1 Wednesday, 6 December 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Madam Registrar, could you call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am, and good afternoon to you.

11 Is everyone here? Except Ms. Nikolic. Prosecution, Mr. Nicholls

12 and Mr. McCloskey. No preliminaries, I take it. All right.

13 Mr. Zivanovic, you had started your cross-examination yesterday.

14 How long do you think -- how much time do you think you require?

15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I estimate until the

16 first break.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And the rest? If you could give me a rough

18 indication.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. A half

20 hour for us approximately.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

22 Mr. Bourgon.

23 MR. BOURGON: Approximately 30 minutes, Mr. President. Thank you.

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. We

25 think it's going to be about 15 minutes.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] About 45 minutes.

2 MR. JOSSE: Five minutes maximum, Your Honour.

3 MR. SARAPA: We will not ask anything.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you repeat, please?

5 MR. SARAPA: We will not ask anything in cross.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: And where is your colleague?

7 MR. SARAPA: I beg your pardon? I didn't hear.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Where is Mr. Haynes?

9 MR. SARAPA: He's coming after the first break.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then we should be able to make it. We should

11 be able to make it. Let's make an effort. If you try to cut down on

12 yours, in particular, Mr. Popovic -- Mr. Zivanovic, we should be able to

13 make it. Tomorrow we have the other witness coming back to finish his

14 cross-examination.

15 Yes, go ahead.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-130 [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic: [Continued]

20 Q. [Interpretation] The last question I put to you yesterday had to

21 do with computers. You said you didn't know whether your computer was new

22 or old. Could you please tell me whether it worked? Did it function

23 properly, like the other equipment you used?

24 A. Yes, quite normally. We didn't really have any problems. If

25 there would be a problem, a solution would always be found to have another

1 computer brought in.

2 Q. Tell me, please, I did not quite understand yesterday your answer

3 to the Prosecutor's question in relation to entering dates into the

4 computer. Could you tell me whether that date was automatically typed

5 into the computer or did it actually have to be typed out by the operator

6 who was transcribing the text?

7 A. Well, in the morning, when a report would be made for the previous

8 day, it would be sufficient if we would report to the command in the

9 morning. That's when the date would be entered. And then perhaps a

10 correction would be made, so the operator would do it and then just copy

11 it for next -- every following file or report that was sent, perhaps. It

12 wasn't automatically done.

13 Q. So the computer did not automatically assign a date? Did the

14 computer automatically assign numbers, though?

15 A. No, not that either. It was the operator who did that.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 Can we have a look at 1D82, please?

18 This document is only in Serbian, a translation was asked for.

19 It's relatively short, so I'd like to read it out. As you can see, this

20 is SBKZ, 8th of July, 1995. It says: "During our last shift when we were

21 taking over our duty on the 5th of July, 1995, around 1700 hours, the

22 colleague in charge of working at the SBKZ conveyed to us that over the

23 past few days, call-signs were being repeated. That could easily be

24 proven because we have a paper with call-signs from the 3rd of June, 1995.

25 We were wondering what this was about so we went further on. We returned

1 the system date to the computer to the 9th of June, 1995, and carried out

2 a normal procedure of forming signs for today through ABSIF.EXE and

3 PRET.EXE and established that as for today, the 8th of July, 1995, it is

4 the date of the 9th of June, 1995 that is being applied both in terms

5 of" --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that it was read out too

7 fast. We have not finished the sight translation of the document.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: But you have in it in front of you, so you can --

9 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

10 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't know yet again what the question will be

11 but just to remind my friend some of these should perhaps not be broadcast

12 publicly. It depends on where he's going, I suppose, but we just need to

13 be careful.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I mean, from my understanding, the practice dealing

15 with these witnesses is that we don't broadcast but what I want to make

16 sure, and I think I can make sure from the transcript, is that the

17 location is not mentioned, and I don't think Mr. Zivanovic mentioned the

18 location so we can safely go ahead.

19 On the other hand, Mr. Zivanovic and everyone else for that

20 matter, you don't need to read out the entire document. I mean, usually

21 the witness is either already aware of it or he can have a look at it. It

22 will be quicker. And then you can move to your question. So I suggest

23 you move to your question straight away. Thank you.

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I read

25 this out for the Trial Chamber because I only have the document in B/C/S

1 so I thought that it was necessary to have the Prosecutor become aware of

2 it as well as the Trial Chamber. Thank you.

3 Q. My question is as follows: Are you familiar with this document?

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Most of the time the questions related to only part

5 of the document so that's -- let's move. Thank you.

6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Q. Can you just tell me, please, whether you remember this document?

8 A. I do not remember this document, and I don't think that it's a

9 document from my unit at all but, rather, the neighbouring signals unit

10 that was at the facility. I'm unaware of it. This is the first time I

11 see it.

12 Q. Tell me, VJ 5022/5, is that the symbol of your unit?

13 A. I cannot confirm that for you because throughout all that time, I

14 never looked at what the symbol or marking for my unit was.

15 Q. Thank you. Perhaps to jog your memory, could you have a look at

16 the index that the Prosecutor showed you yesterday? That would be

17 Prosecution Exhibit 13, 1357, for instance, or 1392, sorry, 1392, from the

18 Prosecutor's list.

19 THE REGISTRAR: I'm sorry, which one, 1392, A, B, C?

20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's from the 65 ter list, 1392; I

21 think it's document E.

22 THE REGISTRAR: There is no 1392 E.

23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] D.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, if I can help, I think the one -- my

25 guess is the one that my friend wants is B, and I have a copy here or it

1 can be brought up.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, if that helps us speed up things.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 MR. NICHOLLS: We have it in Sanction.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: No broadcast.

6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated]. The

7 document can also be placed on the ELMO. You can take 1392 B.

8 Q. Do you see the header, 5022/5, the same as that marking for your

9 unit?

10 A. Well, yes, I see that, possibly. Well, I've read it again. This

11 happened during a changeover between two shifts, when one squad was

12 replacing the other. So this was a mistake, and obviously it was the

13 preceding squad, the preceding shift, that had caused this mistake. The

14 operators who were working on the computer, who knew about this much

15 better than I did. I don't recall this document, but it is possible that

16 the problem did crop up as described here.

17 Q. The document was signed by RPST. That is to say, the radio

18 intercept station.

19 A. Well, yes, it can be put that way.

20 Q. Was this customary, to carry out such interventions on the

21 computer, to return dates, say, a month or so?

22 A. I think that was the only time, because I certainly would have

23 known had it ever happened again. I don't even remember this, so I cannot

24 be more specific.

25 Q. In the last part of this document, or not this document but the

1 previous document, which I did not read out in order to save time, it says

2 that the chief of security should be informed about this because it

3 jeopardises the functioning of the unit. I assume that you bore that in

4 mind when this was written, that you were made aware of this?

5 A. Well, that was a recommendation for the people down there, our

6 leadership in the corps, to take some measures. What they did about this,

7 I don't know. I really cannot remember that situation now after all that

8 time.

9 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at 1D83 now.

10 This is yet another report about the state of the technical

11 equipment. As you can see again, it was sent by the radio intercept

12 (redacted), this time on the 13th of July, 1995. In the first

13 paragraph, it says that the computer disk is barely kept alive, and that

14 yesterday, so that is to say on the 12th of July, you had to refresh it

15 several times with some programmes. Then there is a description further

16 on about the interference that is manifested and how it is manifested and

17 towards the end of this paragraph it says that it would be far more

18 convenient to do this -- or, rather, to resort to some system files if

19 disk programme A would be functioning properly on the computer.

20 A. All right.

21 Q. Are you aware of this report?

22 A. Specifically, this report, well, I can't remember it. I can't

23 remember this one either. But from time to time, which is only natural,

24 we had this kind of thing with computers, especially these older type

25 computers, so it would happen that the disk would become oversaturated or

1 whatever and the system had to be refreshed, renewed so that it would stay

2 alive. But at any rate, this did not prevent us from working and from

3 receiving our assignments normally, and, of course, certain shortcomings

4 and problems would be redressed along the way.

5 Sorry, let me just finish. It never says here that we could not

6 go on working. It just says that our work was made more difficult, but it

7 does not say anywhere that we could not work.

8 Q. But it doesn't say how you worked, and that's what we are

9 interested in, because we would like to come to a conclusion. That's why

10 I'm putting these questions to you.

11 A. Yes, yes, fine.

12 Q. Thank you. All right. So this deficiency was redressed.

13 Could you please look at the second paragraph of this same report.

14 In it, it says that one disk was damaged on one of the UHERs and therefore

15 it could not be used at all, that you need regular supplies with reserve

16 parts, spare parts, new tapes, there is no alcohol so you cannot clean the

17 heads properly. And then the following sentence says: "That is certainly

18 a reason why we have some recordings of conversations that can barely be

19 understood or cannot be understood at all, while being listened to."

20 A. I remember problems of that kind coming up from time to time.

21 However, it only worked to our detriment. If a conversation would not be

22 understandable, then it could not be recorded or transcribed. That is to

23 say, that we asked for this in order to work in the best possible way, to

24 have the least number of problems possible, and you could see from our

25 recordings that if we could not understand something, if something was

1 unintelligible, we would state it, or that was unaudible.

2 Q. Well, we saw what was written down, we didn't manage to hear the

3 tapes, but, all right, this is not the subject of our conversation.

4 At any rate, you resolved the computer problem, right?

5 A. Well, of course we resolved it, and it's not just this one

6 computer that was working at the facility. If there would be any major

7 damage or breakdown, then a new computer would be brought in, if

8 necessary, things like that.

9 Q. Did you replace this computer?

10 A. Probably or a new disk was brought in or something else, but at

11 any rate the problem was resolved.

12 Q. Thank you. Could you please have a look at Defence Exhibit 1D86?

13 That is a report from the 28th of July, 1995. It says it seems that what

14 was expected to happen finally happened here with our disk at such and

15 such a place. The computer cannot open from the disk itself but only from

16 system diskettes. The only message we get is no room for system on

17 destination disk and so on. Do you remember whether that happened with

18 the new computer that you got or the repaired one?

19 A. Well, probably the same one but I cannot say for sure either way.

20 I mean, now I cannot even say how many times the computer was replaced.

21 It's been a long time. So I cannot say whether it is that computer or

22 some other computer, but I assume that it's the same one with which we had

23 problems.

24 Q. At any rate, you did have a problem on that day, as we see?

25 A. Well, yes. Of course. It is normal to have problems in one's

1 work and to resolve them and to go on.

2 Could we please just have a look to this to the very end so maybe

3 we'll find things clearer that way?

4 Yes, you see in continuation the text says that it was possible to

5 work but with great difficulty, which means that there was no interruption

6 in the work, and then there are further instructions as to how the problem

7 should be resolved.

8 Q. To be more precise, the sentence is as follows: If this is done

9 properly, then for a certain period of time, we will have a faulty but a

10 provisional solution, but I fear that something worse could happen.

11 A. Yes, but nothing specific is stated to the effect that it was not

12 possible to work.

13 Q. I have noticed that this report could not be sent that same day so

14 that it was repeated on the 29th of July. Do you remember that?

15 A. After so much time, no, but we see who signed this report. This

16 is a person who was in charge of the correspondence. I didn't interfere

17 with his work. He knew what he had to do and how he should act, and he

18 was far more expert than me in the area so that I never interfered with

19 his work, and I knew that he would always do what was best.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

21 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I just ask, because I can't read the

22 document, is that -- is there a separate document which shows that or is

23 it contained somewhere in here? This is a disadvantage I have.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you can glean it from this document

25 that we have on the screen now because obviously Mr. Zivanovic is

1 referring to the day after, which is the 29th of July, so he must be

2 referring to another separate different document.

3 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I just have some reference for that document.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, by all means. I was going to ask that

5 myself.

6 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have it printed

8 out here. Thinking that it was one and the same document, I made an error

9 and didn't propose it for Sanction, but it can be put on the ELMO and then

10 we can compare this document with the one on the monitor because we'll see

11 that the only difference is the header, the registration number, and the

12 date. I can of course offer this to be placed under the ELMO and then the

13 witness will see that the text is absolutely identical.

14 MR. NICHOLLS: My friend doesn't necessarily need to do that. I

15 would just like to see it. I want to get a copy of it.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Or he can give us the ERN number and that should be

17 enough.

18 If you give us the ERN number, I think that should be enough,

19 Mr. Zivanovic. Although today I'm beginning to doubt about the relevance

20 of this set of questions because they relate to the 28th and the 29th, in

21 relation to a particular machine, when we may be talking or should be

22 concentrating on other days and other material maybe. But it's up to you,

23 I'm not stopping you.

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let me give you the

25 number: 0320-4900. That is the ERN number.

1 Q. Let us please have a look at the Defence Exhibit 1D93. This is a

2 complaint from which it follows that three files sent on the previous day,

3 that the first of that -- those files didn't reach its destination. Is

4 that right?

5 A. Let me just read it, please. That is what it says here.

6 Q. As it is just a single sentence, allow me to read it. The

7 document is dated the 3rd of August, 1995, and it says: "By comparing the

8 OX files (protocol) I have established that you have not received our

9 first report file of yesterday," and we have the figures in brackets,

10 "according to the protocol, and which according to my records was sent in

11 our first contact at 1133, when my two other files were sent and the codes

12 are given. That is why I am sending you in attachment the same file that

13 was missing."

14 Do you remember this?

15 A. No. I did not check the work of this operator. This is what he

16 stated, and I believe him.

