't been complete since
6 it has taken into account only the lowest level, the first level of
7 interception, the intercept operator, that is, and nobody else?
8 A. To the contrary. I think starting at that level is the most
9 authentic level to begin at.
10 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you all this because you yourself have
11 claimed that intercepts were analysed in realtime.
12 Could you please focus on my next question. Could an end user at
13 the level of the BiH Army and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
14 provided with information in realtime? Thank you.
15 A. Yes. If we define realtime in a matter of minutes, yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Does the Prosecutor have and did you as an
17 investigator see a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that
18 Alija Izetbegovic or Rasim Delic indeed used those intercepts in
19 realtime, or any other members of the command of the Main Staff of the
20 BiH Army or the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Thank you.
21 A. That was not the focus of my work.
22 Q. Thank you. How can you claim, then, that they were able to deal
23 with those documents in realtime in view of the fact that you did not
24 investigate that, that you did not see a single piece of evidence that
25 would prove that? What is your basis for claiming that? Thank you.
1 A. If you refer to the packet of information that we've been
2 discussing, tabs 1 through 12, it contains information intercepted by the
3 SDB and corroborated by other services. That information, some of the
4 information contained in there, had to do with, for example, the spelling
5 of the deceased Dutch UNPROFOR soldier's name and his tag number in order
6 to allow his body to be transported from Bratunac to Zvornik to Tuzla
8 was transported.
9 There are many other examples like that that we could go through
10 in this binder.
11 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us whether that information
12 you -- that the intercept operator at south or north front was conveyed
13 to either me or General Nicolai who were involved in the arrangements to
14 transport the body from Bratunac to Zagreb and further on, and what has
15 that got to do with the end users in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
16 or the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
17 A. I thought that we were talking about the ability to convey
18 information in realtime, and that was my point.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you as an investigator know that intelligence
20 services must convey information in zero time to any end user at the
21 highest level? Yes or no? I hope that you are aware of that. I'm sure
22 that you are.
23 A. I don't know what zero time is.
24 Q. Zero time is the time that does not suffer a difference from
25 information received to information conveyed to the end user. That means
1 that information has to be available in zero time to the end user who
2 commissioned the collection of data by means of intercepted
3 conversations. That's zero time.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I would like to hear the answer
6 THE WITNESS: I'm not familiar with this.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. It seems to me from
11 the way this is going that the witness is talking at cross-purposes with
12 respect to the questions that are put by the accused in this case, and
13 that stems from, I think, properly defining or properly circumscribing
14 what is meant by the term "realtime" analysis. Whether that is just
15 processing, whether that is conveying information or whether or not that
16 is recording information that is being conveyed, and I think because of
17 that we're having answers that don't necessarily correspond to the
18 questions and questions that don't necessarily correspond to the answers.
19 I would ask if Mr. Tolimir could be more precise in terms of framing his
20 questions so that we can avoid this kind of misunderstanding.
21 The witness has answered the accused on a number of occasions
22 citing examples where intercepts have recorded information that has been
23 conveyed in relatively short order from -- concerning the subject matter
24 of which the intercept is speaking about, but that responds to a
25 different question than what Mr. Tolimir is putting, which is whether or
1 not the information that is being recorded is being conveyed within the
2 security chain or within whatever chain it's being analysed to the
3 authorities upon which to act. So I think if -- if we can frame the
4 question more precisely, we probably will get clearer answers and we'll
5 also get, I think we'll -- we'll go forward in a more efficient way.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this recommendation, but I think
7 it's up to the accused to phrase his question in that way or in another
8 way. He might have something in mind which leads him to phrase a
9 question in that way he did it, and I think this witness is capable to
10 answer in an appropriate way.
11 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Here's an example for the witness that she will understand and
15 she will know what zero time is. For example, a broker buying shares in
16 a stock market and a company goes bust and he buys its shares after he
17 has learned that the company has gone bust. Is he going to be rewarded
18 or punished by his employer? The situation is very similar in the
19 intelligence service. For example, if I or the 2 Corps of the BiH Army
20 collects information, will we be rewarded if we submit information that
21 we gathered after the activity that we surveil is over? Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your question?
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. My question is -- in fact, I was trying to explain to the witness
25 what zero time means. If a broker at a stock market finds out --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it's not necessary to repeat that.
2 I understood your explanation. My question is what was your question to
3 this witness related to her experience during her time in the OTP? What
4 is your question to this witness?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. She said she did not
6 understand what zero time means. I can give her another example.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would information collected by interceptors -- I am asking the
9 question. Would information collected by interceptors at the northern
10 and southern site be passed on to Rasim Delic or Alija Izetbegovic within
11 five to ten minutes so that they could react to it?
12 A. I don't know.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
14 JUDGE NYAMBE: I just want a clarification from General Tolimir.
15 At page 19 of today's transcript, lines 8 to 10, you give an example and
16 you say:
17 "For example, if I or the 2 Corps of the BiH Army collects
18 information, will we be rewarded if we submit information after the
19 activity that we surveil is over?"
20 Is that a question or a statement? I know there is question mark
21 at the end, but is that what happens, or you're asking a question?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was asking a question. For
23 instance, if somebody collects information about the events in
24 Srebrenica, would that person be rewarded for getting that information in
25 the event that his superior had not received it until after the events
1 were over.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Let's leave this framework of the specific work you did. D48,
5 page 9 of the book, paragraph 2. Let's see what other people say about
6 this. When we get the document, I'll read the passage.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We still don't have it. D48,
8 page 46 in e-court. Page 299 of the book, paragraph 2. I will read the
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Look at the right page in e-court. The text highlighted in red.
12 "The question that now needs to be answered is what was possible
13 regarding the processing of the intercepts in realtime? Simple
14 arithmetic shows that if the number of channels multiplied by the number
15 of required personnel is greater than the number of available personnel,
16 then near realtime processing and reporting is impossible."
17 And five lines below it reads:
18 "If we assume on the basis of this estimate that an absolute
19 minimum of ten channels had to be monitored continuously, that three
20 persons were needed per channel for interception, transcription and
21 reporting, and that there was a rotation of three shifts a day and
22 seven-day working week, then at least 90 Signit operators would have had
23 to be active at the site, not to mention 15 or 20 staff for support,
24 technology, security, catering, and so on. Hence, if there were 20
25 channels, probably a more realistic estimate, then at least 180 people
1 would be needed. In reality a maximum of ten people worked in the
2 northern location. Most of the communication was recorded on tape. It
3 seems, therefore, that near realtime analysis and processing was
5 My question is: Could you give us your comment as an
6 investigator on this analysis of the realistic state of affairs at this
7 site presented by the author of this book?
8 A. The first time that I saw this was on Friday when it was
9 presented. I have not read it, and so what I know of it is what has been
10 put here on the screen.
11 Just as a cursory sort of reaction to it, I would say that there
12 are many assumptions that are made here that in fact are not truly based
13 on the reality of the situation at the time. Furthermore, not all
14 conversations were considered to be very urgent. Some of them were, and
15 those conversations were marked as such on the conversations themselves,
16 and they were typed up immediately, and they were forwarded to the
17 command posts.
18 There were certainly many conversations that were also missed,
19 and this is evidence in a few conversations that we see in the tabs in
20 the 12 conversations presented in this pamphlet of information that we've
21 been looking at where sometimes the Croatians picked up a conversation
22 that the Bosnian authorities missed. The Croatians picked it up, and
23 this other source that the Tribunal now has also picked it up, but the
24 ABiH did not pick it up. So certainly there were also conversations that
25 they did not pick up. This is not -- what we have is not an absolutely
1 complete, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week set of conversations. It's as many
2 conversations as they could pick up at the time.
3 Q. Thank you. What I'm asking you is this: We have seen quotes
4 from the report on Srebrenica of the Dutch Institute for War
5 Documentation. It's a very serious and voluminous analysis which you can
6 read and then make the conclusion that you just made, but my question is:
7 Did the OTP analyse at all how many people were needed on the southern
8 and northern location to be able to monitor the radio network of the
9 Army of Republika Srpska at the time of the events in Srebrenica and
10 Zepa, to intercept them and transcribe them in realtime, to put them into
11 notebooks and on paper and pass this on to their immediate superiors and
12 up to the highest level of command?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did the OTP investigate, since you had to wait a long time for
15 these transcripts from 1995 until you finally got them in 2005, did you
16 investigate whether reports were made of this capability based on
17 Croatian or American sources who were monitoring the air at the time with
18 their drones and satellites?
