Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5228

 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

Page 5229

 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

Page 5230

 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

15     it.

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

Page 5231

 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, Jean-Rene Ruez took possession of a binder of

 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.

Page 5232

 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

Page 5233

 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

10     properly.

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

Page 5234

 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

23     through.

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

Page 5235

 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?

Page 5236

 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

11     you.

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, Izetbegovic, or

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?

Page 5237

 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

13     Herzegovina.

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

23     notations.

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

Page 5238

 1     also, has the Office of the Prosecutor disclosed such documents to the

 2     Defence?

 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.

Page 5239

 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

22     operation.

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

Page 5240

 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

25     you.

Page 5241

 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

Page 5242

 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

Page 5243

 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 be

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.

Page 5244

 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 to

 7     Split.  That information was conveyed in realtime, and the body, in fact,

 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

Page 5245

 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

 5     first.

 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

Page 5246

 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 --

Page 5247

 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

Page 5248

 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

 9     quotation.

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

Page 5249

 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

 4     unattainable."

 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

Page 5250

 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

Page 5251

 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

19     recorded?

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

Page 5252

 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

Page 5253

 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

Page 5254

 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,

12     burned?

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

23     view?

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

Page 5255

 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

Page 5256

 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

13     rest.

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

17     says:

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.

Page 5257

 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.

Page 5258

 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:

Page 5259

 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

15     repeat:

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.

Page 5260

 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

21     you.

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

Page 5261

 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 agency, US government agency.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

24             Mr. Tolimir.

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

Page 5262

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Thank you, Witness, for her answer and corrections made to the

 3     document.

 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 military, and I do not know which --

10     whether it falls under its own department or whether it falls under a

11     different department within the US government.

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, and during his contacts with army representatives, did

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

20     US Army, and there is also W-ABH.  What does that stand for?

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?

Page 5263

 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

Page 5264

 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

Page 5265

 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

Page 5266

 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

24     guess.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 5267

 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

Page 5268

 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

12     tapes.

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

16     1995.

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

Page 5269

 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

 8     remember.

 9             Mr. Hunter took those tapes to his -- to the ATF laboratory in

10     Washington to be able to enhance some of the original recordings so that

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?

Page 5270

 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

12     know.

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 government to provide an expert that could

19     help us out with it.

20        Q.   Thank you.  So it's the US government who decided who this expert

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

Page 5271

 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 such as German, Swiss, and others which

 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

21     Tolimir.

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

Page 5272

 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 any experts that could have done what was

13     done eventually in Washington, and was it necessary to take the tapes to

14     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?

Page 5273

 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.  There was another one that was

 7     dated 24th April 1998, and a third dated 24th April 1998.  Those are some

 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

Page 5274

 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.  Let's look at the part before the signatures, the last

13     paragraph.

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

Page 5275

 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

Page 5276

 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.

Page 5277

 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

13     sure.

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 centimetres X 75 centimetres X

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

23     found.

24             My question is this:  What is the difference between audiotapes

25     and audio magnetic reels, and do both items refer to intercepted

Page 5278

 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."

Page 5279

 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.

Page 5280

 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

 7     recordings.

 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

19     you.

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

Page 5281

 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.

Page 5282

 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

 8     transcript:

 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

19     diskette.

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

Page 5283

 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

18     unaccessible?

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.

Page 5284

 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

17     exhibits.

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

Page 5285

 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

 8     antennas.

 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

Page 5286

 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,

 8     yes.

 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

14     said:

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:

19             "Yes."

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."

Page 5287

 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

 4     anything.

 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

11     intercepts.

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

Page 5288

 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.

Page 5289

 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

 8     communications."

 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.

Page 5290

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   This is a letter sent by the US embassy to Mr. McCloskey, the

 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 government?

16        A.   I knew that there were sensitivities around information that was

17     provided by the US government.  However, I would not have used the aerial

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

24     Tribunal?

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 5291

 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

14     Tribunal?

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 in the spirit of the material that I have just quoted from.

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

Page 5292

 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

 7     me.

 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

19     session.

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

Page 5293

 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

Page 5294

 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, about

 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

20     Tribunal.

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

Page 5295

 1     you.

 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

 6     look.

 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 that was passed after the war that this

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

Page 5296

 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

11     on.

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

Page 5297

 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, and while you were in Italy, did you

 9     ever send any notebooks to Bosnia?  Thank you.

10        A.   No, I never enrolled in master's studies in Italy, and I did not

11     send any notebooks from Italy to Bosnia.  I don't know whether you're

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?

Page 5298

 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,

12     no.

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

Page 5299

 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

11     material.

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

Page 5300

 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.