17 Q. Can you please see that this file is strictly confidential 02028,

18 dated the 2nd of August, 1995? That that is the file, this one that we

19 see below and that file contains a certain report; is that right? You can

20 look further down and you will see that -- what this file contained. Then

21 it is a report dated the 2nd of August; several reports, actually. I

22 think there are three of them.

23 A. Yes. More or less, that is what it appears to be.

24 Q. You can look at the next page too.

25 A. Yes. Well, I can see these two now. It's okay. Let me turn back

1 now to the previous page, please.

2 Q. Could we please turn back the monitor to the previous page?

3 A. A little lower down, further down. No. I want to see the header,

4 please. It's okay now.

5 As I can see things, I don't think that's quite right. It says

6 here that I have established that you have not received our first report,

7 and this is report number 2.

8 Q. It says here by comparing things I see that you have not received

9 that -- that the addressee, and now you're sending the same report again.

10 A. Yes, but our first report from yesterday.

11 Q. Oh, I see, the 2nd of August.

12 A. Just a moment, please. This is not the first. This is the

13 second. I don't know what the first file contained. This is the second

14 file. Strictly confidential number 02. It is number 2, not number 1.

15 It's not the first file. And then comes the third and the fourth. So

16 what is missing is the first file, and it says here the first file.

17 Q. My understanding is that this was your first file?

18 A. Yes, but this is not the first file. It is the second one you're

19 showing me. I'd like you to show me the first one so we can compare

20 things, so we can see what the first file contained, because we have here

21 the second, third and fourth file.

22 Q. You see these files are coded, so I don't have the coded files,

23 nor do I have the codes of those files. All I see is that you wrote that

24 your first reporting file for that day did not reach the addressee.

25 A. Yes. There are -- there is a doubt. It doesn't say that it

1 wasn't received. There is a doubt as to whether it was received. So I

2 don't know whether it is being repeated. I can't conclude from this that

3 it is the first file because the first is missing here. We have the

4 second, third and fourth file. I think we need to ask the operator about

5 this because I can't be absolutely certain about these things.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to switch on to something else.

7 Mr. Nicholls, yes.

8 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, two points. One, my friend said "you

9 wrote." I want to be clear that's nowhere in the record this was written

10 by the witness, he talked about operator, the operator sending this. And

11 second, I don't know if we can be told when we might get translations of

12 these because it's very difficult. We are in a bad position trying to

13 follow this in B/C/S. I appreciate it's not always easy to put together

14 your list in advance, but especially with this witness, there were weeks

15 and weeks of notice. The Paket was delivered sometime ago of the relevant

16 intercepts and I don't think there were any surprises whatsoever in my

17 testimony, so if these could come sooner it would be helpful.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure Mr. Zivanovic is working on that.

19 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Let me tell you, we did

21 indeed receive a certain number of documents, but the documents that I'm

22 asking questions about now, referring to the period we are interested in,

23 July and August 1995, and the period covered by the indictment against my

24 client, we have managed to find some but we haven't received them from the

25 Prosecution. According to our understanding, these should be documents

1 under Rule 68. Regarding the functioning of the equipment for that

2 particular period, we feel it's rather important for properly judging the

3 relevance and authenticity of all this.

4 I was unable to provide the translations of these documents

5 because they are outside the Srebrenica collection, they are not part of

6 the Srebrenica collection, and that is the reason why we are unable to

7 hand it in for translation earlier. It is now in the process of being

8 translated. And we are in the hands of the translation service now.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Does that satisfy you, Mr. Nicholls? Forget

10 about the Rule 68 applicability or otherwise, I do not want anyone to get

11 engaged in that discussion at this moment.

12 I suggest we have heard enough on this, Mr. Zivanovic, and you can

13 move to your next question, or next topic you would like to put to the

14 witness.

15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like, Your Honour, to ask

16 the witness to explain to us the meaning of these incomprehensible words

17 which are the same as the code of the file which could not be provided.

18 I'm --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: If he knows, you can ask him yourself.

20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If he knows, if he knows.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: You can ask the question. Why should we ask the

22 question? You ask him the question directly. Please refer him to the

23 particular parts from the text, the --

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Q. Can you please see that under the dotted line, there are the

1 letters TBTD 28 NB and this is identical with the letters for the file

2 which, according to this report, did not reach the unit it was addressed

3 to.

4 A. As far as the symbols are concerned, I never knew what symbols the

5 operator used. You should really ask him.

6 Q. I didn't ask you about the symbol itself. I'm just asking whether

7 it is identical to the one in the text.

8 A. Yes. Yes. So it could be that, but I didn't do it so I can't

9 claim anything with certainty.

10 Q. Tell me, what is the significance of the text below? Is it the

11 content of what has been packed into this coded message?

12 A. From all of this, it could be that but I can't say that that is

13 what it actually is. It could be the complete report.

14 Q. These reports were sent in a certain sequence. You send those

15 reports daily, if I understood you correctly?

16 A. Yes, naturally. Sometimes a day would go by when, except for the

17 regular report, there were no other reports because there were no

18 appropriate informations. It doesn't mean to say that we sent reports

19 every single day.

20 Q. So tell me, after this OT should be followed by 03, right?

21 A. Well, there has to be a proper order, yes.

22 Q. Can you explain to me, if that's the way it is, how was that

23 report sent at 1133?

24 A. Well, that means that by 1133 there was nothing to be sent, and

25 it's only natural that it was sent when information was collected and

1 processed and then it was sent on. We didn't have a particular time when

2 we were supposed to send certain reports. This one was sent at 1133.

3 Q. Which one, 03?

4 A. Well --

5 Q. Well, there are different reports that were sent, 02, 03. 04 was

6 probably the next one; is that right?

7 A. This was the first contact. Yes. Sent yesterday at 1133,

8 according to the records established by the operator.

9 Q. So three files were sent?

10 A. Well, when my -- well, yes.

11 Q. Now, if the first file was 02, the next one was 03, and then the

12 one after that 04, right?

13 A. Well, that would only be natural, I assume.

14 Q. Now, tell me, file 03, is a report about a recorded conversation

15 carried out at 1240 and at 1300 hours. How come it was sent at 1133?

16 Explain that to me.

17 A. Well, would you really have to ask the operator. I didn't send

18 that. I mean, as for these finer points, I really don't know. I cannot

19 understand.

20 Q. In other words, it is possible to send a conversation before it

21 had been recorded?

22 A. Well, I don't know about that but, I mean, as for clarifying this

23 matter, it can only be done by the operator. I mean, now I cannot really

24 go into this, well, perhaps if I had a bit more time, if I'd have a better

25 look and if I gave it some thought, then I could draw a conclusion

1 perhaps, but it's not for me to -- well, it's not my job.

2 Q. All right. Let's not deal with that now then.

3 A. Well, I was not doing that, so I cannot say.

4 Q. Tell me, please, we saw several notebooks here and we saw the

5 notebooks kept by your platoon. We can now have a look at 2316, for

6 instance. So that I don't describe it for you, it's a Prosecution

7 Exhibit, P2316.

8 Could we just have a look at the next page, please?

9 Another one, another one, please. Could you just get it right?

10 No, not that one, no. Could you please get the first page back, or,

11 rather, the third one? Page 3. Yes, yes, that's it.

12 Before we received an explanation that usually every notebook or,

13 rather, practically all notebooks were marked strictly confidential. Do

14 you recall that?

15 A. Well, my officers down there at the corps command put the numbers

16 there, wrote this. We didn't. We just get a notebook with that written

17 in, the number and --

18 Q. Thank you, thank you. This shows that this is an official

19 notebook.

20 A. That's the way it should be.

21 Q. As for this date, the 14th of June, that was the date when it was

22 registered in the command; is that right?

23 A. Probably.

24 Q. Did you perhaps write this date, the 14th of June?

25 A. No, no. That was written down at the command. They put the

1 number too. We just get the notebooks this way, verified this way,

2 numbered this way. We didn't do that.

3 Q. Further on, we were informed that the notebook would be filled out

4 on that day or, say, not exactly from that day when it was registered in

5 the command but some date after that when they would bring it to your

6 platoon; is that right?

7 A. Well, it's only logical that it couldn't be done before.

8 Q. Tell me, please, were tapes marked the same way?

9 A. I don't think so. I don't think the tapes were marked at all, but

10 I cannot say anything for sure.

11 Q. I'll try to jog your memory. Could the witness please be shown

12 2315? Prosecution Exhibit 2315. The page is 7967. That's the ERN

13 number. 7915. And what we have on the screen is 16. 7967.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

15 MR. NICHOLLS: Nothing, Your Honour.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Can you see the number that's up here after the frequency, 791,

18 and then three zeros? Is that the number of the tape?

19 A. I think that it's more probable that it can be the number of some

20 notebook, but I cannot say that either one is absolutely correct.

21 Q. Can we have a look at page 70, please? 7970, that is. What does

22 it say here? Is that the number of the tape, tape 08/2-01-140?

23 A. Yes. That's what's written here, tape, yes, well, possibly. I

24 mean, a few moments ago I didn't say that it was or that it wasn't, but

25 now we see it's the tape.

1 Q. Please have a look at the next page.

2 I'm sorry, it seems that it's not that one. Could you just lower

3 it a bit? The next page, please? Here, 72, I'm sorry, does it say tape

4 08/2 again?

5 A. Yes. That's what it says, tape 08/2.

6 Q. Now I can show you five other pages where it invariably says that

7 it's such and such a tape with that number, but if you don't --

8 A. It's not necessary.

9 Q. I don't really want to waste time. I did not notice that the

10 tapes were marked, as far as the intercepts were concerned, of

11 conversations between General Krstic and Popovic.

12 A. Could you please put that question again?

13 Q. I was saying that I did not notice that in that conversation that

14 you transcribed, that you marked the tape number concerning the

15 conversation between Krstic and Popovic. If you need to have a look at it

16 again, that's no problem.

17 A. No. It's not necessary. As far as I managed to see, right now,

18 in a hurry, I know that usually we didn't write down the tape numbers.

19 And as far as I could see, in this hurry, I think it's the same operator,

20 it looks like the same handwriting, who, for reasons unknown to me, wrote

21 the tape number too. But if you look at a series of other transcripts,

22 you will not find the tape number anywhere.

23 It is possible that this one particular operator -- well, I'm

24 doing all of this in a hurry. As far as I managed to notice, it was this

25 one particular operator who did that, but on many others you're not going

1 to find the tape number.

2 Q. You're right on that. I just have a different question, though.

3 You say that the tapes were not marked. However, this shows that the

4 tapes did have numbers. I assume that the operator did not just invent a

5 number on his own.

6 A. Well, I don't think so either, but tapes were tapes for me, and I

7 really never looked at them very carefully to see whether they had numbers

8 or not, because we brought many tapes from different companies and now

9 whether they had all been numbered, well, probably so. That seems to be

10 the case. But I simply cannot remember.

11 Q. By the way, I asked you about these notebooks and I asked you

12 about that first date in them but I forgot to ask you about many of these

13 notebooks. We saw at the end a particular date and that would usually be

14 the date when that notebook would be finished. It was not in all

15 notebooks to be quite fair, but in many notebooks, at the end, there is a

16 date when it was finished. Usually the one-but-last page. Do you

17 remember that?

18 A. I never did that, but it's possible that operators did that on

19 their own. They did not receive such orders from me, that they would

20 state when a particular notebook would be finished or completed. Had we

21 known that all of this would happen, we really would have done all of

22 these things but we had no idea. We used the notebooks only in order to

23 help us. Later on we typed this out into the computer and send it on to

24 whoever we were supposed to send this on. We did not really pay any

25 attention to these notebooks in terms of protocol, numbering, signatures

1 and so on. Had we known about that, then certainly after everyone of

2 these transcripts we would have stated the name and surname of everyone

3 who did that and perhaps we would give some other details too. I mean,

4 this is something that was just there to assist us.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness, you need to answer in a more brief and

6 concise manner because otherwise we are not going to finish with you in

7 time.

8 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

9 MR. NICHOLLS: I just want to correct the record, Your Honour, and

10 ask counsel to be a little bit careful when he's saying what the witness

11 stated. He misstated what the witness's first answer was to the question

12 of whether tapes were marked. The witness said exactly what he said

13 later, that he wasn't sure, not that they weren't. He's tried to change

14 this into some kind of direct flat out no on his part which is just sort

15 of -- that he be careful. And I think the witness is trying to explain

16 his answers. This is taking a long time, but I think it's partly the

17 nature of the questions that he feels he needs to explain.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but anyway, he has already, as regards your

19 first remark, I think he has reiterated his position.

20 The rest I'm asking the witness to be brief, as brief as possible,

21 in his answers because otherwise -- I mean, try not to give more details

22 than you are actually being asked to give because that would keep you here

23 longer than we would like to see you here.

24 So let's go ahead, Mr. Zivanovic, please.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. I think that you actually did not understand what it was that I

2 said. I did not mention that on the last pages that the operators wrote

3 dates. As far as we understood things, at least on the basis of

4 statements made by some of your other colleagues, these dates were entered

5 in the unit command when the notebooks were returned. You probably never

6 saw these notebooks once they were returned.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Well, that's an explanation then.

9 Could you please have a look at the first page now, precisely of

10 this notebook that we are dealing with now, or rather, the second page.

11 So that would be -- yes, there is it. So on page 1, the date is the 14th

12 of April, 1995. Could we now look at the one-but-last page? Thank you.

13 Do you see that the date indicated is the 17th of June, 1995?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you explain how is it that we see such dates in this notebook,

16 dates following the 17th of June, 1996?

17 A. I really don't know.

18 Q. Yesterday the Prosecutor read out to you a summary of what you had

19 discussed with him. Among other things, it is stated there that you had

20 heard the audiotapes. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes. A tape recorder was brought in and I listened to the tape.