19 A. I believe we discussed this on Friday, and I mentioned that we
20 had tried to approach other governments and that we received very little.
21 We received enough to know that they had information but not enough to be
22 able to compare it against the information that we had.
23 Q. Thank you. In any case, the OTP didn't get them, as you claim,
24 but is it possible that the BH Army got information from others who had
25 such information, and were they able to analyse it over the course of the
1 four years that you've been working for the Tribunal?
2 A. I don't know. I think that's a question that's more suited to a
3 different witness.
4 Q. Thank you. Can you then tell us whether the Office of the
5 Prosecutor has in its possession information on the total number of
6 intercepts in Srebrenica and Zepa at the critical time, the time covered
7 by this indictment?
8 A. I can't give you a precise number.
9 Q. Thank you. I thought you knew that because you were an
10 investigator dealing exclusively with that material. But here is another
11 question: Did you as OTP investigators review notebooks on intercepts
12 and note that there were interruptions, blank spaces in communications
13 for certain days?
14 A. Could you rephrase your question?
15 Q. I'll try, if I can remember what I asked, but it would be easier
16 for you to read the transcript. The question was: When you
17 investigators of this Tribunal reviewed the transcripts, did you find any
18 gaps? Did you establish how many days there were when no intercepts were
20 A. For the period between the events -- well, let's just say
21 July of 1995, I do not believe there are any gaps. And with respect to
22 the notebooks, if there were gaps, as you call them, in the notebooks
23 between one day and another, that is explained by the fact that there
24 were several notebooks at any one location at any one time that were
25 being used. So a notebook may just simply be set aside for a day and
1 maybe nobody wrote in that notebook, but they did write in other
2 notebooks, and therefore there were conversations that were intercepted
3 and transmitted to their headquarters on a daily basis.
4 Q. You just mentioned notebooks, and that's the material you
5 studied. You said yourself that some days are blank. However, it is
6 claimed here in court that the transcripts are authentic because they
7 were written in longhand in notebooks.
8 Now, I'm asking you, is it possible that for these days there are
9 gaps, you just didn't receive information, or there was no interception
10 in those days?
11 A. There was interception in those days. It's just that the
12 conversations were recorded in other notebooks also located at that site.
13 As I mentioned, there were several notebooks that the operators would
14 work with. It was possible that one notebook would be set aside for a
15 day or two days but that those conversations were still being recorded
16 and transcribed in other notebooks at that same site and then transmitted
17 electronically to the headquarters.
18 Q. Thank you. You already answered my question. Was it possible
19 for two or three operators to intercept within one day such a number of
20 conversations, transcribe them and send them to their commands, all this
21 amount of information contained in several notebooks? Could all this
22 have been done with just two or three operators at any one site?
23 A. We would need to go through the duty log-book to see who was
24 working on which days, but I think it's a misrepresentation to say that
25 there were only two or three operators that were working at any one site
1 during those days. I have no reason to doubt that those operators were
2 able to intercept, transcribe, and send the conversations as they were
3 recorded in the notebooks and forwarded to their headquarters.
4 Q. Thank you. I put to you what has been heard here by the OTP and
5 the Trial Chamber from the operators themselves. They said they worked
6 in shifts of two.
7 Now, the OTP received a great number of these notebooks you just
8 mentioned where these intercepts are recorded. In addition,
9 Witness PW-32 said on page 2184, lines 19 through 25:
10 "When I arrived at the unit, my job was, first of all, to put
11 some order into work. This notebook is the result of that effort. I'm
12 certain that a whole truckload of such notebooks was burned because we
13 had no firewood."
14 My question is: Did the BH at the northern and southern sites,
15 with such a small number of operators, have the possibility to fill a
16 truck with notebooks that were burnt eventually? Yes or no?
17 A. I can't comment on another witness's testimony.
18 Q. Thank you. But it's a fact relating to the actual state of
19 affairs at the site where this witness worked. He said a full truckload
20 of such notebooks had been burned. Anyway, I appreciate your answer.
21 I will quote to you further what this witness, PW-32, said at
22 page 2182, lines 21 through 25:
23 "All these notebooks before we started to use them were
24 registered. They would get a number and a date, and they were marked
25 'strictly confidential,' and they would be sent to the northern or
1 southern site."
2 My question to you is: Did you check these registration numbers
3 on the notebooks, because I've seen here that some of them do not have
4 numbers? And can you tell us what could be the reason why they would be
5 marked and treated as official documentation and then later burned?
6 A. The only thing that I remember is that when the members of the
7 Office of the Prosecutor first found the notebooks at the northern site
8 that the ABiH person with them was embarrassed that they were not kept in
9 an orderly manner, and then that he also said, "Actually, we shouldn't
10 even have these anymore."
11 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that they were destroyed, thrown away,
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. Thank you. If someone from the OTP saw these notebooks at the
15 northern location, did they not want to take them, seize them, use them
16 in the trials conducted here?
17 A. Those are the notebooks that we've been using.
18 Q. Thank you. These notebooks that we've been using in my trial, I
19 looked at them and they are very neatly written. There is nothing
20 crossed out, or almost nothing, in just one or two intercepts. How can
21 you explain that with such speed that their work required they were able
22 to write so neatly? Did you investigate the notebooks from that point of
24 A. You will see in the notebooks that there are passages crossed out
25 or where intercept operators started to transcribe something and then
1 just crossed out the whole thing and started again. They listened to the
2 tapes bit by bit, and given their experience in listening, they were able
3 to transcribe them bit by bit by rewinding the reel-to-reel, playing it,
4 rewinding it, playing it, rewinding it, playing it, and then -- and
5 transcribing the conversations.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you answer this question: Since all the
7 operators that we've heard in this trial stated that they wrote in those
8 notebooks exclusively for their own use to record the conversations from
9 the tape and they did not send these notebooks to end users, could you
10 tell us whether they would be so careful to write neatly and avoid
11 crossing things out, considering that these notebooks were not going to
12 be sent anywhere, nor marked for good work?
13 A. Some of them had better handwriting than others.
14 Q. Thank you. Did you look into the possibility that the writing in
15 this -- these notebooks was actually copied from pieces of paper or
16 something like that?
17 A. My understanding is that before this system of employing the
18 notebooks was put into place, they, in fact, did write on pieces of paper
19 and that from December of 1994, they started to use the notebooks.
20 Whether or not they sometimes used pieces of paper, I don't know.
21 Q. Thank you. How do you know that they started using notebooks
22 beginning with December 1994?
23 A. That's my memory from speaking with the person who instituted
24 that change.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you have any notebooks from that period so that we
1 could look at them and check the veracity of that statement? Did the
2 Office of the Prosecutor receive material from before that time and after
3 that time so we can compare?
4 A. No, I don't have any notebooks with me.
5 Q. Thank you. Let us go back to the time when there were certain
6 gaps in the notebooks. In fact, you said there were no gaps, and I claim
7 there are.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us look at P40, which is a
9 report from the southern location referring to jamming of certain
10 frequencies. In fact, it's P540, and it should not be broadcast because
11 of the heading which refers to the name of the two locations. Let us
12 just redact or not show the -- the title of the document and show the
14 Thank you. We have it in English as well.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. This is a report precisely from an intercepting facility. It
18 "On the order to jam the following frequencies: 261.350,
19 266.925, 246.725, 266.550 and others located in the assigned direction.
20 "We are faced with several problems. The batteries to which we
21 attach the Mini kobac radio equipment set are made of steel, a leftover
22 of the UN. Everyone knows that they are of lower voltage than lead
23 batteries, which means that with them we cannot obtain the voltage
24 necessary to activate the transmitter. Sometimes we manage, but
25 sometimes we don't.
1 "At any rate, the batteries are dilapidated.
2 "The rectifier, which we are supposed to use to charge them,
3 emits a maximum of 15.5 volts, which is insufficient to power the
4 Mini kobac transmitter, which has a built-in automatic switch which
5 blocks it if the voltage is too low. By the way, the transformer on the
6 rectifier, which we borrowed from signals operators for our purposes,
7 shorted today. Another problem is the shortage of operators which could
8 be resolved somehow on a short-term basis, but it is in our nature to ask
9 for work when there isn't anything and no one to do it with."