22 Q. You did this in the Prosecutor's office prior to your testimony?

23 A. Well, 10 days before, then yes.

24 Q. And you heard the identical sounds that we heard in the courtroom

25 here yesterday?

1 A. Yes. I heard the conversation that I heard on a certain date in

2 1995.

3 Q. Thank you. You said, among other things, that this conversation

4 left a very strong impression on you so that you will remember it to the

5 end of your days; is that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Could you tell me what it is that left such an impression on you?

8 A. In those days, when that conversation was recorded, it was already

9 known what was happening in and around Srebrenica, and we were all quite

10 shocked by this. And when I heard this conversation, I realised that

11 there was a hunt continuing, a hunt for men, and this demand for those men

12 to be brought back, it was known what would happen to those men if they

13 were returned, and that is why I will always remember it.

14 Q. When you say that it was known what would happen to them if they

15 were returned, can you be more specific?

16 A. Yes. I'll tell you: That they would be killed.

17 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, in those days, do you remember, you

18 certainly remember, that quite a large group, in fact all the population

19 from Zepa, had been evacuated to free Muslim territory without any loss of

20 human life; is that right?

21 A. Tell me what period you're referring to.

22 Q. The period when you heard this conversation.

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 Q. Why then were you afraid that these people would be treated in a

25 different way from the people of Zepa?

1 A. I don't know who is asking such questions. We know who crossed

2 into free territory and we also know how many people never reached free

3 territory, nor will they. And the whole world knows this, not just me.

4 Q. So nevertheless your conclusion was that these men would be

5 executed if they were returned to Republika Srpska?

6 A. Absolutely so. Otherwise, why did the general ask for them to be

7 returned? Because he loved them?

8 Q. Perhaps he wanted to exchange them with someone.

9 A. Perhaps.

10 Q. You made a statement on the 17th and 18th of November, 1999, to

11 the investigators of The Hague Tribunal. Remember that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I assume your memory was better then than it is today.

14 A. Do I need to comment? I don't know. We'll see. I don't know

15 what you're going to ask me.

16 Q. You said then that you remember a few conversations and, if

17 necessary, I can let you read this out. But in brief, this is what you

18 said: "Krstic and Popovic talked about cleansing. I think it was

19 about 9.00. And the conversation was about two days after the fall of the

20 enclave. Krstic said something to the effect that they shouldn't leave

21 anyone alive and Popovic answered something to the effect, Don't worry,

22 boss, that's what we are doing."

23 Do you remember those words that you said?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Did you take -- note down that conversation?

1 A. No. But at the time the conversation was going on, I was sitting

2 next to a colleague, and I heard the conversation, and that colleague was

3 noting it down.

4 Q. This was in 1998, is that right, or 1999?

5 A. In 1999. At the time I had already forgotten some things, and I

6 think that this conversation was not with Mr. Popovic but with

7 Mr. Obrenovic. It was Obrenovic and Krstic. And I think it is true. But

8 that is how I recalled it at the time and that is why I gave that

9 statement to the investigator lady who was there at the time.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a difference between -- it's important to

11 know whether it was -- he mentioned Popovic, as you suggested to him, or

12 he mentioned Obrenovic, as he is suggesting now. If you can refer us

13 precisely to the part from his testimony in Krstic.

14 You first suggested to him that it was -- that he had mentioned --

15 referred to a conversation between Krstic and Popovic. And now --

16 initially he sort of agreed with you, or at least he remembered the

17 occasion, and he even gave details. But he is correcting one very

18 important aspect of it and that is that it wasn't Popovic but it was

19 Obrenovic. So I think you need to refer him to the specific part of his

20 testimony. We see it as well. And everyone else. And then if it's the

21 case of proceeding with further questions, of course, please go ahead. If

22 not, we switch on to the next question.

23 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I think he's referring to the witness

25 statement, not the testimony.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: It is a statement, yeah, all right.

2 So can we show him the statement, please. Thank you.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. It is 5D156. Page 4.

4 5D156.

5 THE REGISTRAR: We don't have anything as 5D156.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have the hard copy, Mr. Zivanovic?

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's 5D146.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.

9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I said 5D.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: 146 and not 156. Which page in the B/C/S language,

11 please?

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation].

13 Q. Page 4, in both the English and B/C/S versions. Towards the

14 bottom of the page. Yes, we can see it, at the very bottom. "I also

15 remember a couple of other conversations from approximately the same

16 period."

17 A. Yes, I can give you an answer without looking. I know that that

18 is what I said, what I told the Court's investigator, because this wasn't

19 a conversation that I recorded but I heard it before the operator started

20 taking it down in the notebook. He let me and our other colleagues hear

21 it once again and when I made this statement, recalling that conversation,

22 I attributed it to Mr. Popovic. However, later, I realised, when I was

23 looking through the materials I had recorded, I know with certainty now

24 that it wasn't General Krstic and Mr. Popovic, but General Krstic with Mr.

25 Obrenovic.

1 Q. I assume you've seen that it is the paragraph marked with 1,

2 towards the bottom of the page?

3 A. Yes, yes, I see it.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. No. I don't want to interfere. It's

5 okay. Thank you.

6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Let us also examine something else that you mentioned. You

8 mention here the conversation that was discussed yesterday, and I see that

9 at the time you knew that this was happening after the fall of Zepa, as is

10 stated here in paragraph 2, same page, same document, under point 2, and

11 it begins with the words "after the fall of Zepa."

12 A. Yes, I see it.

13 Q. And then you explain that these were people who had fled to

14 Bajina Basta and so on. So at the time you knew that Zepa had fallen and

15 that you were referring to people from Zepa?

16 A. Yes. When Zepa fell, everything else around it had to fall before

17 that, because Srebrenica was the last to fall. It was logical that Zepa

18 should fall before that.

19 Q. Are you certain of that?

20 A. No, I wouldn't like to claim anything. It's just my logical

21 thinking.

22 Q. Thank you, thank you.

23 A. When what fell I don't think is -- I simply didn't follow those

24 things.

25 Q. Very well. Thank you.

1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for

2 this witness. Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.

4 Who is going next? Mr. Ostojic, who is appearing for Colonel

5 Beara will be cross-examining you next.

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

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

8 Q. Sir, good afternoon. I'm going to ask you a series of questions.

9 A. Good afternoon.

10 Q. First I would like to -- you mentioned in your direct evidence

11 today that, or yesterday, I should say, on page 12, lines 11 -- 17

12 through 20, that you were certified and you were certified in the B

13 category as an amateur ham operator; correct?

14 A. I had C, B and A.

15 Q. The highest classification for a ham operator is the A category;

16 correct?

17 A. Yes, yes.

18 Q. Is there a distinction between a B classification and an A

19 classification?

20 A. There is.

21 Q. Is it significant or can you share with us what that distinction

22 or difference is, sir?

23 A. Well, you see, perhaps it will take a bit of time if I explain all

24 this, but there is a difference in the level of knowledge about

25 electronics, radio devices, and also the speed of receiving and

1 transmitting Morse code. There is a difference.

2 Q. And I think the difference is not only in the level of knowledge,

3 the experience, training and the expertise that one would attain in order

4 to get that A category certification; correct?

5 A. Yes. Unless you had a certain level of professionalism, you

6 wouldn't get this class A classification. I never gave it to anyone, so I

7 can't really say anything more.

8 Q. Thank you, sir. Now in your statement that you gave to the OTP on

9 November 17th and 18th, 1999, you listed some people in your squad, and I

10 would like to ask you with respect to each of these individuals to the

11 best of your recollection, which ones, if any, had maintained any level of

12 certification as an amateur radio ham operator.

13 But before we do that, I think we should go into private session

14 so that you could list off their names.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: So if we may go into private session, Your Honour,

16 Mr. President.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that, yes, thank you.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

2 Q. Sir, can you describe for us the procedures or standards governing

3 intercept operators while trying to identify speakers on purported

4 intercept conversations?

5 A. The identity of a speaker was primarily established through his

6 introducing himself in the first place. But if they didn't introduce

7 themselves and both I and the operators were certain that this was a

8 particular person, then it would be noted that the conversation was

9 between such and such; or if we knew about one participant we would give

10 his name and the other one would be given a number or a letter; and if

11 both were unknown, then numbers would be attributed to them, 1, 2, or 3,

12 if there were several collocutors, or maybe letters.

13 Q. So am I fair to summarise the only way you as an intercept

14 operator were able to identify the speaker was one of two ways: One, if

15 the speaker introduced himself; or (b), during the conversation if the

16 speaker or one of the persons speaking identified the person to whom he

17 was speaking. Correct?

18 A. Yes. Precisely so. And also, on the basis of their voices. We

19 sometimes knew by the voice who it belonged to. Sometimes not, but in

20 many cases we did.

21 Q. And I think yesterday you mentioned something to that effect. I

22 think you used the term voice modulation on page 35; I believe it's lines

23 10 through 20. Do you know, sir, what voice modulation is?

24 A. In radio ham traffic, we used this term "modulation," implying the

25 colour of the voice, the level of voice. When we say that it is

1 over-modulated, it means that the voice sounds as if it's coming through a

2 whistle. Or if it's low modulation, it doesn't carry very well.

3 So the modulation describes the condition of the voice. That is

4 our jargon. In our terminology, that is the term we used. We would say

5 the modulation of your voice is such and such. If it's not good, then we

6 indicate that something should be done about it, because poor modulation

7 can be caused by poor devices and a poor microphone.

8 Q. All right. Well, sir, are you familiar with what the

9 characteristics or the criteria that is utilised by forensic linguistics

10 or phonetics experts in determining voice recognition or voice

11 identification?

12 A. I was never involved in those areas except for the past few

13 years. When working as a radio ham operator, I use a computer which uses

14 a programme to record, and then we can follow the voice frequency. But

15 I'm no expert in the area.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

17 MR. NICHOLLS: I was just going to point out that that's exactly

18 what the witness said on his direct, that he said he wasn't an expert, so

19 it's not really fair to ask him --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but he also explained. I mean, I couldn't let

21 you speak because he had already started answering the question when you

22 stood up. But at the same time, at least he's given us some fresh

23 information, that this is an area which he has improved upon now, an area

24 of knowledge. It seems that in the last few years he's gained more

25 information than he had before. But certainly he didn't have this

1 information or knowledge before, or expertise.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour.

3 Q. Sir, am I correct in understanding from the Krstic testimony

4 that's been introduced into evidence that you were never given an order or

5 directive to identify speakers during your work as an intercept operator

6 in July and August of 1995; is that correct?

7 Oh, I'm sorry, page 8820. Of the Krstic testimony, sorry.

8 A. I don't remember that anyone gave an order to us to do that. But

9 judging by the sound of the voice, having heard Krstic, for instance,

10 dozens of times, we all knew when he started speaking that it was him.

11 There was no need to have any proof of that, just as I can recognise my

12 friends when they call me up.

13 Q. I understand, but I just want to confine what your duties and

14 obligations were in July and August of 1995.

15 Sir, am I correct that you were never instructed by your

16 commanders or any superior to actually record or to identify the speakers

17 in a purported intercept conversation?

18 MR. NICHOLLS: I'd ask him to break that up.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: One he has already asked. But -- and more or less

20 we've had the answer. So perhaps he can ask the second part of the

21 question, because we've heard enough on the first one.

22 MR. OSTOJIC:

23 Q. Sir, is it true that the reason you weren't in fact given an order

24 or a directive to identify speakers on these purported intercept

25 conversations was because someone else in a different unit would digest

1 that information and they would analyse that information to determine

2 several things or different things, such as the value of that information,

3 the reliability of that information, and whether or not that information

4 is actually accurate. Correct?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

6 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't think he can be asked to say why he was not

7 given an order and then speculate on this other long line of the question.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, you need to rephrase your question and ask him

9 whether he is aware of another unit which did precisely what you think

10 they were doing.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour.

12 Q. Sir, are you aware of another unit who was actually digesting the

13 contents of these purported intercept conversations that you were working

14 on in July of 1995?

15 A. I would put it as follows: No, not another unit. There were a

16 certain number of people in my unit who worked and who were attached to

17 the corps command, and I was convinced that they did that but I didn't

18 have insight into what they were doing. So that is as much as I can say.

19 I do know that there were personnel who did this because there

20 would be no reason for us to send tapes away from our facility and all the

21 notebooks from the facility somewhere. We could have just thrown them

22 away or burned them or something.

23 Q. [Previous translation continues]... before the break, if I may ask

24 you this. Sir, were you ever given or did you maintain, I should say, a

25 list during July and August of 1995 of code-names of various relay

1 stations or names of VRS officers while you were conducting these

2 intercepts operational duties?

3 A. No. We never received that. We just recorded the conversations

4 and forwarded them. The command may have done something to that effect.

5 Q. Just one last question before the break. I think it should be

6 about time for the break.

7 One last question, sir: Did you -- were you ever given or any

8 members of your unit down in the southern area where you were, were you

9 ever give a dossier or any information regarding the background or any

10 specific information regarding any VRS officers that you were purportedly

11 intercepting conversations from?

12 A. No, never.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: It might be convenient now, Your Honour, if you

14 don't mind.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we need to have a 30-minute break because

16 we redacted a part in the course of this first session, so it's quarter

17 past 4.00 that we will reconvene.

18 Thank you.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

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

23 Q. Mr. Witness, thank you, sir.

24 Just to proceed, we were discussing briefly the testimony that you

25 gave in the Krstic case, specifically page 8820, where you stated that

1 there were no orders or directives to identify the speakers.