10 This is a report from the 27th May 1995, and my question is:
11 When a certain frequency's jammed, do you also monitor communications on
12 that frequency concerning -- in view of the fact that the signal of the
13 jamming device is stronger than the signal of the frequency being
14 monitored and you cannot hear anything on the air because the jamming
15 interferes with all the communications. Would that perhaps explain the
16 gaps in intercepts? Did you see any evidence of that in the material you
17 looked at?
18 A. When you started your question, you said that I said that there
19 were no gaps. In fact, I said it's possible, and, in fact, my memory is
20 that there were gaps in some of the notebooks. Your link between those
21 gaps in a few notebooks I have explained in a different way, that the
22 operators put the notebooks aside. They had several notebooks that they
23 were working with, and that there in fact by date were no gaps, so to
24 speak. With respect to this report, I cannot comment. I do not have the
25 technical capacity to comment on it.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it's over time now. We need the
2 first break. We are in the same position as the intercept operators.
3 The tapes have to be rewound in this courtroom as well, and therefore we
4 need the technical break, and we will resume at five minutes past 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Here we are back to the process of scrambling. That was
11 described in the document dated 27 -- 25th of July [as interpreted],
12 1995, and this document says that the operators did not have adequate
13 equipment that would enable them to work 24/7.
14 Please, did you in the Office of the Prosecutor investigate --
15 investigate the consequences of jamming the signal on tapping in
16 communications, and did it have any impact on the way conversations were
17 intercepted during the events in Srebrenica?
18 A. I have no such technical knowledge.
19 Q. Was it necessary for the Tribunal to investigate the lack of
20 information during the period when the signals were jammed, and how did
21 that reflect at looking at the real situation only from the point of view
22 of the communications segment?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Thank you. In the last sentence you saw, and I'll quote again,
25 it says:
1 "The custom is to look for work when there is no work to be had."
2 And the last sentence that I just read out to you, does it say
3 that in the site there were very low possibilities, the capabilities were
4 almost nonexistent for work, because in this sentence he also says, "We
5 have nobody to work with nor anything to work on." Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I am lost at the moment. Could you
7 help me and indicate from which document you were quoting. Was it the
8 last document, P540, or what was it?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. The
10 document is indeed P540, and it is still on the screen -- or, rather, it
11 is not on the screen. I actually can see it, it's on the left-hand side
12 of the screen. It's in the Serbian language and the English translation
13 is missing.
14 I quoted from the last sentence of that document, and I will
16 "... but it is in our nature to ask for work when there isn't
17 anything and no one to do it with."
18 And then I asked the witness whether such situation in the
19 facility, which was the lack of equipment and personnel, did it have any
20 impact on the quality of tapping into the phone conversations and the
21 volume of the recorded and transcribed materials. Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: I think there was a typo in line 30 -- line 25 in
23 respect to the date of this document. It was recorded, I think, above as
24 the 27th of July, 1995, or the 25th of July, 1995, where it should say
25 the 27th of May, 1995.
1 This is the first time that I've seen this document, and I don't
2 have any technical capacity to comment on it.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you for having corrected the date for the record. I don't
5 want to go back to the date because the document contains the name of the
6 facility, and I will no longer need this document on the screen since you
7 say that you've not seen it before. I'm just saying that this is a means
8 of proof that there -- that radio conversations were jammed, and I wanted
9 to demonstrate what the reactions were to such things at the facility.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the court now please produce
11 P289 in e-court. This is a record on the hand-over of the archive
12 materials concerning the events in Srebrenica in 1995, more specifically
13 the hand-over of audiotape to Mr. Jack Hunter. Thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I was just told the last document we
15 have just had on the screen, P540, is not in evidence yet. It was marked
16 for identification when it was used by the Prosecution with
17 Witness PW-030. Are you tendering this document now?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
19 thought that it was already in evidence. If not, I would like to tender
20 it because it's a document unto itself, and it's self-explanatory. Thank
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received. And I think with the
23 P number, P540.
24 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could the Serbian
1 document be moved to the right to allow me to read from it, because I
2 don't see the beginnings of the lines in document. Thank you. It's
3 enough now. Thank you.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Please, based on the document that you are most probably familiar
6 with because you did speak about Mr. Jack Hunter who took the tapes to
7 the US Army, could you please explain for the Trial Chamber who
8 Jack Hunter is and why in the fourth paragraph in this document it says
9 "Jack Hunter" and then initials "LR-US Army," and below his signature we
10 are can see "ATT." Thank you.
11 A. It's a typographical error in the document that Jack Hunter was a
12 member of the US Army. As you pointed out, underneath his signature he
13 specifies ATF, which is miswritten in the translation. In the
14 translation is says "ATAF." ATF stands for the Agency for Alcohol,
15 Tobacco and Firearms in the United States. That's the agency that
16 Jack Hunter worked for as an expert in electronic recognizance processing
17 of these tapes, and his -- he also had expertise in antennas and being
18 able to pick up radio signals.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have a question. Is this organisation a state
20 institution or is it a private company, or is it an NGO? Can you explain
21 a little bit further?
22 THE WITNESS: It's a US
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
24 Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Thank you, Witness, for her answer and corrections made to the
4 Now, could you kindly tell us whether this organisation, ATS [as
5 interpreted], as you called it, an organisation that Jack Hunter worked
6 for, is it a part of the armed forces of the US or of another big
7 organisation? Could you briefly describe the status of that organisation
8 for us?
9 A. It's not a part of the US
10 whether it falls under its own department or whether it falls under a
11 different department within the US
12 Q. Thank you. And before 2003, was that organisation part of the
13 Ministry of Justice of the United States of America or the Treasury? Do
14 you know that?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know if Mr. Hunter worked also for the armed
17 forces of the USA
18 he introduce himself as a member of the US Army? And I'm asking you this
19 because of the fourth paragraph where there are initials coupled with the
21 Before you answer, could you please bear in mind that it is
22 impossible that there are two typos or three typos in the same document,
23 in the first paragraph, in the third paragraph, and -- so my question, to
24 cut a long story short, is whether he was a member of the US Armed
25 Forces, and did he introduce himself as such?
1 A. To my knowledge, he wasn't a member of the armed forces, and I
2 don't know whether he would have introduced himself as such. I don't
3 remember him introducing himself as such, but I don't have any knowledge
4 of him being a member of the US Armed Forces.
5 Q. Thank you. I respect it when you say that there are things you
6 don't remember and when you're honest about it.
7 Could you please tell us who signed this document?
8 A. Well, on the -- on the -- on the left-hand side I can only read
9 the names. The signatures on both lines look the same to me. I don't
10 know whose signature that is, but on the left-hand side it says "Handed
11 over by Brigadier Sulejman Budakovic, signed," and then it says
12 underneath that, "Major Sevko Tihic, signed." On the right-hand side it
13 is signed by Jack Hunter.
14 Q. Thank you. Is it possible that the signatories signed something
15 that was never said to them and then it was erroneously translated into
16 passages that he was an army member, or perhaps he was an army member and
17 that he introduced himself as such?
18 A. It's possible that he signed something erroneously, because
19 underneath his name he indicates "ATF," which stands for Alcohol, Tobacco
20 and Firearms. He did not speak the Bosnian language.
21 Q. Thank you. Were there interpreters there? Were you there when
22 he signed this document? Thank you.
23 A. I don't remember whether there were interpreters there, whether I
24 was there. It's possible, but I don't remember.
25 Q. Thank you. Let's now move on to the following question. Look at
1 the fourth paragraph where it says:
2 "The administration for intelligence and security during the
3 hand-over of other tapes should listen to select and approve the other
4 tapes for use."
5 Were you able to follow that in -- in English?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You did not read it in English, or you did read it in English?
8 Thank you.
9 A. I'm reading it. Okay.
10 Q. Thank you. Now that you have read this, could you please tell us
11 whether the tapes were listened to by either yourself or the signatories
12 in the intelligence and security administration, and did you attend the
13 exercise of listening to those tapes? Thank you.
14 A. I believe that the tapes were taken immediately by Jack Hunter to
15 the United States for analysis so that he could make copies of them and
16 return them to me -- or to the Office of the Prosecutor. I listened to
17 some of the tapes, but I did not listen to all of the tapes and all of
18 the conversations in the tapes.
19 Q. Thank you. If we look at the passage carefully, especially the
20 words in brackets where it says, "The intelligence and security
21 administration, the tapes should be listened to and selected, and the
22 matter of the further use of these tapes should be resolved, the emphasis
23 being on the remainder of the tapes," this remark in brackets refers to
24 the remainder of tapes and their use. What is the selection referred to
25 in here, and what is the matter of the further use of the remainder of
1 the tapes that is referred to in here, and all that was to be resolved at
2 the moment when the tapes were handed over to you?
3 A. It's been a long time. I think that the section that says "and
4 the matter of the further use of the tapes should be resolved" refers to
5 whether or not the Office of the Prosecutor would be given permission to
6 use them in court.
7 Q. Thank you very much. The selection here, does it apply to you as
8 end users, or those who provided the tapes to you, were they the ones who
9 made the original selection as to what tapes to give you?
10 A. They had identified 19 tapes, and we asked for all of them, and
11 there were an additional 13 tapes that had been identified in Sarajevo
12 that we also asked for and received.
13 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you this: Do you perhaps remember whether
14 at the administration, because it says here "the intelligence and
15 security administration, the tapes should be listened to and selected and
16 the matter of the remainder of the tapes should be resolved," and I
17 emphasise the word "remainder," the rest of the tapes. Does this mean
18 that the signatures -- all the signatures were involved in the selection
19 process and making the decision on the further use of those tapes?
20 A. I don't remember.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we received the interpretation "the
22 remainder." In the English translation we see on the screen there is not
23 the -- I don't see the word "remainder," but, "the matter of the further
24 use of the tapes should be resolved." Perhaps we have here a problem of
25 interpretation or content, I don't know, but I don't see the word
1 "remainder." That indicates slightly different content than the further
2 use of something. Perhaps you can elaborate on that.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'm
4 reading the original document which was signed by the representatives of
5 the BiH Army and Mr. Hunter, and I'm reading the text that they signed,
6 and in it it says "the remainder of the tapes." And the witness
7 confirmed that there were other tapes save for the 19 which are indicated
8 here. The witness speaks Serbian. Maybe she should read what it says in
9 the original because I believe that the translation is wrong. The
10 prevalent copy is the one that has been signed in the original language.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Frease, do you have any explanation for the
12 problem which has occurred related to the interpretation? Can you read
13 this part of the original document in B/C/S?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm trying to.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that Mr. Tolimir is
16 referring to the line in the middle of paragraph 4 where it says: "When
17 taking possession of the other tapes ..."
18 THE WITNESS: Hmm. So maybe that's the confusion that
19 Mr. Tolimir is referring to, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph
20 where -- I also thought that he was referring to the second-to-the-last
21 paragraph where it says: "The matter of the further use of the tapes
22 should be resolved." He's referring to the first paragraph which says:
23 "With the obligation that when taking possession of the other tapes," I
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you. If you look carefully, it says:
2 "The intelligence and security administration, when taking
3 possession of the other tapes, shall listen to the tapes and select them
4 and decide," et cetera, et cetera.
5 So the administration took it upon itself to select what other
6 tapes they will let you have, to listen to them and to decide on the
7 further use of these tapes. Is that so or not?
8 A. My memory is that, yes, they made a selection in order to ensure
9 that the material we were going to be given related to the time period
10 that we were interested in.
11 Q. Is it possible that in the course of this selection they left out
12 what they thought undesirable for you to have and that they left only
13 what they wanted you to have?
14 A. It's a possibility. I would say that it's also important to keep
15 in mind that the tapes were in short supply during the war, and therefore
16 they were taped over many times. Therefore, we ended up with some
17 conversations on tape that we could reference to the handwritten
18 notebooks, but it wasn't by any means a complete collection.
19 Q. Thank you. Because you said yourself it is a possibility that
20 they made a selection, is it also possible that they erased some of the
21 conversations they thought to be unimportant, irrelevant, et cetera? Is
22 it possible they gave you only those intercepts which they thought to be
23 important and relevant?
24 A. Well, the first part of your question is:
25 "Is it also possible that they erased some of the conversations
1 they thought to be unimportant, irrelevant, et cetera?"
2 I would say, yes, certainly they did, because there was a
3 shortage of tapes. So if they didn't consider something to be important
4 or relevant, they would tape over it.
5 Q. Thank you. Since this hand-over was done and this document was
6 signed on the 29th April 1998, when the war was over and the
7 Dayton Accords had been signed, was it still relevant that there was a
8 short supply of tapes and that somebody was re-taping?
9 A. It is relevant, because the tapes were made in 1995 when the war
10 was still going on, and it was during that time that they had to re-tape
11 conversations, tape over conversations because there was a shortage of
13 Q. Thank you. This note that we just read, does it relate to 1995
14 or 1998 when you were signing this?
15 A. Jack Hunter signed it in 1998 for material that was recorded in
17 Q. This selection, then, that was done in 1998, was it -- was it
18 done after the war, after the signing of the Dayton Accords, or in 1995?
19 A. In 1998.
20 Q. Thank you. In 1998, after this agreement was signed, did this
21 intelligence and security administration tamper or in any way manipulate
22 these tapes that were handed over to you?
23 A. I would refer you to Jack Hunter's report. To my knowledge,
24 there was no such evidence.
25 Q. This relates to tapes other than those taken by Jack Hunter, but
1 if you mention Jack Hunter, we'll deal with that now.
2 On transcript page 4982, lines 16 and 17, you said that
3 Jack Hunter took those tapes to his laboratory in Washington, made copies
4 and returned them together with the originals. Did he return both copies
5 and originals, and why did he take them to his lab in Washington?
6 A. This is going back -- back a long time for me and my memory is
7 not crystal clear on it. I will -- I'm happy to tell you what I can
9 Mr. Hunter took those tapes to his -- to the ATF laboratory in
11 they could be heard better. He needed the originals in order to be able
12 to do this. Eventually, he returned them to us along with copies.
13 Q. Thank you. Bearing in mind what you just said, that Jack Hunter
14 took those tapes and took them to the lab of his agency, ATF, to enhance
15 the audibility, can you tell me, if you know, did Jack Hunter, when he
16 was making this analysis, write a report on it, and does that report
17 exist somewhere in the OTP?
18 A. I do not know.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether Jack Hunter had to make a
20 request to his agency, which you call ATF, or to the Ministry of Justice
21 or to the Treasury or the army, because we've seen he worked for all of
22 them, a request to make these copies and to work on these tapes?
23 A. I do not know.
24 Q. Do you know if any erasing was done in this laboratory? Can you
25 be sure that none of the recordings were damaged or erased?
1 A. With respect to your last question, I have to -- I'd like to say
2 two things. One, I have to assume that his agency knew, because he was
3 sent by ATF and he was a representative of ATF. So he would not have
4 come simply on his own. His agency had to have known that he came, that
5 he was asked to come, and that he was doing this work.
6 Again, I think it's -- the fact -- you mentioned that he's in the
7 army. I think that this is a typo in the document, and I would just like
8 to respect that. At least to my knowledge.
9 As to whether or not the tapes were erased in his laboratory, I
10 don't believe that we received back any blank tapes. It's hard for me to
11 imagine that such a thing would have happened in the ATF lab, but I don't
13 Q. Thank you for this honest answer, but now -- because you've just
14 said that Hunter came down there on behalf of his organisation ATF; is
15 that right?
16 A. I believe the Tribunal requested an expert to come and assist us
17 with material, because we had no internal expertise. Therefore, a
18 request was made to the US
19 help us out with it.
20 Q. Thank you. So it's the US
21 would be.
22 A. I wasn't involved in identifying him or recruiting him or
23 contacting ATF, so I don't know what the process was.
24 Q. Thank you. You've said more than once during your evidence that
25 you were not able to decipher certain tapes and that all this equipment
1 was European made, the recorders, the UHERs, and everything else. Why
2 wasn't this expertise provided by European institutions and laboratories
3 that are closer to The Hague
4 provided the equipment in the first place? Germany, for instance, has
5 very good technology for analysing tapes and disks containing recordings
6 made also on machines that they produce.
7 A. The first part of your statement says that I said more than once
8 during my evidence that -- that I or we were unable to decipher certain
9 tapes. I don't believe that I said that. I may have said that there
10 were certain parts of tapes that were inaudible.