2 Now, also with respect to that you were asked by the Judge in that

3 case, sir, same page for my learned friends, line 17 through 21, whether

4 sometimes you compared intercepts, and your answer, sir, was: "Well, no,

5 I don't remember comparing them because, quite simply, the message was

6 recorded and then it was transcribed into the notebook from the tape, from

7 the notebook into the computer, and it was dispatched to the headquarters

8 and command, or whenever we sent it on, and we did not go back to those

9 conversations again."

10 My question to you, sir, in connection with that answer that you

11 gave, if you could help clarify it, am I correct that the intercept

12 operators never verified or double-checked the information that was being

13 sent to the higher command to determine whether or not the information

14 that was being given was correct?

15 A. We did not check anything. Once we'd send our information on,

16 that would have been a done thing for us, as far as that information was

17 concerned.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I saw you unsure on your feet, whether

19 you wanted to object or ...

20 MR. NICHOLLS: No, again, Your Honour, I was going to object to

21 the phrasing of the question based on the transcript in Krstic because the

22 question in Krstic was only about comparing intercepts, but I chose to let

23 it just flow.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.

25 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

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

2 Q. Sir, in your statement, again November 17th and 18th of, 1999, you

3 discussed that you did not have notebooks and I think you said 1993 until

4 late 1994 and that you kept the information that you would -- or the

5 conversation that is you would intercept on pieces of paper and then you

6 would throw those papers away, correct, or they would be burned, I think

7 you said. Right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And in late 1994 you began receiving notebooks and you were told

10 to actually save them; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Just so that I can understand the specific procedure, is it

13 correct, sir, that before transcribing the purported conversations into

14 these notebooks the operators would take notes on various pieces of paper

15 in order to remember the details of those conversations; correct?

16 A. In principle, yes. Well, you mentioned here these notes on pieces

17 of paper, but usually we'd have these papers with things typed out on

18 them, like workers councils' meetings and so on, but then you could write

19 on the other side. So what you said, various pieces of paper, notes,

20 well, it's not right. Well, you know, we didn't really just use little

21 pieces of paper. It wasn't that we weren't working seriously.

22 Q. Forgive me if you got that impression. I wasn't suggesting that

23 you weren't working seriously or that you had small pieces of paper.

24 Taking that aside, whether the paper was large or small, am I correct that

25 your process was to jot down notes of the conversation on this -- these

1 pieces of paper, large or small, and from those notes you would then

2 transcribe them into this book that we have seen the originals of here,

3 and then from that book they would be actually typed out in this computer

4 that we talked about, and then it would be sent to the command. Correct?

5 A. No, no. You are now comparing these little pieces of paper or,

6 rather, pages from the notebook. When we had these sheets of paper, there

7 weren't any notebooks. Let's get that clear.

8 As for the audio recordings from the tapes, we listened to them

9 and then wrote things down on those sheets and then copied that into the

10 notebooks. And then from there, we would copy them on to the computer.

11 These pieces of paper were used as an auxiliary tool, just like the

12 notebooks, because ultimately we were supposed to type this out on the

13 computer and send it further on to the command.

14 Q. And am I correct, then, in understanding that these pieces of

15 paper that were used as auxiliary tools they have been subsequently

16 destroyed; correct?

17 A. Until the notebooks appeared, they were destroyed. They were

18 burned as a rule.

19 Q. Now, let me ask you if I could explain this to me, sir: You

20 mentioned that when you listened to audio taped conversations, and if you

21 were uncertain or unclear of what was said, that several intercept

22 operators would gather together to determine what was actually said in the

23 conversation; correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Sir, was there a standard or a guideline in order to inform the

1 command to whom you were sending these conversations, to advise them that

2 it was a difficult conversation, that many people listened to it, that we

3 had to listen to it several times? Were you instructed to keep those

4 types of notes?

5 A. Nothing was instructed. We simply stated things in notebooks.

6 You can see that. If we did not hear something, we did not hear it. If

7 it was unintelligible, we would say that it's unintelligible. We didn't

8 do anything else apart from that.

9 Q. The question is, sir, and from looking at these notebooks do you

10 indicate in any of those notebooks which conversations were difficult to

11 understand at the first hearing, the second, or fifth hearing? Do you

12 give any indication whatsoever whether the conversation was difficult to

13 intercept and understand or easy to intercept and understand?

14 A. I think that that was never recorded. It would be highlighted in

15 the text itself. If you could not hear a word, then in place of that word

16 you'd say, "inaudible," "unintelligible" or something like that.

17 Q. Now, if we can turn to a quick subject, the nicknames that you

18 heard various people use in the intercepted conversation. Do you know if

19 different men had the same nickname from time to time back in July and

20 August of 1995?

21 A. I don't think I know that. Well, many people did not have

22 nicknames and then many people did have nicknames, and that's the way they

23 would address each other and then we would use the same term, the same

24 term that we would hear.

25 Q. This in the one intercept, sir, that we discussed I think

1 yesterday with my learned friend in your direct examination, or

2 examination-in-chief, you mentioned the nickname Zoki, and I think you

3 added that the name actually meant Zoran because it was a nickname of

4 someone. But that nickname can mean several other things. People with

5 different names other than Zoran could be named Zoki or called Zoki;

6 correct?

7 A. Possibly. But as for this conversation that we discussed

8 yesterday, you hear it very nicely, the other collocutor says find Zoki,

9 by Zoki, so he addressed him personally. If that was a code-name, then I

10 was wrong.

11 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.

12 Let me -- if we can turn to P023814 [sic], which I think is 65 ter

13 number 1138A. And maybe the original book would also be helpful, if we

14 could place that on the ELMO as well for the witness, please.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's possible, Madam Registrar, isn't it?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. It was Prosecutor's -- I'll repeat the

17 number, P02314, and specifically within that it's 65 ter number 1138A, as

18 in apple. Do you have that book?

19 MR. NICHOLLS: I believe 2314 was the pseudonym sheet.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: I may have reversed those numbers and didn't change

21 that.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: You had corrected that too.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, I didn't note that.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: 2314 is the pseudonym sheet.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Then it's reversed. It should be 2313, Your Honour,

1 I apologise. I didn't note that in --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: 2313 is the transcript.

3 MR. NICHOLLS: You're maybe looking for 2315.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: 2313 is the transcript of the testimony, 2314 is the

5 pseudonym sheet. What 2315 is I have to check and then I can tell you.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Then it's my fault, Your Honour, because I'm using

7 an old version of the OTP's sheet.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: 2315 is handwritten intercept notebook, number 231.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the one you wanted?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. And the ERN number, which we looked at

12 yesterday, showing 01077918, which is the 13th of July, 1995, that the

13 witness discussed yesterday. And if we could have the original placed on

14 the ELMO as well, it would help. Perfect.

15 Q. Now, sir, the Honourable Judge Kwon asked you yesterday about this

16 date on the second page following the intercept that you were led into

17 evidence by the Prosecutor, and on the bottom of that 14.07.95; do you see

18 that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. If we look at the original, sir, am I correct in noting that

21 that's in the same pencil or ink pen that the entire intercept was

22 recorded; correct? And I invite to you look at the original.

23 A. Yes, yes, I see it.

24 Q. So it's rather reasonable that in fact it was your writing, 1407,

25 at the conclusion of this intercept; correct?

1 A. Possibly. But, well, it's not 100 per cent sure that I write my

2 4s this way but, well, it's possible.

3 Q. Now, what I'm interested in also in addition to that is that the

4 next entry is what date, sir?

5 A. The 16th of July, 1995.

6 Q. Can you tell us, sir, why the 15th of July, 1995, is not recorded

7 anywhere in this book?

8 A. Well, after the question was put yesterday, I mean with regard to

9 this same case, I gave this a bit of thought, and it is obvious that,

10 well, since there were at least two notebooks for the intercepts, it's

11 evident, it's a fact, that as for this notebook, on the 14th and 15th not

12 a single conversation was recorded. Probably there was very little

13 traffic. You'd either have to look for the other notebook and to look up

14 information from the 14th and 15th in this other notebook and see-- well,

15 we were not duty-bound to use both notebooks so that the dates would

16 coincide. We didn't really think about that at the time, but it is

17 certain that you will find information from the 14th and 15th in the other

18 notebook. It is not to say that there was no information, well, that

19 possibly there was no information but sometimes for a few days there would

20 simply be no information. There would be some information that was

21 unimportant, that was of a private nature and so on.

22 Q. I understand. And sir, let me just understand the process a

23 little better. When you had these receivers and mixers and the Kenwood

24 TS-450, did you have one notebook assigned to a specific receiver, or did

25 the operator, can he go from receiver to receiver to jot down information

1 that he was intercepting?

2 A. Well, it's evident from the notebooks themselves. One

3 conversation after the other as they were recorded and obviously it's not

4 from the same device. Well, we didn't have any need to -- well, quite

5 simply, the operator would use the notebook that was there at hand, that

6 was closer to him. Perhaps the other one was being used for having

7 something typed out. It wasn't that there was just one notebook for one

8 device. On that day we would use, say, two notebooks until we filled them

9 out. It didn't matter in what order information was coming in.

10 Q. Okay. Then explain, if you can, the front of the book, what's the

11 references that you make to like the RRU-800 or the type of receiver that

12 the information was taken from for that specific book. If you don't mind

13 turning to the front cover of the original that's before you and explain

14 that to me, please?

15 A. Well, as for this notebook that I have here now, I don't know if

16 that's the one you're talking about, the number is 3, that's what it says

17 here. That's probably its number. RRU-800, 20 -- the 6th of June, 1995.

18 The 11th of August, 1995. That's what it says here.

19 Q. So can we agree that that information that's on the front of the

20 book is attributed to a specific receiver or specific mixer upon which you

21 were obtaining these intercepted conversations?

22 A. I think that this was the date when this notebook was inaugurated

23 because you can see it on the first page, and then I didn't check but the

24 other date is probably the one when it was concluded. It's not the number

25 of devices or equipment or whatever.

1 Q. Just so the record is clear, when you say "first page," you're

2 saying the inside, not the front cover of the book, but on the inside

3 first page of the book; correct? Or second page, or whatever it is.

4 Correct?

5 A. Yes, yes, the first date is the 20th of June, 1995, as it says

6 here on page 5.

7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Sir, I want to talk a little bit about in the

8 few minutes that I have about receiving intercepts in their proper

9 context. Now, you weren't an analyst; correct?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. Now, in the Krstic trial, when you testified, and because

12 it's in evidence I want to ask you a question, on page 8807, line 24, you

13 were in that case, sir, asked to review, I think, three intercepts, two of

14 which you discussed with us today, and then another intercept at 10.00

15 between Krstic and a guy, a person called Mandzuka. Do you remember that

16 at all?

17 A. Yes, I remember that.

18 Q. Well, in that, on page 8807, line 24, although you tell us in that

19 testimony that that wasn't your handwriting, in order to keep the

20 conversations in proper context when you talk about Krstic and others at

21 12.00 or 12.45 which follow that conversation, isn't it true that in that

22 conversation, when it was read by the Prosecutor in that case, that

23 evidence clearly showed that Krstic is telling Mandzuka to register the

24 Muslims over there so they can be used for "exchange"? Do you remember

25 that, sir?

1 A. I don't remember the content of the conversation now, but I

2 remember the name of Mandzuka being mentioned and I remember reading that,

3 but now we would have to read it again. I would have to read it. I told

4 you -- or, rather, I said then that I was not the one who intercepted

5 that conversation and I'm not the one who recorded it in the notebook. It

6 was done by another operator. I do not recall the content.

7 Q. And we, just for the sake of clarity in the record, on page 8807,

8 sir, page 5, the Prosecutor Mr. McCloskey after giving leave of court by

9 Judge Rodrigues continues and states: "All right. The first conversation

10 at 10.00 a.m. is between Mandzuka and General Krstic, 862 A."

11 Then he proceeds to quote the conversation, and he -- I can quote

12 it all but I'm specifically interested in the quote at 23 and -- line 23

13 and 24 where he says, under quote, K, presumably for Krstic, as follows:

14 "Register all RS/Republika Srpska/Muslims over there so we can use them

15 for exchange. How many more are down there?"

16 There is more there obviously, Your Honour, but in the interests

17 of time I want to focus on that. That's the testimony that was read to

18 you by the Prosecutor in Krstic. Given that, sir, having that testimony,

19 and understanding that conversations should be kept in their proper

20 context, the next two conversations in Krstic you talk about the

21 intercepted version of your conversation between Krstic and Mr. Popovic,

22 and you state that you thought it meant something else other than

23 exchange. Am I correct, sir, that in fact if you read the intercepts in

24 their proper context and do not take them piecemeal out of order or out of

25 context, you would be in a better position to make a reasonable

1 determination of what those conversations mean. Correct?

2 A. As for the order of all events, I think that hardly anyone would

3 be naive enough to believe the sincerity of General Krstic when he said

4 that. I didn't believe it myself.

5 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, sir, about changing letters, and I

6 think yesterday on page 39, line 1 through 5, you stated: "There may have

7 been a change of letter but this mustn't or must not or couldn't change

8 the meaning of the sentence."

9 Do you remember giving that testimony yesterday? Again, page 39,

10 lines 1 through 5.

11 A. Yes, I remember that. As I read my handwriting today, or say

12 otherwise when I write things out, sometimes I just see it's different.

13 It's just something that I do automatically but it doesn't really change

14 the meaning of a sentence.

15 I think that it happens to all of us; at least that's what I

16 think.

17 Q. How about changing, adding a letter? Would that, sir, because

18 when you took down the identification of the participants in a

19 conversation you would usually use one letter to identify them. Such as K

20 for Krstic; correct?