11 As for why the Tribunal decided not to ask an expert from a
12 European institution or laboratory, I do not know.
13 Q. I'm sorry if I misspoke, but I heard when we discussed the
14 diskettes given to you by the State Security Service that you were not
15 able to decipher some of them. Perhaps it was misinterpreted, or perhaps
16 I misunderstood.
17 A. Those are two different mediums. The diskettes had to do with
18 electronic versions of the transcripts that we were unable to open. The
19 audiotapes are a second medium.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a follow-up question to the question of
22 You said on page 43, line 2, 1 and 2:
23 "I believe the Tribunal requested an expert to come and assist us
24 with material, because we had no internal expertise."
25 What are you referring to when you are saying, "We had no
1 internal expertise"? In which field? Could you explain that a little
2 bit further.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. We had no one in house who could visit the
4 two radio intercept sites, look at antennae, look at transmitters, look
5 at receivers, look at the tape-recording equipment and analyse it and
6 discuss whether it had the capacity to pick up the radio communication
7 from the locations as had been described.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Tolimir.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Were there in Europe
13 done eventually in Washington
15 A. Undoubtedly there are experts in Europe in this field. I think
16 it was a simple matter of members of the Office of the Prosecutor having
17 contacts with ATF and reaching out because it was the easiest and
18 quickest way to find an expert.
19 I would just correct on the transcript page 45, line 2. It says
20 in this "feel." It should say in this "field." Thank you. I would also
21 delete "had." In the next sentence.
22 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us, this work done by
23 Mr. Hunter for the Tribunal, does it fall under Rule 70 on access to
24 material, or in other words, banning access to evidence to all persons
25 save for those authorised by the Tribunal?
1 A. I can't answer that question. Maybe the Prosecutor can help.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. With respect to
4 Mr. Hunter's reports, we don't consider that Rule 70 material, and indeed
5 it has been disclosed to the accused. It was disclosed on 7 March 2008.
6 That was a report dated 23 March 1998
7 dated 24th April 1998
8 photographs actually, the last reference refers to photographs that were
9 attached to the second report that I indicated. So all of those
10 materials were disclosed to the accused in 2008 and they're not Rule 70.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That clarifies the
12 situation. Please continue.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would
14 like to thank the witness and the Prosecutor for the -- the answer, but I
15 didn't want an answer about these tapes. I want an answer about the
16 communication between the Tribunal and Mr. Hunter. I was asking if that
17 was the reason why he was chosen over an expert in Europe, for instance,
18 but we'll move on to something else.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. In the process of examining these tapes on the premises of
21 Mr. Hunter and his agency, was an expert report made to explain how these
22 tapes were obtained, what results were obtained by reviewing them and so
23 on and so forth?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us, as an investigator, is it
1 customary for material handed over for expertise, like in this case,
2 because Mr. Hunter was an expert, in the framework of a trial, is it
3 customary for an expert report to be made and later submitted to the
4 Trial Chamber and the OTP?
5 A. I don't know. Maybe the Prosecutor can help.
6 Q. Thank you for this answer, because our time is running out.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we call up P838. It's marked
8 for identification because there is no Serbian translation.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. We can see the first page in the English original, and now we can
11 seat same page in the Serbian language. The document is dated
12 17 October 2000
14 "This is to certify that I received a copy of the attached
15 inventory consisting of four pages listing 20 items and that it is a true
16 and accurate record of the items obtained pursuant to the consensual
17 search conducted by the above named persons of the ICTY between 1830 and
18 0400 hours on the 16th and 17th October 2000 at Ramiz Salcin Barracks,
19 Otoka, Sarajevo
20 And here we can see signatures.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the court please produce page
22 number 3 in e-court.
23 Now you can see two versions of the same document. In the
24 English it says: "80, 17." There is a date and a signature. And here
25 it says four pages and before we saw seven pages. Where are the missing
1 pages? It says 17 -- and can the lower bottom corner be zoomed in,
2 please. In the English translation -- or, rather, the original which
3 contains the signature.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it is unclear for the Court Usher,
5 but also for me, to which part of this it document you're referring.
6 Could you repeat, please.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the lower right corner of the
8 English original be zoomed in. There is signature, and it also says
9 "P-a-g-e 17," which stands for page 17. And now we can see that part is
10 blown up.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Could the witness please explain how come that we are looking at
13 page 17 with the signature of one of the participants, whereas only four
14 pages of the document have been disclosed? Thank you.
15 A. I don't know. This is not a document that I have been involved
16 in at all. So we can maybe try to find the original document and try to
17 find the translation and see what the difference is.
18 Q. Thank you. This is a copy of the original, and you told us last
19 time that you had seen this document when we discussed the signature in
20 the left-hand side corner and when I asked you whose signature that was.
21 Thank you.
22 A. Yes. I've seen the document. It was in reference to a tape that
23 matched with a tape that we had picked up -- been given in April of 1998.
24 This is a document that was produced by another team that searched --
25 consensually searched the barracks in Sarajevo in October of 2000. I
1 left the Tribunal in July of 2000, but I have seen this document, but I
2 cannot account for the discrepancy in the page numbers.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you see 17 pages, or did you see only four as it
4 says in here? Thank you.
5 A. I don't remember for certain. It's possible that I only saw
6 four. I really don't remember.
7 Q. Thank you. Is it possible that some of the tapes on the list on
8 page 1 of the four containing a total of 20 items, is it possible that
9 the pages from 4 through 17 have not been disclosed to the Defence and
10 that they have therefore not been used at the Tribunal?
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think there's no
13 issue with respect to this particular document. The ERN range indicates
14 five pages. If you look at the very first page of the document, it
15 indicates that there is an attached four page -- four-page inventory,
16 which is exactly what we see before us. While I cannot offer you at the
17 moment an explanation for why it indicates pages 7 -- 16 through 19 on
18 the attached inventory, I think from the ERN range and from the face of
19 the document itself, it is quite clear that it is a four-page document.
20 It's a four-page instrument, and that's both reflected in the B/C/S and
21 the English translation thereof.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And for the record, we saw the
23 English and the B/C/S version of this document. It was not marked for
24 identification pending translation, but it was received as an exhibit,
25 just for the record.
1 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. For the record, I'm
3 asking whether the ERN number is the Prosecutor's name, the court's --
4 the Prosecutor's number, the court's number, or is it the number that was
5 used by the BiH Army when it handed over the document.
6 Q. Maybe you can answer this question, because as you've just told
7 us, you saw this document.
8 A. ERN numbers are placed on documents by the Tribunal. And more
9 specifically, by the Evidence Section of the Tribunal.
10 Q. Is that section part of the Tribunal, the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, the Registry? Thank you.
12 A. I believe it falls under the Registry, but I'm not absolutely
14 Q. Thank you. Please, on page 3 of this document that we see before
15 us, the first item in the first column reads:
16 "Document number: 100124. Number of pages: 1. Date:
17 16 October. Description: A box 100
18 50 centimetres containing numerous audiotapes and a number of audio
19 magnetic reels."
20 I'm interested in the last part which refers to numerous
21 audiotapes and a number of audio magnetic reels. The words that I quoted
22 I quoted to provide you with complete information as to where that can be
24 My question is this: What is the difference between audiotapes
25 and audio magnetic reels, and do both items refer to intercepted
1 conversations? So what is the difference between audio tapes and audio
2 magnetic reels? I repeat that part of -- of my question. And I repeat
3 once again, whether all of the two types of media have to do with
4 intercepted conversations.
5 A. I would have to speculate here because I was not present when
6 these were taken into custody, and I have not looked at all of them, and
7 I have not listened to all of them.
8 Maybe on the left-hand side if in the B/C/S version of the
9 document I could just look at the first sentence of that entry on the
10 16th of October. But I believe that the magnetic reels would refer to
11 the reel-to-reel tapes like the UHER reel-to-reel tapes. I'm sorry, the
12 first page of the B/C/S document, on the left-hand side.
13 Q. Thank you. You can see it in the English version. It's the
14 first passage on the right.
15 Could you please tell me what contents were found on those
16 magnetic reels. Did you inspect all of them, and would you be able to
17 tell us? Would you be able to answer the question?
18 A. No. I believe I just mentioned that I wasn't present at the
19 Tribunal when these were seized and that I have not looked at all of them
20 and have not listened to all of them.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you please explain, do you know what UHER uses,
22 whether it uses cassettes or tapes and so on and so forth, or some other
23 kinds of tapes? Thank you.
24 A. The UHER uses round magnetic tapes. I guess magnetic. I don't
25 know. Round tracks; right? "Trake."
1 Q. Thank you. When you testified in the Krstic and Popovic cases,
2 did you have an opportunity to listen to those tapes again and to see
3 them again, or was it somebody else who was involved in the analysis of
4 the material after having listened to it again?
5 A. Yes, I did listen to the material and testified about it in the
6 Popovic case, but not in the Krstic, to my memory.
7 Q. Thank you. Here we're talking about numerous tapes, reels and
8 cassettes. Could you please explain, would all those fall under UHER and
9 whether any other types of equipment were used to record intercepted
10 conversations? If those existed, were they available to you, and where
11 can they be found? Where were they recorded?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the court please produce
13 page 3 in the English translation for the benefit of the witness, so that
14 the witness could see that there is a reference to all the different
15 types of media cassettes, tapes, and reels, and we would like the witness
16 to tell us whether she had all those made available to her, whether she
17 was able to use all that.
18 Could you please blow-up, for the benefit of the witness, the
19 first paragraph under 1 in the English language. I would like the
20 witness to be able to see that part better.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Please look at line 1 and you will see that everything that I
23 have mentioned in my question is referred to in here.
24 A. So I was not present when these tapes -- is the recording
25 working? My microphones don't sound like they're working, or headphone.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can't hear you through the headphones as well.
2 THE WITNESS: Hello? Are things working? That sounds better.
3 So I have not had an opportunity to look at all of the items that
4 you mention. As I've said, I left the Tribunal in July of 2000 and was
5 not present when these were seized. I listened to tape 49 in this set,
6 which was a reel-to-reel tape. I have not examined all of the other
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. Please, when you answered the Prosecutor's questions
10 during the examination-in-chief, could you please confirm for us that
11 tapes from 1 to 49 MBs are -- and I am quoting what you said on
12 page 4993:
13 "I did not inspect all the cassettes."
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the -- could Mr. Tolimir please repeat
15 his question.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. My question is this: Why you did not control the contents of all
18 the tapes to see whether they correspond to the typed transcripts. Thank
20 A. Just with respect to your quotation of my statement that, "I did
21 not inspect all the cassettes, "I'm not sure that I said I did not
22 inspect all of the cassettes. I may have said the reel-to-reels or the
23 audio recordings or something to that effect.
24 I did not inspect all of them simply as a matter of a lack of
25 time, and also, they did not -- my understanding is that this material
1 does not all relate to the events of Srebrenica and Zepa.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to
4 clarify one thing, and that was with respect to the witnesses direct
5 testimony. What she was referring to in this particular document is
6 actually on the following page and it's under item 100132, and that
7 relates to 98 audio magnetic reels as opposed to cassettes, as you can
8 see is indicated under this item, 100124, although they came from the
9 same box, and those are referenced also under item 100132, which
10 specifically references cassette materials that were contained under
11 item 100124 and items contained under 100135. So just so that we're
12 specific as to what the reference was in direct concerning this witness's
13 interaction with this material or the materials that she actually did
14 review and listen to.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, if you follow this recommendation of
16 Mr. Vanderpuye to make a distinction between the two portions of
17 documents received and as stated in the document, then it would be
18 appreciated, and continue your questioning.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Since
20 the transcript has not properly recorded my question, I would like to
21 repeat the question, and maybe it will become clearer. Everything will
22 become clearer.
23 Please, for the benefit of the witness, could the court please
24 produce page 4993, line 5 of the transcript, and she will see that I
25 quoted her words. And that is the transcript page dated 7 September.
1 And now I'm going to repeat my question.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. When it comes to the diskettes that you received from the
4 BiH Army, to the Prosecutor's questions -- question whether you can
5 confirm that those diskettes from -- of 1.94 MBs, and that has been
6 erroneously translated, referred to the intercepted communications from
7 January through December 1995. And you said on page 4993, line 5 of the
9 "I did not inspect every single diskette."
10 My question was this: Could you please tell us why you did not
11 inspect the contents of every of the diskettes?
12 Did I properly quote your words back to you? Since you asked for
13 it, now you can look at the transcript line yourself. We see line
14 number 5, page 4993, that's where I was quoting from. Thank you.
15 A. That's correct. I didn't look at every diskette and every entry
16 in every diskette, again because of time.
17 Q. Thank you for your answer. On page 6371, line 20, in the Popovic
18 case you are recorded as saying that, firstly, you couldn't open the
20 My question is this: Did you manage to get hold of the contents
21 of those diskettes subsequently, or in other words, were you able to open
22 the files contained on those diskettes, and if you did, how did you
23 manage to do that subsequently?
24 A. I believe that we received two diskettes which we were unable to
25 open internally, and then we later, after I left, received additional
1 diskettes which the Office of the Prosecutor or the technical people were
2 able to open and to review.
3 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that the diskettes were not damaged
4 but that they were encrypted? Thank you.
5 A. I don't know. They may have been encrypted, but certainly we
6 couldn't open them. That was, for me, the main point.
7 Q. And later on, did you learn what programmes were used when the
8 diskettes were uploaded and what programmes did the BH Army use? Were
9 you able to establish what computer programmes were used on those
10 diskettes, and if you did, how did you do that?
11 A. No, I did not learn what programmes were used by the BiH Army.
12 Q. Thank you. And did you every learn whose encryption, or whose
13 code was used on those diskettes? Did you ever investigate that?
14 A. No. We received the diskettes after I left the Tribunal.
15 Q. Thank you. Are the diskettes still here at the Tribunal, and
16 were they opened by using the encryption code that the BiH Army used, or
17 are these diskettes still unavailable for use? Are they still
19 A. I believe they're here within the OTP and that they are
20 accessible. And available for use. I don't know how they were opened.
21 Q. Thank you. I said that the BiH Army used Lelic's [Realtime
22 transcript read in error "Lilic's"] code, Professor Lelic's encryption
23 code. That was not recorded previously. That's why I'm repeating it.
24 But it doesn't really matter, because you will no longer be involved in
25 that ever.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, allow me to correct the
3 record. On page 56, line 3, it says "Lilic" instead of "Lelic." It is
4 Lelic's encryption code rather than Lilic's encryption code.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is now recorded properly. Thank you,
6 Mr. Gajic.
7 Mr. Tolimir, I think it is the right time for our second break,
8 and after the break we will continue.
9 We adjourn and resume at 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to
14 advise the Court that translations have been uploaded for P838, P826B,
15 and P826A.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. I think they will be now
18 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Did you personally visit any of the facilities which intercepted
22 the communications of the VRS?
23 A. Yes. I visited both sites; one on the 21st of April, 1998, and
24 the second on the 22nd of April, 1998.
25 Q. Thank you. At that time in 1998, did you see how radio
1 communications are intercepted, how that is done?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Thank you. Were you able to see the equipment that was used by
4 the intercepting team of the BH Army, and if you did see it, could you
5 describe it?
6 A. I saw some of the UHER machines. I saw some of the -- whether
7 they were receivers or transmitters I couldn't tell you, and some of the
9 Q. Thank you. Since you have seen some of the antennae and some
10 witnesses here said they had made improvised antennas using sticks and
11 rope and wash basins, were you able to see if they were factory-produced
12 antennae or makeshift ones?
13 A. I am no expert on antennas. Some of them looked like they were
14 store-bought antennas. Some of them looked like they were made out of
15 stop signs.
16 Q. Thank you. If that's how they looked, some store bought, others
17 made of stop signs, was it possible with equipment of that sort to
18 monitor radio communications at the time of Srebrenica and Zepa events
19 with any success?
20 A. Again, I'm not an expert in this field. That's why Jack Hunter
21 was asked to come and make the analysis. In talking with the radio
22 operators, they explained not only that they made antennas but that they
23 were able to make other pieces of equipment in order to make it all work.
24 Q. Could you please tell us, do you have any report made by
25 Mr. Jack Hunter, whom we referred to several times today about radio
1 communication systems, audio recordings, et cetera?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. Thank you. We are really running out of time now, so I won't be
4 showing P287. I'll just tell you what it is. It's an aerial photograph
5 of the playing field in Kasaba. You said it was a play field, not a
6 football stadium. You remember that?