21 Now, what if you were to add a different letter to the name, to

22 that initial, that could alter and significantly change who the

23 participants were in that conversation; correct?

24 A. Well, could it? As for the further sequence of transmitting

25 information from the tape to paper, every time Krstic speaks, a K is put,

1 or for somebody else, and then the first letter. It would be impossible

2 not to notice that kind of mistake. I think that would be impossible. If

3 someone made a mistake of that kind, you'd have to notice later on. I

4 could not make that kind of mistake. I think that would be impossible.

5 Q. I'm not suggesting you did, sir. However, if we could have

6 IC 00041 be placed on e-court, please?

7 Now, sir, my question -- while that's being done, I have a

8 question. What I'm saying, sir, is that given that you use letters to

9 identify a speaker, a change in a letter could indeed change not the

10 meaning of the sentence but it could indeed change who the speaker

11 actually was, like the letter B, for Badem, and if you add another letter

12 to it, it could absolutely change the entirety of who the purported

13 speaker was in a conversation. Don't you agree with that?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer the question.

15 Mr. Nicholls.

16 MR. NICHOLLS: For this witness, it's completely speculative.

17 It's talking about -- the witness has already made clear and we have

18 stated it with other operators that they can't talk about intercepts that

19 were taken by other people. There is a completely speculative exercise

20 that he's going through, and I object. The witness cannot intelligently

21 comment on this which has nothing to do with him.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Our attention is being drawn to the fact that the

24 document you've referred to is under seal, but -- or a confidential

25 document in any case.

1 But however, Mr. Nicholls' objection is perfectly in order. You

2 can of course, ask the witness as far as he is concerned, as far as any of

3 his own transcripts, all right? If he -- whether he ever did that, and if

4 he did, what would be the consequences, according to him, or his

5 understanding of the issue.

6 But please don't ask him about transcripts prepared by others for

7 whom he's not answerable.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Very well, Your Honour. May I proceed?

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

11 Q. Sir, given your experience and your A certification as an amateur

12 radio ham operator, can you tell us whether it would be a deviation from

13 any of those standards or protocols that you have experienced and trained

14 under if an intercept operator would alter, change, or modify a letter in

15 the intercept book from a letter B to hypothetically a letter B and then

16 adding a small E next to it?

17 A. I would like to make one point clear first. When a conversation

18 is being transcribed from the tape to the notebook, if it is known who the

19 participants are, then automatically, under the header, it is stated who

20 the participants in the conversation were, and if we knew who they were,

21 then it would be written down, the participants were so and so, with their

22 full names, so I think there could be no confusion in that respect.

23 However, later, when only one letter was used, then perhaps some

24 changes could have been made. If we didn't know who the participants

25 were, then they were given numbers and they were transcribed with

1 numbers. But when we knew the names, then their names would be indicated

2 at the beginning on top, Krstic, Popovic, and then later on, in the text,

3 it would have just the initial.

4 Q. And you agree with me, don't you, sir that in fact placing in the

5 upper section of that intercepted conversation when you identify the

6 participants, that it was your -- fair enough. He doesn't have a

7 translation, I think he said, Your Honour, I'm sure he said.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: I didn't want to translate it. I thought they

10 were. Sorry.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic. Can you repeat then please.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: I will.

13 Q. Sir, am I correct in that's why it's very important that the names

14 of the purported participants in the conversation be listed plainly on the

15 top section of the conversation that the intercept operators were

16 listening to?

17 A. It is important if we know, and if we don't know, then we write

18 down what we do know.

19 Q. Have you ever, sir, seen an intercept which was altered or

20 modified in approximately no less than 15 occasions?

21 A. No, never.

22 Q. Can you, sir, agree with me that an intercept that has no less

23 than 15 changes, modifications, or alternations is an intercept that is

24 not reliable; correct?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: How can you ask that question to the witness,

1 without giving him indication of what the 15 alterations are?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I think, Your Honour, because I restricted

3 from showing him the 15 alternations --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Then don't put the question. Make a submission

5 later on when the time comes.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: However, I think given his -- if I may, given his

7 experience, and I don't want to go through his details, where he was

8 exactly, the time that he was given, his role with the other operators, I

9 think he can answer that, what he would do if his operators made those

10 types of changes or alterations.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but it all depends on what the alterations

12 are.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: But I think that this witness can tell us that, Your

14 Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I don't think he can, unless he knows what the

16 alternations are.

17 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

18 MR. NICHOLLS: Just again, Your Honour, I think it's an effort to

19 go around your ruling which was clear. It's still trying to get him to

20 speculate. I don't agree with the characterisation in the first place,

21 and I'd ask that he move on.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I still think the witness would have provided us

23 with an answer, but anyway -- but I don't think it's the case of putting

24 the question to the witness, not in the way you have.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I'll restate the question, Your Honour, I'm

1 almost complete, if I may.

2 Q. Sir, being in your capacity that you described for us, did you

3 ever discipline or punish any intercept operators who would alter, change

4 or modify, to any extent, the intercepted conversations that were recorded

5 in the logbook similar to the one sitting to your right?

6 A. Never did I do that, nor did I have any need to do that. I never

7 established that changes or alterations had been made.

8 Q. Sir, were there any guidelines or protocols in place that would

9 enforce any type of sanction, punishment or discipline to an operator who

10 would change, alter or modify an intercepted conversation in the logbook?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he can answer this question.

12 MR. NICHOLLS: It's just the issue is what is meant by change,

13 alter or modify, and --

14 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we can -- if -- I don't want to respond, but

15 I think we can discuss semantics. However, if the witness doesn't

16 understand what it means, the witness is invited to have this explained to

17 him.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm soon going to tell you whether he understands or

19 not, Mr. Ostojic.

20 If in a transcript I'm taking the transcript down and I have a

21 letter starting with a small A and I change that small A into a capital A,

22 would you consider it a modification of the transcript? Or ignore it?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't consider that to affect the

24 content. It is incorrectly noted but it doesn't change anything. Whether

25 it's small or capital, the meaning remains the same.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: So what you have in mind, when you are answering the

2 questions put to you by Mr. Ostojic, is changes of material importance?

3 Is that correct? Material changes, material alterations.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But a -- changing a capital or

5 a small letter doesn't change the meaning in any way. The meaning remains

6 the same. It's just that the writing is not the same. And many of us can

7 make errors of that kind.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One other question before you conclude,

9 Mr. Ostojic.

10 Once a first transcript has been made of an intercept, before it

11 goes to the person who will input it then into the computer, is the tape

12 recording verified again, listened to again, in order to verify the

13 transcript or not?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. That wasn't done.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, yes, Mr. Ostojic, go ahead.

16 MR. OSTOJIC:

17 Q. Mr. Witness, sir, I'm talking about material changes, but -- that

18 are made in a logbook. Do you agree with me that it's a material change

19 to change from a letter identifying a person with the letter B and then

20 subsequently to add a different letter to further identify an individual?

21 Would that be a change in your opinion, given your background and training

22 from a B simply to a "Be"?

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls?

24 MR. NICHOLLS: Again, we are now strolling down the speculative

25 path. He had abandoned that. That's not the question he was asking

1 before, I believe, but about sanctions or something of that nature.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not exactly speculative, but it all depends on

3 the particular transcript. Because if you read -- when you read the

4 particular transcripts you have no other options but to understand B and

5 Be to mean the same, one and the same person, then obviously, there is no

6 material change.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Your Honour, I don't want to.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not saying it is so, but I'm just explaining to

9 you that it is actually each and every particular transcript that one has

10 to look at and you cannot ask that question in a vacuum, as if it would

11 apply across the board to all the transcripts that we have here in these

12 several notebooks that we have in the records.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: May he answer the question, Your Honour? Or no?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I don't think he should answer the question.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. I'll ask another question.

16 Q. Sir, are you familiar with the name of an officer by the name of

17 Ljubo Bojanovic with a B?

18 A. No, not now.

19 Q. Now, sir, if an intercept operator recorded that person's name

20 Ljubo Bojanovic as Vojanovic, would that change in one letter make a

21 difference as to who may or may not be speaking in a conversation that an

22 intercept operator was listening to, if the only reference to that

23 individual was by his first name, Ljubo?

24 A. If he was mentioned as Ljubo and if that was noted down, we would

25 usually just write the name used. We never referred to Krstic by name,

1 nor to Mr. Popovic. We would just put Popovic or Krstic. So that was my

2 practice, so I have nothing concrete to add. If it's Ljubo Ljubo, I don't

3 know which Ljubo.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I hate to interrupt. But, again, there is a big

5 difference if there are two persons, one with one surname and another one

6 with another.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: There is actually evidence that --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: There is only one person that can be identified

9 within a certain context and it's only one. So ...

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour, I'll move on. And I

11 appreciate it.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: This is why I'm telling you it all depends on the

13 particular transcript that you would be referring to.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Of course.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And if the gentleman hasn't even ever heard of the

16 person whose name and surname you mentioned, I suppose it's very difficult

17 for him to answer the question.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.

19 Q. Sir, a question I think that you didn't answer, or I didn't

20 understand the answer, and that is: Was there any protocol or any

21 guidelines for disciplining intercept operators for making mistakes,

22 changes or alterations in a logbook? I'm not asking if you actually did

23 it. I'm asking you was there a set of guidelines for disciplining them if

24 they committed such errors or mistakes.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls.

1 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry to object again, but if it's -- if we are

2 talking about mistakes it's important not to lump those in with

3 alterations or changes, and once again my friend is doing that. There

4 wouldn't necessarily be any sanction, not that we've seen mistakes, but

5 there wouldn't be any sanction for making an alteration obviously to make

6 something more accurate, so I think he's got to break it down and be

7 clearer in his questions.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I think we can move to the next question,

9 Mr. Ostojic.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I just want to know if there were. I'll ask

11 it.

12 Q. Were there any guidelines at all to discipline intercept operators

13 for any reason whatsoever in July and August 1995?

14 A. They didn't exist throughout the period we were working on this

15 job, not just in July and August, they never existed.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, that's all I have.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

18 Who is next? Mr. Bourgon?

19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

20 I hope to make this short. Most of the questions I wanted to ask

21 have already been asked. I'll try to make it as short as possible.

22 I'd like to refer the witness immediately to the Exhibit 1138

23 Echo, on page 2.

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:

25 Q. While they prepare this, good afternoon, Witness.

1 A. Good afternoon.

2 Q. Witness, looking at the exhibit that is in front of you, if you go

3 down at the bottom of the page, and I would like you to look at the third

4 paragraph, which is attributed to participant number 1. And I would ask

5 you to read this paragraph out loud.

6 A. "So this phantom, one of Oric's, some deputy, Zulfo Kasumovic, he

7 pushed through via Konjevic last night and up there near Pasarda,

8 somewhere, they are expecting him to pass with some 300 men."

9 Is that what you were referring to?

10 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now I'd like to move on and to direct your

11 attention to Exhibit 1138 Bravo on page 2.

12 And if you look at the top of the page, the second paragraph

13 attributed to speaker number 1, can you read this for yourself and confirm

14 that this is the same paragraph that was entered into the computer from

15 the notebook, the paragraph that you just read before?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, if I look at the notebook as well as the paragraph that was

18 entered in the computer, it appears that when you read this, that there

19 was absolutely no difficulties encountered in transcribing this intercept;

20 is that correct?

21 A. Yes. We can take note of that.

22 Q. So I don't see any mention, either in the notebook or in the

23 computer-generated version of this paragraph, that there were either

24 difficulties encountered or, for example, that this specific paragraph had

25 to be listened to by many operators.

1 A. There is nothing to point to any difficulties being encountered in

2 understanding. Everything was clear.

3 Q. Now, I'd like to direct your attention now to Exhibit 1138 Alpha,

4 on the first page.

5 Now, sir, this exhibit is not in your language, but I will draw

6 your attention to the bottom of the page, to the first paragraph which is

7 attributed to speaker number 1. If we go to the bottom of the page, and

8 we look at the first paragraph attributed to speaker number 1, now, I will

9 read this for you in English, and you can tell me if that is the same

10 paragraph that you just referred to earlier.

11 "Well, that phantom, some deputy of Oric's, Zulfo Kasumovic,

12 pushed through last night over Konjevic and they expect him somewhere up

13 near," this word could not be understood, "to cross with about 300 men."

14 Is that the same paragraph, sir?

15 A. Well, it appears to be so, yes.

16 Q. Now, my question to you is very simple: You indicated that in

17 your version, in the notebook and the computer-generated version, that

18 there were no difficulties encountered in understanding this paragraph or

19 in transcribing the paragraph. Now, the latest version that we have in

20 front of us was generated by the translation people of this Tribunal, and

21 when they listened to the tape they could -- there was a word that they

22 could not understand. Could you explain why that would be so?

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: One, I don't see how this witness can be asked

25 about queries the CLSS have put in. Two, what we are looking at is not

1 CLSS listening to a tape. It's CLSS translating documents, so the

2 question is completely off the point. Those are my objections.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President, just to clarify that,

4 CLSS knows of the villages in the area, they are trying to be helpful and

5 they are offering a known village as opposed to this the way it was

6 spelled out in the intercept. That's CLSS doing that. They do that

7 occasionally, and it's a practice that we've tried to dissuade them of but

8 it's throughout some of these intercepts. That's what's going on here.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon, before we decide.

10 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, it's quite -- yesterday we went over

11 this intercept and this document, meaning 1138 Alpha, and it was explained

12 to us that this was made from the tape by the people from this Tribunal.