7 A. I said it was a playground or a football field, a soccer field,
9 Q. Thank you. When you were explaining that on page 5027, lines 6
10 through 13, you said, and I'll quote to remind you:
11 "We used photographs, aerial photographs, that correspond to
12 events that were discussed in intercepted communications."
13 And you were later shown one photograph, and when you saw it you
15 "Q. Did you consider in thinking about reliability and
16 authenticity these two photographs? In other words, when determining
17 reliability and authenticity, did you consider these two photographs?"
18 You said:
20 "Q. Did you consider this particular aerial photograph in
21 relation to these two intercepts?"
22 And you answered:
23 "The date and the time and the fact that the analyst provided
24 information about this picture indicate that the triangle or rectangle on
25 this photograph represents people."
1 Did I quote you correctly?
2 A. Yes. Close enough.
3 Q. Thank you. You can look up the transcript later. I did not add
5 Could you answer this question: The photograph such as the one
6 showing the playground, which is an aerial satellite image, can it be a
7 factor in deciding about the authenticity of an intercept, and can it be
8 used as a basis in determining that an intercept made by the BH Army or
9 the US Army or any other agency was made by that particular agency?
10 A. Yes. We used aerial imagery in order to authenticate some of the
12 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber how it is that one can establish
13 who made an intercept based on -- on such a photograph?
14 A. No. It's not possible to determine who made the intercept based
15 on the photograph. It's simply possible to compare the substance of the
16 intercept with the aerial image. After "determine" there should be the
17 word "who."
18 Q. Why would photographs be used to do this when it was general
19 knowledge and there were witnesses, participants of these events who were
20 able to provide testimony?
21 A. We wanted to use information that would be considered independent
22 and that did not come from Bosnian witnesses so that there wouldn't be a
23 question about, well, you're using a Bosnian witness to corroborate a
24 Bosnian intercept. Therefore, we tried to use and we did use information
25 that was independent and outside of the purview of the Bosnian
1 authorities. Therefore, we used VRS documents, VRS -- or telephone books
2 from Republika Srpska, aerial imagery from the United States, and other
3 sorts of documents.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you know that at the time of the events in
5 Srebrenica that you investigated there were drones up in the air and they
6 do electronic surveillance and monitor radio and other communications?
7 Are you aware of that?
8 A. I was not aware of it at the time, but in the intercepted
9 communication it seemed that the VRS was aware of this.
10 Q. Thank you. Is it the case that analysts and experts knew that,
11 and were they able to direct you to the reports made by these drones that
12 are more reliable than any photograph could possibly be, and did you use
13 such reports?
14 A. I don't know what you mean by reports from drones.
15 Q. Thank you. Let me read to you and let's show on the screen P128,
16 a document tendered by the Prosecution. It's probably a document you
17 read before, because you testified about similar documents.
18 It says in paragraph 1:
19 "There is a drone in the airspace conducting observation and
20 jamming of radio communications. It has been here since 0500 hours and
21 has probably recorded certain features and movements. The following
22 measures therefore need to be taken," et cetera, et cetera.
23 This is just the first paragraph of a document that I wrote on
24 the 14th of July, 1995, and I signed it as Assistant Commander for
25 Intelligence, Major-General Zdravko Tolimir.
1 Now, looking at this and since you've spoken about the contents
2 of similar documents in your evidence-in-chief, can you tell us whether
3 you are familiar with this particular document?
4 A. No, I'm not. It's the first time that I see it.
5 Q. Look at item 3, please, item 3 of this warning I issued to units.
6 It says:
7 "In addition to wire communications, establish also all radio
9 Do you see that the document says that wire communications should
10 be used because there was an unmanned aircraft in the air? Were you or
11 experts like Mr. Hunter aware that unmanned aircraft were recording the
12 communications between various participants?
13 A. I was not aware of this.
14 Q. Thank you. In your evidence you mentioned an analyst who
15 provided the necessary information about this photograph. Can you tell
16 us who he is?
17 A. I don't know his name.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown P214,
20 please. And it should not be broadcast. Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told that this document is not
23 confidential, so that we don't see the reason for that.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. In that
25 case I will read what it says.
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. This is a letter sent by the US
3 Senior Trial Attorney.
4 Paragraph 3 on page 1 in English, and it's page 2 in Serbian. We
5 will see page 2 in Serbian in a few moments but you can start reading
6 already. Look at the second page -- second sentence here. It says:
7 "The United States made clear, however, that the OTP was not
8 authorised to discuss in courtroom proceedings any information relating
9 to the technical or analytical sources, methods, or capabilities of the
10 systems, organisations or personnel used to collect, analyse, or produce
11 these imagery-derived products."
12 So this is evidence that falls under Rule 70.
13 Were you aware of these restrictions when you were --
14 restrictions on the use of material such as aerial photographs and other
15 material provided by the US
16 A. I knew that there were sensitivities around information that was
17 provided by the US
18 imagery in the authentication material had it not been approved.
19 Q. Thank you. I quoted from the document, and now I'm asking you
20 this: Were you forbidden as a representative of the Office of the
21 Prosecutor to share information about the authenticity or reliability of,
22 for example, the photo that you saw, which I didn't show, and the
23 information that it contains anywhere outside of this courtroom or the
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wondered if
2 Mr. Tolimir could be a little bit more specific as to the time-frame that
3 he's talking about, because obviously if the restrictions were in place,
4 then they applied as opposed to other periods of time. So if he can be
5 more specific, I think we can get a more informative answer.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, is it possible to be a little bit
7 more specific?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can be more specific,
9 Your Honour. In the previous question, I said, "While you were an
10 employee of the Tribunal." You can check the record if you wish. But
11 let me rephrase.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Was this observed by you while you were an employee of the
15 A. Was the restriction observed by me while I was an employee of the
16 Tribunal? Is that the question?
17 Q. Thank you. The question was whether you were forbidden as a
18 representative of the office of the Tribunal to share information about
19 the material that you obtained from the government of the United States
20 of America
21 A. The only time that I recall sharing, to use your word,
22 information of this nature was in the Krstic trial, and I had
23 authorisation from the Office of the Prosecutor to use, I think, one or
24 two images. My -- my further memory is that Jean-Rene Ruez had
25 authorisation to use aerial imagery in his testimony in that trial and in
1 subsequent trials.
2 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Since you used the images in the Krstic
3 case, as you have just told us, did anybody explain to you the electronic
4 dots and black shadows on the electronic imagery? Did anybody explain to
5 you as to how to decipher the photos, how to -- how to read them?
6 A. This was explained to Jean-Rene Ruez, who then explained it to
8 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us now, when it comes to the checking of
9 reliability and authenticity of intercepts, what would be more reliable
10 and relevant, an aerial image or a satellite image of the same area?
11 A. I was always told to refer to these as aerial images. I don't
12 know the difference between the two.
13 Q. Thank you. Were you forbidden to say in court, in keeping with
14 the information of the government of the USA that I read from, to use the
15 electronic imagery of a pilotless aircraft or not? Maybe you can't
16 answer in open session. We can move into private session if you want to
17 answer my question in private session.
18 A. I don't know the answer, so it doesn't -- we can stay in open
20 Q. In view of your answer, I'm going to have a different question
21 for you now. How did you select from the material in -- for
22 authentication? Was that a random sample or did you consider some of the
23 intercepts particularly significant, which is why you tried to check and
24 control those particular ones by contrasting them with other materials,
25 and did you ever cross-check any of the intercepts with the imagery
1 obtained from a pilotless aircraft?
2 A. I can't answer the last part of your question because I don't
3 know the answer.
4 With respect to how intercepts were selected for independent
5 authentication, I can explain a little bit the process. After having
6 gone through the material for quite some time and being familiar with
7 different information from the investigation, like notes from
8 UN officials or aerial imagery or captured VRS documents, when I or
9 members of the team would see something that corroborated an intercept we
10 would simply file it, not knowing, not having a real plan for what we
11 would eventually do with it but as a matter of interest and importance
12 for us to gain confidence in the authenticity and the reliability of that
13 body of work. So it was a selection that was ultimately made, and what I
14 aimed to do was to get as broad a selection as possible using a variety
15 of independent sources.
16 Q. Thank you. On page 5028, lines from 4 to -- through 6, you said:
17 "It would be impossible to carry out an independent
18 authentication of every intercepted conversation."
19 My question is this: Why is it not possible to test the
20 authenticity of each of the intercepts that are of some significance for
21 this trial in view of the Prosecutor?
22 A. It isn't. It's possible to corroborate, I think, many of them at
23 this point given the number of captured documents that we have, the
24 number of notes from UN officials, the aerial imagery, and if we wanted
25 to include witness statements, also witness statements. I think we -- we
1 could corroborate a lot of them, but -- yeah. I mean, I -- I can look at
2 one here that -- that says, you know, a Russian from Crimea came here.
3 He has men who would come here in order to gain combat experience. To my
4 knowledge, right now we don't have anything that corroborates that
5 particular intercept. If we had additional documentation from the VRS,
6 it's quite possible that we could corroborate the same way that we were
7 able to corroborate the conversation from the 20th of April, 1995
8 the two Polish volunteers.
9 Q. Thank you. Since we have mentioned the issue of volunteers, the
10 document that was sent to Popovic and Nikolic, as you said, was it
11 actually sent to the personnel officials who were in charge of the
12 replenishment of the units?
13 A. I think Jovicic was the personnel person in the Zvornik Brigade
14 and then that he was dispatching Polish volunteers further to
15 Zvornik Brigade, to the security branch.
16 Q. Thank you. You have just spontaneously told us the name of the
17 person, and my next question is this: The intercepts, all of them, or at
18 least some of them were first made public in the press and the media and
19 only then were they handed over to the Office of the Prosecutor of this
21 A. Is there a question?
22 Q. Thank you. Do you know -- do you know that some of the
23 intercepted conversations were first published in the media, in the
24 press, and only then handed over to the Tribunal? You can see and you
25 can tell that looking at the dates showing when they were handed over to
2 A. I think we would have -- I would have to see the articles that
3 you're referring to. It is true that there were intercepts that were
4 published in the media, but I don't recall that they were published
5 before we had access to them. I could be wrong, but we'd have to take a
7 Q. Thank you. It would take us too far, and I don't have that much
8 time left. I have only a couple of questions for you. Bearing in mind
9 what you've just told us, my next question is this, and especially in
10 view of the fact that you said the intercepted communications were
11 intercepted in realtime, if that indeed had been the case, if they had
12 been intercepted in realtime, wouldn't it have been logical and obvious
13 to disclose their contents to -- contents to the Security Council,
14 international monitors, and the Tribunal and not to hide them for three
15 or four years perhaps before you got hold of them?
16 A. I think the Bosnian authorities would probably be better placed
17 to answer that question.
18 Q. Thank you. But what about you? What about your opinion?
19 Wouldn't it have been better that even before the Dayton Accords or any
20 other resolutions on Bosnia
21 information had been publicly disclosed and that the internationally --
22 international community and local community had been aware of that
23 information? What do you think? What's your opinion? Thank you.
24 A. Well, I've given my view before, which is that the war was going
25 on at the time, and it made sense for them not to disclose the
1 information to us. I -- I remember one intercept operator saying that at
2 some point during the war they had disclosed a particular intercept, and
3 after that -- and it was one that he had intercepted, and after that he
4 remembers feeling somewhat regretful over the fact that the intercept was
5 made public, because then it let the VRS know that they had the
6 capabilities to intercept the conversations.
7 As for disclosing this kind of information to international
8 organisations, to the UN and others, I don't know. I mean, you know
9 better than I do, I think, that there were drones, I've learned today,
10 and other means and methods that governments had to know what was going
12 Q. Thank you. The Trial Chamber will be the judge of who suffers
13 more, an individual or a state. I have two more questions for you. You
14 have spoken about notebooks, and my question is this: Did you ever have
15 those notebooks in your hands? Did you help BiH Army members to get
16 ahold of those notebooks? Thank you.
17 A. No, I did not. I was not present during the mission when members
18 of the Office of the Prosecutor were with members of the Army of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina and when the notebooks were found. And I've always
20 only had professional contacts with the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
21 with the SDB.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What about the first part of the question: "Did
24 you ever have those notebooks in your hands"?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I worked with the notebooks very much once
1 they came into the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor, but I was
2 also always very protective of those notebooks. We photocopied them, we
3 worked off of photocopies of them, and treated those notebooks like
4 precious objects.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Thank you. While you were employed by the Tribunal did you ever
8 enroll in master's studies in Italy
9 ever send any notebooks to Bosnia
10 A. No, I never enrolled in master's studies in Italy, and I did not
11 send any notebooks from Italy
12 confusing a trip that some investigators and I took to Italy to have
13 ligatures examined by the police in Rome, but to my memory, it had
14 nothing to do with notebooks. I do, however, speak Italian.
15 Q. Thank you. I didn't say "master's studies," but "master's
16 studies" [as interpreted]. Maybe this has been misinterpreted or
17 mis-recorded. However, you answered my question.
18 We had witnesses here who were intercept operators, and they told
19 us that they handed over handwritten notes to the representatives of the
20 Tribunal. Do you know if anybody carried out an expert analysis of those
21 handwritten notes? Was it ever done? Who did it?
22 A. I don't know which handwritten notes you're referring to.
23 Q. The operators who recorded conversations in the notebooks, did
24 any graphologists analyse their handwriting? Are you privy to the
25 results of such a graphologic analysis if any was done?
1 A. Okay. I understand the question now. I believe it was sometime
2 in the spring of 1999 when we were getting ready to begin interviews with
3 the intercept operators that we developed just small one-page forms that
4 would allow the -- allow us to take writing samples from the various
5 intercept operators. And that was done so that we could easily, more
6 easily, identify the operators who had written the conversations that we
7 considered at the time to be most important.
8 Q. Thank you. And what about the graphology testing of the
9 handwritten notes that were handed over to you by the operators? Was it
10 ever done?
11 A. I don't believe it was ever done by the Office of the Prosecutor,
13 Q. Thank you. On page 70 of the transcript of 10 September this
14 year in this case, that is lines 8 through 9, you said:
15 "When I first started working with the material --"
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is my last question,
17 Mr. President.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. "When I first started working with the material, I had a lot of
20 concern with regard to the reliability and authenticity of the material."
21 My question: Based on what you stated, did you speak about the
22 way you analysed the material, and can you please share your concerns
23 with us with regard to the authenticity of the material and also the
24 concerns you had with regard to the material's reliability? So what were
25 your concerns with regard to the authenticity, on the one hand, and the
1 reliability of the material on the other hand?
2 A. I think my concerns and the concerns of the team are the same
3 concerns that you have, that the Judges have, and that anybody else would
4 have that was working with material that was purported to be radio
5 intercepts captured at the time of significant events. Within the team,
6 sometimes we would say - and I'm being perfectly candid - what if this is
7 all made up? What if people were sitting in a basement writing this
8 stuff out?
9 We took this very seriously. We dug very deeply into it. We
10 left, in my view, absolutely no stone unturned in validating the
12 Q. With regard to the concerns that you've just mentioned, do you
13 have a list of some other concerns you had with regard to the
14 authenticity and reliability? And thank you for your answers. Thank you
15 for your fair testimony. I wish you a pleasant stay, and this brings my
16 examination to an end. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There was one last question, and for fairness
18 reasons you should answer this question. Do you have a list of some
19 other concerns you had with regard to the authenticity and reliability?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't have a list.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 Mr. Vanderpuye, we are running out of time, but you must have the
23 chance for re-examination.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. I don't think -- I do have
25 a brief re-examination in mind, and I don't think I can complete it in
1 the time that we have and I see that we're over. I also wanted to
2 mention this just in case Mr. Tolimir hasn't completed his
3 cross-examination, which I see that he has, but if he hasn't, I would ask
4 to be allowed to re-examine tomorrow. It shouldn't take more than 10 or
5 15 minutes, but I think it's more time than we can spare now.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this is the best way. We are running out
7 of time. The courtroom will be used by another Chamber, so that we have
8 to adjourn now and sorry for that. You have to return to this trial
9 tomorrow. We are sitting in the morning, if I'm not mistaken, at 9.00,
10 and we will adjourn now. Thank you.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day
13 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.