13 Whether it's CLSS or somebody else, this was somebody, something made from

14 Tribunal staff or Tribunal resources.

15 And my question to the witness is very easy. I'm just telling him

16 that he indicated to us two paragraphs which he says they were absolutely

17 clear, no problems in transcribing, and here we have a document done by

18 somebody else, doesn't have to be the Tribunal, and they have problems

19 understanding it. I'm just asking the witness what is the difference

20 between the two and how come what he -- something that he figures was

21 clear was listened by other people and was not clear.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

23 MR. NICHOLLS: One, hypothetically if what my friend was saying

24 was correct, there is no way the witness could answer because he wouldn't

25 know what the quality of the tape was that the second translation was

1 coming from.

2 Second, if we look at 1138A, that is a translation of the

3 printout, 00727582. 00727582 is on the bottom of 1138A, indicating it is

4 a -- from the printout. There was one and only transcript made by CLSS

5 from a tape that I talked about yesterday, and that is the tape we played

6 which has nothing to do with this intercept.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Still, it doesn't change much in reality. How can

8 you expect the witness to account for someone else who may have listened

9 to the same tape and not under -- not have understood one word the same as

10 or as much as he understood it? Where does it get you? Where does it

11 lead us? How much would we have profited from it at the end of the day,

12 Mr. Bourgon?

13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. For us it's simply an

14 example that what may have been thought clear in 1995 may not be so clear

15 when you listen to the original, but I will withdraw the question.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

17 MR. BOURGON: And I will move on to my next question.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: But earlier on following a question from

19 Mr. Zivanovic, I thought he was referring to previous transcript, previous

20 testimony, while Judge Prost understood that it was a statement to the

21 Office of the Prosecutor. So I was mistaken; she was right. How did that

22 happen? It happens. So it's --

23 JUDGE PROST: Very unusual.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.

25 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I move on to my next

1 question.

2 Q. Sir, looking at the exhibit that is now in front of you on the

3 screen, I see that -- and you referred to that in your testimony, that the

4 second participant in this conversation could not be heard at all. Can

5 you explain or simply confirm that this could happen for many technical

6 reasons that you can only hear one of the two participants.

7 A. It's not technical reasons but simply it would happen often. If

8 you review the tapes and notebooks, or these typed reports, you will

9 frequently come across this because it depended on the link used by

10 participant number 2. He didn't pass through that particular radio relay

11 station. He just had a connection to it or in some other way. He simply

12 couldn't be heard. Not because we didn't have the equipment to hear him;

13 for some other reasons, he couldn't be heard. And I don't know what those

14 reasons were. I can't explain now. But it is a fact that we didn't hear

15 him, not just him but many others too.

16 Q. Also if I look always at the same exhibit, where the participant

17 cannot be heard I see that there are three dots. Can you confirm that, of

18 course, this does not allow us to determine the length or the duration of

19 the response that was offered by participant 2 every time the first

20 speaker said something?

21 A. Of course, because we never checked on the watch to see how long

22 people were talking for. We never made a record of how long a

23 conversation lasted.

24 Q. And, of course, sir, you will agree with me that depending [B/C/S

25 interpretation coming over English channel].

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you interpret for us, Mr. Ostojic?

2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: These things happen. You see, can you explain,

4 Mr. Bourgon, why that happened?

5 I think, Mr. Bourgon, you need to repeat. I think you need to

6 repeat because --

7 MR. BOURGON: I take my question again?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.

9 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry I missed this.

10 I wasn't wearing the --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I could hear you, but then the translation into

12 B/C/S disturbed me and I couldn't follow one or the other then.

13 Yes, Mr. Nicholls, any objection?

14 MR. NICHOLLS: No. Just, sorry, if we are going to continue on

15 this exhibit, it might be better if it's in the witness's language, if

16 he's going to keep asking him questions about it.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

18 MR. BOURGON: It's not required at all, Mr. President, that he

19 sees any exhibit whatsoever.

20 Now that we have determined that once a speaker is not heard, we

21 don't know for how long he spoke in response to each question or each

22 intervention by somebody else, and my question was quite --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: At best he could possibly give you an answer, if he

24 remembers in relation to one or two transcripts, but certainly not all the

25 transcripts that you may be interested in.

1 MR. BOURGON: Absolutely, Mr. President. But the question is very

2 clear.

3 Q. Depending on how I fill in the blanks of participant 2, this will

4 change very much the meaning and the importance of any given exhibit?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And you're asking --

6 MR. BOURGON:

7 Q. Is that correct, sir?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: You're asking him to replace our judgement when we

9 receive an appropriate submission from you, along these lines. How can he

10 answer that question?

11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I move on to my

12 next question, which is my last question too.

13 Q. Sir, you referred to the fact that code-names were used and that

14 with time you could manage to determine what these code-names meant; is

15 that correct?

16 A. Which side are you referring to? In my unit or ...

17 Q. Let me clarify my question. In the conversations that were

18 intercepted and transcribed, those people involved in those conversations

19 sometimes used code-names, and I just want you to confirm that with times

20 in your testimony you said that you managed to determine what these

21 code-names meant; is that correct?

22 A. Well, I would put it this way: In our work, we were primarily

23 interested in what we were hearing, to put that down on paper, and send it

24 where we had to send it to. We didn't go into code-names, secret names,

25 but I do know from serving in the former JNA and as an active participant

1 until the outbreak of the war in 1992, I was a non-commissioned officer in

2 communications, I knew the rules of the army, and the army used

3 code-names, so that in the process of work, we found out about certain

4 code-names of individual persons, but this was not something that we

5 needed for our work, nor did we give that matter any serious thought.

6 There was a sector attached to the command for analysis, and on

7 the basis of all those intercepts they created a picture of the system of

8 command, of the deployment of units, and everything else in the area that

9 was being monitored.

10 Q. Thank you very much, sir. That was exactly what I was trying to

11 get at. And my question is: Can you confirm that during the time that

12 you performed those duties that you referred to during your testimony, you

13 were not able to determine whether these code-names changed from the

14 beginning until the end of the war?

15 A. That is something that I never thought about. And I didn't really

16 notice that they did change, actually. But I'm not claiming anything. I

17 didn't give this any thought, and I cannot give a specific answer.

18 Q. My last question, sir. Based on your testimony and the

19 instructions that you were given to perform your duties, I would just like

20 to know that if you intercepted a conversation in which a person bearing

21 the name White used the name White, White is what you would find in the

22 transcript and the notebook?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 A. Yes. We wrote down what we heard. In principle, that was our

1 mode of operation.

2 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I have no further questions.

3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Stojanovic.

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.

9 A. Good afternoon.

10 Q. I would just like us to clarify a few matters. Yesterday, if you

11 remember, you mentioned Paket communications. Do you remember that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you tell me what you mean by that?

14 A. Paket communications is a mode of communication between two

15 operators by way of a computer, a modem, a radio, and an antenna. There

16 have to be two operators with two full sets. One operator would have one

17 set, and the other operator would have the other set. To this day, ham

18 radio operators use that.

19 You can ask people here in The Hague too. I saw one of them here

20 today. And I can tell you what it means too. That means that if you

21 provide a computer with information, that is the so-called digital

22 repeater communication. That's what we called it. And now, these two

23 computers are communicating between themselves. Due to interference and

24 everything else, if it goes on for a long time, it would be susceptible to

25 interference from other signals, other stations, so the question is

1 whether the information would be conveyed to the next computer as it was

2 given originally. However, then the computer has its own software and

3 then it divides your information into several packets, depending on the

4 length of the text.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we've heard enough, and I'm sure you've

6 heard enough.

7 Mr. Stojanovic, your next question. Thank you.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. We don't want to go into those technical aspects because,

10 objectively speaking, we cannot follow you.

11 A. But I am ready to provide this.

12 Q. As for this Paket communication between two computers, or two

13 participants, do you need to have radio relay communication between these

14 two participants?

15 A. Well, you see, if these two participants are working from two

16 valleys and there is a hill between them, then you need this digital

17 repeater, this particular device that conveys or transmits the message.

18 However, we had optical connections with the corps command. We did not

19 need any intermediary. We had a direct link between two computers that

20 carried out this work.

21 Q. That is precisely the reason why I'm asking about this.

22 In 1995, in the area of the enclave of Srebrenica, there was a

23 unit that was called the 28th Division of the 2nd Corps of the BH army.

24 A. Probably.

25 Q. And they had Paket communication with the 2nd Corps of the army of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina. My question is as follows: Did you at any point in

2 time, (redacted)

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I beg your pardon.

4 Can we just redact the last words?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: You could have gone ahead and we would have redacted

6 them without mentioning it. So go ahead.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. You are at your position and did you play the role of an

9 intermediary in this Paket communication between Srebrenica and the

10 command of the 2nd Corps of the BH army?

11 A. I've already answered that question. I answered it yesterday and

12 perhaps I answered it today too.

13 Up there, at the facility, there was a signals squad that perhaps

14 did that and acted as an intermediary, and there were two or three digital

15 repeaters, so it was through these devices that they could operate. They

16 exist to this day. Nobody has to operate them. They just need

17 electricity and that's it.

18 But we were not involved in these signals. We just listened. My

19 operators and I, we never uttered a word through any kind of

20 communications equipment throughout our stay there. We were not

21 intermediaries. We just listened.

22 Q. Let me conclude on this.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. It was my understanding that there was this signals squad up there

25 that had a different job. Did you personally know that this signals squad

1 in any way functioned in order to transmit these signals?

2 A. No, I didn't know about that. Quite simply, I wasn't interested

3 in that.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

5 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm going to make a standing objection to questions

6 about this other squad which he's said over and over and over again that

7 he had nothing to do with and didn't know whether -- where they were

8 working.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Point taken and objection sustained.

10 Please refrain from asking him to answer questions on the other

11 squad or other group. Thank you.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That's

13 exactly the way I put the question, whether he personally knew anything

14 about that. And that concludes the matter.

15 Q. Another thing I wanted to ask you about this chain, these

16 notebooks that you used from the end of 1994, if I understood you

17 correctly. These notebooks, up until the end of the war, did they get out

18 of your possession; that is to say, 1995 -- until the end of 1995?

19 A. At the moment when a notebook would be filled out, the commander

20 of the company, as I said, at the end of the shift would take a filled out

21 notebook and fully recorded tapes for further processing down there, and I

22 had no further contact with the notebooks or the tapes until here and now,

23 when I have this notebook.

24 Q. So at one point in time, when it is filled out, a notebook, then

25 it is submitted to your superior command?

1 A. Precisely. Where they were stored I don't know.

2 Q. I would just like us to finish with this question.

3 Today in response to a question put to you by the Chamber, in

4 terms of the first letter used, whether it's a capital letter or small

5 letter, whether that changes the material status of a sentence, if I

6 understood you correctly, you said that it was a question of grammar and

7 that it was not really a fundamental issue for you. Do you remember that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It's page 51, line 13, for the record, and line 18 of today's

10 transcript, Your Honour.

11 Knowing our language, and we speak the same language, I would like

12 to give you a situation that can be a real situation or a hypothetical

13 situation, but I would just like to deal with it, and I would like to you

14 help us. In one intercepted conversation that one of your operators is

15 listening to, one participant says: "Call Pop in Drinjaca and take the

16 documents from him."

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Before that, there is no further conversation, and afterwards

19 there is more -- there are more things that are being said but that are

20 unrelated. How would you transcribe it? I'm asking about capital letters

21 and small letters.

22 A. Well, I would probably act in accordance with grammar, I myself.

23 I don't know. Should I tell you exactly where I would use a capital

24 letter and where I would use a small letter?

25 Q. Would that mean that you would spell pop and Drinjaca with a

1 capital P and a capital D?

2 A. Drinjaca with a capital D, because that is a particular place.

3 Q. What about pop?

4 A. Pop is not a noun.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: That there is a double

6 entendre here.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Zivanovic.

8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to have one

9 clarification here. Is the word p-o-p, pop, used as a priest in the

10 meaning of priest or as a nickname?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. In fact, the interpreters did hint to us that

12 there was a possible double meaning to that word. I don't know which --

13 what you had in mind, Mr. Stojanovic.

14 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm actually going to object, Your Honour. I would

15 like the witness to finish today. I think his intercepts are in evidence,

16 his handwriting, and we can see how he wrote sentences from them.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps he can answer this question. He's telling

18 me that he himself would have written Drinjaca with a capital D. And

19 which pop are you referring to, Mr. Stojanovic?

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, precisely. That is

21 the answer to the question that you put and Mr. Ostojic too. In the

22 language that we use, both the witness and I, the word "popu" can mean a

23 nickname, somebody whose last name is Popadic, Popovic and the like, and

24 it can also mean "to the priest."

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop.

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The fundamental question is

2 whether it's going to be spelled with a capital letter or with a small

3 letter.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Isn't it obvious that he would spell it the way he

5 understands it and if it has more than one meaning, there is a possibility

6 that he would understand it one way and I would understand it another, and

7 Judge Prost would understand it other, and so on and so forth. And if I

8 understood it to be referring to Popovic, I would put a capital P; but if

9 I'm referring to pop, what our kids drink, I would not put a capital P.

10 So let's proceed, Mr. Stojanovic, to more substantial matters.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That was the

12 point of this question. Precisely. We would put a small letter or a

13 capital letter in accordance with the way we understand things, and we can

14 understand them differently.

15 No further questions, thank you.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I notice Mr. Nicholls, and I also notice Madam

17 Fauveau.

18 You stood up first, Mr. Nicholls.

19 MR. NICHOLLS: I sat down at "no further questions."

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.

21 Madam Fauveau.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we go into

23 private session for the first question, please.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Let's go into private session for the

25 first or however -- how many ever questions you have.

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Madam Fauveau.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown Exhibit

21 P2315? It is the notebook 01077916. And I would need page 40, please.

22 Q. Sir, yesterday you talked about a conversation transcribed on the

23 13th of July apparently, and you've stated on page 483 of yesterday's

24 transcript that when you went through the notebook you were able to see

25 the dates, even though the transcripts were not made every day.

1 Now I would like to know how can you establish the date with such

2 preciseness if the transcriptions were not made the same day and if the

3 dates were not inscribed the same day? Or every day?

4 A. I mean if I did not write something down, is it really important

5 to establish anything?

6 As for this conversation on the preceding page or somewhere

7 nearby, there is the previous date and I think after this conversation

8 there is another date too. I think that it's clear why this date was

9 placed.

10 Q. Right. Now, could we please take page 42 of this same notebook,

11 please?

12 Sir, you've told us that the 14th of July, 1995, that date was

13 written by yourself in the notebook but you do not recall why you wrote

14 this date. Is it possible to say that the conversation in question took

15 place on the 14th of July instead of the 13th of July?

16 A. No. It would never be inscribed at the end, the date, and I

17 explained this to the gentleman who was the first to question me. Or was

18 it the second gentleman? I'm not sure now. That this was stated on the

19 following day. And then on the 15th, there are no conversations in this

20 notebook. The conversations are probably in the other notebook that was

21 active at the time. Quite simply, you see that there are two days on

22 which we do not have any text.

23 Q. In fact, that's exactly the case, when we take this example.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P1138, please.

25 1138 B. And in English, it would be 1138-1.

1 Q. Sir, we have a version that is transcribed regarding the

2 conversation that took place on the 13th of July. This document which was

3 a printout, is this document from your unit?

4 A. Well, looking at the middle, the way I see it here, well, I cannot

5 say anything because I haven't got the header. I cannot say yes; I cannot

6 say no.

7 Q. And if you look at the initials that appear on top of the

8 conversation of the 13th of July, 1995, would these initials -- right on

9 top. It's on top. Above.

10 A. Could we just lower it a bit?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: That's it. Yeah, yeah. She's referring to these, I

12 think.

13 Yes, go ahead, Madam Fauveau.

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Those initials, do they refresh your memory in any way? Could

16 this document come from your unit?

17 A. The second initial, ZB, could perhaps jog my memory but I cannot

18 remember the first one. I cannot remember anyone with those initials now,

19 just off the top of my head. If I were to go through the entire list,

20 perhaps I could find someone.

21 The second one would perhaps lead me to something. However, this

22 man came in the beginning of 1995, up to the facility. And it is possible

23 that he was there at the time because if that is the material involved

24 because the plan was not up at the facility all the time. He worked in

25 other centres, and perhaps this document therefore comes from another

1 centre.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

3 MR. NICHOLLS: I just think it might be helpful if the witness can

4 see the whole page of the document, if he's being asked what it is and

5 where it comes from, or at least have a chance to read it.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: If I understood the witness well, it's not this

7 document that he wishes to see but the one which has the heading, and it

8 would help him distinguish from which location or which base it was sent

9 and then he would be able to tell us whether it was his or not. He

10 wouldn't even need to tell us. We would know.

11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'll get back to it, Mr. President.

12 I would like to precise where the document comes from, if the witness can

13 identify it, of course.

14 Q. Sir, this document, as it is here, could you identify it? Can you

15 tell us if the document stems from your unit or not?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered. He told you he cannot. He neither

17 excludes nor confirms.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

19 Exhibit P1138C? And in English, it would be P1138D.

20 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?

21 A. Yes. This one has the name of the facility where I was.

22 Q. Sir, if we look at the report, the beginning of the report, we can

23 see the words zone 2, then we see some abbreviations, then azimuth,

24 frequency, 02, the time, and who were the participants. Is it exact to

25 say that this report contains much more data and is much more precise than

1 the transcriptions of the conversations that you had in your notebooks?

2 A. Well, that's only natural, because I said that we only used the

3 notebook as an auxiliary tool. It did not have to contain all the details

4 as is contained here, the network, the particular piece of equipment, and

5 then also on the basis of the frequency itself, that is when these things

6 were added. There was no need for us to encumber ourselves by writing all

7 of that into the notebook.

8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... with me, then, sir, that this

9 document would be an official document, whereas your notebook is a -- more

10 of an informal document?

11 A. I would always want what I did. I mean, for me an official

12 document is my handwriting and the recording that I made. As for what

13 another operator typed out into a machine, from my notebook, well, he

14 could have, but obviously sometimes he would type it differently. So I

15 stand by my handwriting, what I entered in the notebook, and what I

16 recorded.

17 Q. Very well. So according to you, you deemed that what is in the

18 notebook, what you've transcribed yourself, is more precise, more

19 accurate, than what we can find in the reports?

20 A. That is the most accurate, what I wrote in my own hand. That's

21 what I heard, and that's what I would then write down.

22 Q. And is it correct to say that you can only vouch for the

23 preciseness and the exactness of what was written in the notebooks when it

24 only comes to your notebook?

25 A. Absolutely.

1 Q. Talking about this particular conversation -- could the witness be

2 shown the bottom of the page, please.

3 In this conversation, we see the name Zoki. I know that you were

4 already asked on this point. You already answered. But I would like to

5 make a clarification. During the entire conversation, you were never able

6 to hear the voice of this particular person called Zoki; is that right?

7 A. Yes. Absolutely correct. And that is why there is no text under

8 his numbers.

9 Q. So you really don't know if that voice belongs to a man, for

10 instance, the voice of Zoki, if it's a man, or if the voice belongs to a

11 woman, for instance?

12 A. Of course we don't know. "Zoki, goodbye" is what his collocutor

13 said. I didn't go into that, whether the collocutor is a man or a woman.

14 Q. And is it exact to say that Zoki can be a nickname for a person

15 called Zoran, who would be a man, but it could also be, for instance, a

16 nickname for a woman called Zorica?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

18 MR. NICHOLLS: Again, we are straying past what the witness can

19 testify about. He wrote down what he heard. He's made that clear and I

20 don't see the point of these questions.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he can answer this question. He put Zoki

22 and how are we to understand it? I mean it's being put to him that it

23 could mean a man and equally a woman. So let's see whether he agrees or

24 not. After all, he never heard the voice of Zoki.

25 Go ahead. Do you agree that Zoki can refer equally to a man and

1 to a woman? Although they wouldn't have the same name?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Shall we have the break now, Madam

4 Fauveau?

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We'll have a 30-minute break, starting from

7 now.

8 --- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 6.18 p.m.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 Could the witness be shown Exhibit 1395F, and in English it would

13 be 1395E.

14 Q. Sir, this is another conversation transcribed by yourself and we

15 have an added portion; somebody listened to the tape later on and added

16 something else. You've said yesterday on page 66 of the transcript that

17 Uran was the code-name of Popovic's chief. Is it exact to say that you do

18 not know what Uran really means and that you only presume on the basis of

19 the text that you see before you that it would be Popovic's chief or

20 superior?

21 A. I think I didn't say yesterday that I know that Uran is

22 Popovic -- or, rather, Uran is the code-name of somebody but I didn't say

23 yesterday that it was the code-name of Popovic, and that's what I'm saying

24 now.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have something wrong here.

1 Madam Fauveau is not suggesting to you that yesterday you said

2 that Uran is the code-name of Popovic. She is suggesting that yesterday

3 you said that Uran is the code-name of Popovic's chief, the sefe of

4 Popovic. And she is also then asking you to confirm that you said so not

5 really because this was communicated to you officially, that Uran stood

6 for this person who was the chief of Popovic, but because you assumed so

7 from the context of this and maybe other transcripts. This is the

8 question that you need to address your attention to and answer.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's clear to me now. I think

10 I said something to that effect but I think I also added something, that I

11 wasn't quite sure, because this code-name for Krstic is not customary. He

12 would introduce himself loud and clear. So this code-name, though it was

13 used in this case, is not one I heard often. Maybe this was the only time

14 I heard it.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And to answer the question: Were you aware of this

16 code-name before you heard it the first time during this intercept, this

17 particular intercept.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that answers your question.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was the first time.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: That answers your question, Madam Fauveau.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Could the witness be shown Exhibit P2315, 2315? We are talking

24 about a notebook, and it's on page 76 that I would like you to open it,

25 please. 77, please.

1 Q. Sir, the conversation that you have before you took place at 1300

2 hours, and this conversation took place on the 2nd of August, 1995; is

3 that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could we now take page 80?

6 Sir, the date on this page is the 2nd of August. It is written

7 after the conversation took place, but you told us that the date was never

8 written down after the conversation took place. How can you be certain

9 that this conversation that we saw just a couple of seconds ago was in

10 fact the conversation from the 2nd of August?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

12 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, to, I think, correct what my friend

13 has said, I believe what he said was he never wrote the date afterwards,

14 not that it was never written afterwards.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't have a clear recollection of it, so I would

16 rather not express myself.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed with his answer, if he can give it.

19 If he wishes to see the previous transcript, we'll go to it.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It's on page 71, line 17,

21 Mr. President.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you think you can answer the question that has

23 been put to you, Witness, without the need to refer to the transcript or

24 not?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When talking about the date, it

1 wasn't customary to put it down, but some operators transcribing the

2 conversations in this particular case, he noted it down, and we can see

3 looking at the notebooks that a date was indicated every two or three days

4 but it was not a customary thing.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is basically a repetition of what he said

6 before.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Can we then say that there was no rule as to the inscription of

9 the date in the notebook?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that is already implied in his previous

11 answers. I mean, one person would do it one way, another person would do

12 it another way.

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that in this case, it is not

15 possible to establish the exact date when you read the notebook; the

16 notebook does not allow us to establish the exact date?

17 A. I think that through a systematic analysis of the notebooks, one

18 could find out the more or less exact dates. So if it's not there, this

19 does not necessarily mean that we can't make any conclusions.

20 Looking through these notebooks, we came to the conclusion that

21 those are the dates that we are talking about.

22 Q. Could we go to page 58 of the same notebook, please.

23 Sir, you do see a date appearing here. It's the 20th of July,

24 1995. And afterwards, there is a conversation transcribed at 6.48 and

25 another one at 7.04.

1 Could the witness be shown the next page, please.

2 And here we have a conversation that was transcribed at 12.55 and

3 it is probably on the same date, on the 20th of July, 1995. Do you agree

4 with me that it could still be the 20th of July, 1995?

5 A. As we see on the previous page, because the -- a day begins at

6 00 hours.

7 Q. Could the witness be shown the next page, please.

8 Could you please scroll down a little bit? Thank you.

9 Sir, on this particular page, there is no date, and this

10 transcribed conversation took place at 10.50, and there is no date. Could

11 you give me the date of this conversation, please?

12 A. Only if you give me the notebook. Then maybe I can answer your

13 question. But if it says here 10.50, after the previous one, then it

14 probably belongs to another day, but just looking at it like this, I can't

15 tell you anything. You would have to is show me the following days for me

16 to be able to come to any conclusions.

17 Q. So can we just assume that this conversation could have taken

18 place on the 21st of July? It is quite probable, isn't it, that this

19 conversation took place on the 21st of July?

20 A. That is an assumption, but to claim that is something else.

21 Q. Could the witness be shown the following page, please.

22 The same conversation continues on this page, and if we go to the

23 bottom of the page, there is -- there is -- nothing new was added. There

24 is no new transcription.

25 Can we please take the following page?

1 A. I could clarify something else in this connection, if I may.

2 Q. Please go ahead.

3 A. Regardless of the fact that the -- according to the time, these

4 conversations are not in order. This does not mean to say that those

5 conversations were not recorded on the same day, because it depends who

6 was the first to write down or to transcribe the conversations. What is

7 important is when the conversations took place, but that doesn't mean to

8 say that in the notebooks, they followed the same order. You will come

9 across a conversation that was transcribed earlier, that appears later on.

10 So we can look through page after page to see which day these

11 conversations belong to, but the time need not follow in order.

12 It is very difficult to make any conclusions by just looking

13 through one page after another. I really can't say anything with

14 certainty until I'm able to assure myself.

15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... had the notebook before you,

16 if you had the notebook, would you be able to consult it and tell us?

17 A. Then it would probably be easier. I really don't see the purpose.

18 It is the facts that are important.

19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... to give me the notebook, if

20 you could just lend me the notebook for a few seconds?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau, we are going to get no where if we go

22 through the notebook like this. Where do you think we could go?

23 This is already -- already the way he has explained it especially,

24 in the last minute or so, it seems to me that one could delay entering

25 into the notebook an intercept and it would on the face of it appear to

1 have been following the one before whether in actual fact it may have been

2 intercepted earlier, so it's -- and it will be marked accordingly. So at

3 that point in time you can get a picture which is -- can become pretty

4 confusing.

5 But anyway, I mean, did you give him the notebook? Let's make it

6 available to him. Look at these pages. We are at page 62. And you've

7 been shown 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. See if you can enlighten us on

8 establishing the dates but we don't want you to speculate.

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] To assist the witness, after the

10 date of the 20th of July, 1995, which is on page 01077934, the first

11 following date is inscribed on page 0107796 -- 956 and the date that

12 appears there is the 2nd of August. So between the 20th of July and the

13 2nd of August, there is no other inscribed date.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: My feeling is that you can really get to the dates

15 if you have then the -- what was referred to maybe the official

16 communication of the intercept once it's transmitted via the Paket system

17 to the command corps, because there it would have a heading indicating the

18 date, the time when it is transmitted and everything.

19 So I understood the witness earlier on to say that if you really

20 sat down and did a thorough examination of the notebook, obviously

21 comparing it with the rest of the documents that would help you

22 understand, then he could possibly fix the date of each entry there.

23 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just -- I won't say anything in front of the

25 witness but the -- we can take at some point one minute or two and I can

1 address the Court how the Prosecution's theory on how this will best be

2 established and then we'll have an idea what we are arguing about.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Not now, perhaps.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, I understand.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps before the next witness testifies. Yes.

6 Yes, are you in a position to enlighten us, Witness?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Your Honour, we could only

8 proceed in the way that you referred to; that is the only way in which we

9 could reach the facts. All the material, all the notebooks, the other

10 notebooks, and I'm sure that we would put this puzzle together properly.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think you can take the notebook back from

12 him, Madam Usher.

13 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Could the witness be shown Exhibit 1395B, and in English

16 it's 1395A.

17 Q. Sir, we have a report here that you have forwarded this report to

18 somebody. So can you tell us who did you forward this report to?

19 A. I didn't forward this to anybody.

20 Q. Isn't this a report stemming from your own unit?

21 A. Not necessarily. I didn't send it so I don't know.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you. Maybe I was making -- maybe I asked the

23 question in a perhaps difficult way.

24 These intercepted reports, whom did you send those reports once

25 they were finished?

1 A. We sent this through Paket communications to the command. It's

2 probably because of this telephone number that it was sent to check, in a

3 way, who this phone number belonged to or, I don't know. Well, it was

4 just recorded and it was sent that way. It is well known who we sent this

5 to, like all other reports, but -- it says here private conversation,

6 so ...

7 Q. Sir, when you say that you would forward your report to the

8 command, what command are you talking about? Is it the command of your

9 own unit, or was it the command of the 2nd Corps?

10 A. No, no, no. Only the command of my unit. I had nothing to do

11 with the corps command. It is only natural in the hierarchy one knows the

12 way one goes, to one's own unit, and then there is someone who is going to

13 send it further on.

14 Q. The date on this report, 2nd of August, 1995, was this date

15 inscribed automatically by the computer? Does the computer have a special

16 programme that would put the date, or was it one of your men who would put

17 the date?

18 A. I answered that question a long time ago. It wasn't the computer.

19 It was the operator. As for the next file, he didn't have to type it out

20 again. He could just copy it and perhaps set the time right, something

21 like that, the number of the document.

22 Q. Would you agree with me that it is always possible to make a

23 mistake and that it's always possible to write the wrong date? A typo is

24 always possible.

25 A. There could not have been a wrong date.

1 Q. And why was it not possible to write an inexact date or, in other

2 words, how is it that it could happen that one could make a mistake?

3 A. Quite simply, in the morning the first report would be sent with a

4 new date, about the state of affairs on the previous day at the facility,

5 whether there were problems or whether there were no problems. That

6 report was always number 1. And if you look at all these transcripts

7 here, you never have a transcript that is number 1. So the next ones are

8 always 2, 3, 4, et cetera.

9 So the first report, once it's sent in the morning, with that

10 date, then there can be no further mistake. That is why I'm saying that

11 it is impossible to make that kind of mistake.

12 Q. That's it. This first report that would leave, would it be

13 possible that that report leave your unit with a wrong date?

14 A. Well, let's assume that that even was the case. That first report

15 never contained that kind of information. It contained information about

16 us at the facility, so that could not have been omitted and there couldn't

17 have been an oversight of that kind, as far as the other reports were

18 concerned, even if the first one would have gone out with a mistake, but I

19 never noticed anything like that.

20 Q. Is it exact to say that at a certain point in time you received

21 the order to inscribe a date, to put a date, before each conversation?

22 A. I do not recall ever having received such an order. It went

23 without saying, in the report, that it would contain a date or the date.

24 As for the notebook, if that's what you're asking me about, we

25 never received orders about that.

1 Q. Very well. But, Witness, I would like to know the following: In

2 this report, the date figures on top in the heading of the document, but

3 afterwards there are no dates again before the conversation. In other

4 words, it is not retranscribed again.

5 A. Well, yes, those are the conversations that were sent on to the

6 command on that day. And it is certain that they were from that date.

7 They wouldn't -- we wouldn't have kept something for two or three or five

8 days and then send it so much later. It's not logical.

9 Q. And we have already established that in the notebooks the dates

10 were not put. Now I would like to ask you: Did you ever receive an order

11 asking you that you put in a date before each conversation? If you

12 recall. Tell us if you recall this order.

13 A. That's not an order. That's the way we worked from day 1. That

14 was the rule.

15 Q. Could the witness be shown Exhibit 5D117, please.

16 And before this exhibit appears on the screen, sir, you said this

17 was the rule and that you were working with this as of the first day. But

18 in fact on this particular report, there is no date just before the

19 conversation.

20 Witness, can you please look at paragraph 1? We can see: "I

21 hereby order the following [In English] reconnaissance of RRV, radio link

22 communications, the original conversation is submitted literally as it was

23 conducted with the following heading, date, frequency," and so on and so

24 on.

25 [Interpretation] Can you see on top of this document, on top, in

1 the right-hand corner, that it is sent to your unit?

2 A. This order has a date and a number. However, this is an order

3 that was written for these two squads, for the northern and the southern

4 facility, that is. This is an order that was sent to all, so I'm not

5 saying that it did not leave -- reach my facility as well, but it also has

6 a date, it has a number, and the place from where it was sent. So I don't

7 know what you are getting at, and I really don't know what you want me to

8 say.

9 Q. Witness, that was not at all my question. My question was to ask

10 you if, according to this order, you were supposed to put a date before

11 each conversation, that each conversation had to necessarily contain a

12 date as well.

13 A. Well, that is possible, but it was never stated as concerns the

14 notebooks. There was not a single report that was sent without a date and

15 without a number.

16 As I've said several times now, the notebook was just working

17 material. So not a single transcript was sent, typed out and sent that

18 is, without a date and without the time. The order was complied with.

19 Q. Witness, could you please take a look at the word, "I order," "I

20 hereby order," before that word we can see that it is written: "[In

21 English] Commander of the 2nd Corps, strictly confidential, number 8/468/2

22 of 16th August 1995, and in connection with the submission of PEB reports

23 by the RRPC and in all these shortcomings and deficiencies and for the

24 purpose of ensuring the maximum quality of submissions of the information

25 collected by RI."

1 A. Yes. But the corps commander never sent orders to such a small

2 unit. He sent that order to my command, the command of my unit.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, what I would like to know is your -- to

4 give -- I would like to you tell us about two words, deficiencies and

5 shortcomings. Could you please tell us what those two words refer to,

6 shortcomings and deficiencies?

7 A. Well, I don't know specifically, but I assume that the command of

8 my unit, when informing the command of the corps, perhaps had some

9 shortcomings and deficiencies and then they were ordered to rectify that,

10 and then this was sent further on to us, something from that order that

11 was necessary at a lower level too. Specifically, I cannot claim

12 anything.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau, how much more do you have?

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I will try to finish by the end of

15 the day but maybe I'll need ten more minutes tomorrow.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I certainly do not intend to deprive Mr. Josse from

17 the five minutes.

18 MR. JOSSE: We don't require it now.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 So can I ask you to try and finish, Madam Fauveau? To make

21 everybody's life much easier? Thank you.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Mr. President.

23 Q. Witness, you just admitted that some shortcomings and deficiencies

24 were possible. Is it possible that mistakes could have been made

25 regarding the date?

1 A. Not in the reports.

2 MR. NICHOLLS: Asked and answered several times.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls. It's true. Let's proceed.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Witness, you've stated yesterday that you were a unit of the

6 2nd Corps. Is it right to say that at a certain point in time you were

7 subordinated directly to the main headquarters of the Bosnia-Herzegovina

8 army, ABiH?

9 A. I never said that, nor were we subordinated. Who said that?

10 Q. Witness, you've stated yesterday on page 27 of the

11 transcript: "[In English] After all, we were a unit of the 2nd Corps."

12 A. Yes, we were a unit of the 2nd Corps, but not of the command of

13 the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14 Q. [Interpretation] But I wanted to know if at a certain point in

15 time you were subordinated directly to the General Staff of the ABiH.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. He's already told you no.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Is it true to say that the Main Staff was able to give you orders

19 directly to you?

20 A. It was never done. But objectively and operatively, it could do

21 that, but it didn't.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: To you or to your superiors?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To my superiors, yes, but the

24 question is whether we received such orders, and I understand that to mean

25 the unit of which I was in command.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

3 Exhibit 5D142, please?

4 Q. Witness, please take a look at this exhibit. Isn't it an order

5 stemming from the command of your unit, the superior unit, to which you

6 were subordinated?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could you please take a look at paragraph 2B. I know that we are

9 talking about jamming conversations. I will not ask you anything about it

10 because you've already told us on this but what I would like to know is

11 this paragraph 2B mentions: "[Previous translation continues] ...

12 [In English] stations," and I will not pronounce the name of the station,

13 "shall jam only at the request of the PEB organ of the 2nd Corps and at

14 the request of the Main Staff, OU, extension unknown, of the PEB

15 department and never on one's own initiative [indiscernible] Sarajevo

16 front."

17 [Interpretation] Did you ever have the opportunity to see this

18 order, sir?

19 A. I don't know. I can't remember.

20 Q. Isn't this an order that was sent to your unit?

21 A. Yes, yes. But there is a location indicated here. You can read

22 it. Which is not -- maybe if we go into private session, I can refer to

23 the names. It was not at the location where I was. This is something

24 else. And I can explain that.

25 Q. In fact, there is another location but there also yours. There is

1 also your facility, the southern facility; isn't that right?

2 A. Yes. But what you are talking about was being done by the

3 communications unit in this other facility, which doesn't mean that we did

4 it, too, at our facility. Because I said yesterday that when it came to

5 jamming, we tried something but we never achieved much or anything of

6 significance, and I always felt that this was counterproductive for us to

7 jam the conversations that we wanted to monitor and record. The two

8 things don't go together.

9 Q. Very well. I would like the witness to be shown 5D150,

10 Exhibit 5D150.

11 Witness, I know that we are talking about jamming of

12 conversations, and this is not at all the topic I am mainly interested in.

13 However, there is a sentence which shows that this is a report stemming

14 from your unit. If you could please look at the sentence that begins

15 with "by the way," and then you can read as follows: "[In English] By the

16 way, the transformer and we rectify which we borrowed from [indiscernible]

17 operator."

18 [Interpretation] I just assumed that there were two units at that

19 facility, and if someone lent something from the communications unit, it

20 can only be your own unit. Isn't that the case?

21 A. It's possible. It's possible. I'm not denying anything. I'm not

22 claiming anything.

23 Q. And I would like to ask you the following question. At the very

24 beginning of the document, there is a question of equipment that was left

25 by the UN. Could you please explain to us what this equipment is, what

1 this is about?

2 A. Let me just read it for a minute.

3 At the facility where I was working, to this day, there are

4 systems or repeaters or digipeaters from the UN, from Samarstrof [phoen],

5 from the electricity board. There is a special UN container, and they

6 still have their repeater communications through that facility, so this

7 was a generator that was theirs.

8 I haven't read to the end. Maybe we used it briefly or linked up

9 with it.

10 Q. Witness, I would not like to put words in your mouth but could you

11 please tell us what this abbreviation means, UN?

12 A. United Nations. They had their representatives through -- during

13 the war and they had their own communications, and they still have them

14 and they are still operational.

15 Q. And according to this document, if I understand correctly, you

16 used some equipment that belonged to the United Nations; is that correct?

17 A. No. We didn't use it. This was just the generator. But the

18 equipment we didn't dare, nor did we have any need to use it. There must

19 have been a short break in the power system, and the generator supplies

20 the power. So this may have been an isolated case.

21 Q. And tell us, the communications unit of the United Nations, was it

22 placed there as well?

23 A. Never, never. But if they needed to service the generator or to

24 repair some antennas or something, they would come occasionally and do

25 their work. I didn't interfere with that, nor did I have any need to, nor

1 did I have any right to prevent anyone from doing such things.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further

3 questions for this witness.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Perfect. Thank you, Madam Fauveau, for your

5 cooperation.

6 I take it, just for formality, Mr. Sarapa, you still maintain you

7 don't need to cross-examine this witness?

8 MR. SARAPA: No, we don't have any questions.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And Mr. Josse you have already confirmed.

10 So basically, sir, that means before we bring to an end -- do you

11 have any re-examination?

12 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So that means that we have brought your testimony to

14 an end, and that's also thanks to the cooperation of all the lawyers in

15 this room. I wish to thank you on behalf of everyone for having come over

16 and given testimony, and also on behalf of everyone I wish you a safe

17 journey back home. Our staff will give you all the attention you require

18 and all the assistance you require to facilitate that. Thank you. And

19 have a nice evening.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Tomorrow, just to confirm, because for a moment

22 someone got my mind confused. We don't have another witness but Major

23 Rutten tomorrow.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: We have another one available to follow on.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but I think the understanding is that Major

1 Rutten will engage us most of the day, if not all.

2 MR. NICHOLLS: If that's correct, that's fine, but if we finish

3 early we will have somebody available.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So tomorrow morning it's a morning sitting. We have

5 shifted from the afternoon to the morning. Okay?

6 MR. NICHOLLS: Then, Your Honour, should we run through the

7 numbers of the exhibits tomorrow?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: We can do that tomorrow. I would rather not keep

9 the staff any longer here. We can do it tomorrow morning, thank you.

10 Unless I hear an objection. I hear no objections. Thank you.

11 So good evening.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day of

14 December, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25