1 Wednesday, 24 January 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, good morning to you. Could you
7 call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much. For the record, accused
11 Nikolic is still indisposed. And we'll be issuing -- giving some
12 instructions -- one moment. We will be giving some instructions to the
13 Registrar to update us on his condition in due course after we finish with
14 this witness. General Gvero also is absent for the time being this
15 morning. And for justified reason, and he will be returning to the
16 courtroom later on. I take it Mr. Krgovic, that he has, I understand that
17 he has given his consent to proceed in his absent; is that correct?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. General Gvero has
19 a medical exam so he has given his agreement that the trial continues in
20 his absent. My colleague Mr. Josse is also absent. He is monitoring the
21 trial of General Nikolaj [phoen] in another case, so he will not be
22 joining us today.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you very much.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would like to inform the Trial Chamber that
25 Ms. Julie Condon will be absent until the end of next week.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
2 Mr. Josse is not here, and the rest are here. The Prosecution is
3 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Nicholls. No one else behind the column.
4 Good morning to you, Witness.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to continue with the few
7 cross-examinations still remaining. Mr. Haynes, you were about to finish
8 your cross-examination yesterday. Please proceed.
9 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-150 [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 MR. HAYNES: Through, Mr. President. Good morning, Your Honours.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, Witness.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. Yesterday afternoon when we finished we were just looking at the
16 transcript of an intercept you had recorded and it's e-court reference
18 JUDGE AGIUS: If there is a problem, let's have the -- oh, no,
19 it's okay. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Haynes.
20 MR. HAYNES: It's not on my screen yet. I don't know if it's in
21 front of the witness.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait a minute.
23 Mr. Nicholls, yes.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: I was just saying it's tab 7, if everybody has the
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I was going to suggest that if we have
2 technical problems then we can use the text.
3 But do you have it now in front of you, Witness? No. I need -- I
4 think he needs your assistance. Madam Usher has certainly got it, I can
5 see it from here. But it's not on mine, I must say. He has it, all
6 right. I think we can safely proceed, Mr. Haynes, because we have the
7 hard copy of it. He's got a copy in front of him.
8 MR. HAYNES: I'm content. I'm concerned that none of the accused
9 can see it, of course. But if the witness can see it, then I can take the
10 points very quickly.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher, could you take the hard copy and put it
12 on the ELMO, please. And the accused can follow from the ELMO, from
13 the -- tab 7, yeah.
14 MR. HAYNES: And it's the second page of that particular
15 intercept, which is numbered 372, the last three numbers.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: 372. Madam Registrar, perhaps you can inquire
17 whether this is a technical problem that will continue in which case we
18 need to address it, or whether it is only with this particular document.
19 It's the system, okay. So we need to alert the technicians. Thank you.
20 I draw the attention of the accused that it is now on the ELMO,
21 and you can see it if you are -- yeah, okay.
22 So we can safely proceed. Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
23 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. You will recall we were looking at this intercept yesterday
25 afternoon, Witness. And I want to ask you three or four very simple
1 questions about it. Firstly, was this a conversation in which it was easy
2 to discern what people were saying?
3 A. My task was to record it, but as for the other things that was up
4 to the people at higher levels.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note the witness is speaking too
6 close to the microphone and we cannot really understand well.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreters have drawn my attention that,
8 Witness, you are speaking too close to the microphone, and that is
9 creating some problems for them. If you can maintain that position, I
10 think that will be better. Thank you.
11 MR. HAYNES:
12 Q. Is this document in your handwriting?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So it was you that listened to it and wrote out the
16 A. I did.
17 Q. And there don't appear to be any passages where you have had
18 difficulty in discerning what people were saying in this conversation; is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, well there was something, and I did put a question mark there
21 where something was understood, where it was inaudible.
22 Q. Thank you very much. But that was the only part of the
24 A. I didn't understand the question, if the question was meant for
1 Q. The question really was that there was only one part of the
2 conversation that you had difficulty understanding.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And was this a conversation that contained important
6 A. In my view, yes.
7 Q. I want to see if you agree with me as to what the important
8 information in this conversation was. Was it important that you've
9 discovered from this conversation that Major Jevdjevic was in Zepa?
10 A. As far as I'm concerned, yes.
11 Q. And also important that Vinko was not in Zepa?
12 A. I don't know that.
13 Q. But you also discovered from this conversation, didn't you, not
14 only was Vinko not in Zepa, it was not intended that he should go to
16 A. I cannot know that, if he intended to go there or not.
17 Q. No, but you listened to the conversation and you can gain an
18 understanding of what people are intending to do from what you hear, can't
20 A. I just recorded what I heard. I didn't make anything up.
21 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to move on now. And if the e-court system
22 is still not working I want you to have a look quickly at the intercept
23 that's behind our tab 8.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: The system seems to be working now, at least on our
25 monitor. If you could perhaps check on yours, and the accused likewise.
1 MR. HAYNES: Yes, it's working, Your Honour. In that case I want
2 P2931B. And again, if the Witness could have a look at the bottom half of
3 that page and the next page, please.
4 Q. Have you read that, Witness, the bottom half of that page?
5 A. No, I didn't manage to read the whole thing.
6 Q. Tell us when you've read that page, and then the usher can show
7 you the next page.
8 A. Yes, very well. We can go ahead.
9 Q. Thank you. And again tell us when you've finished reading
11 A. I have read it.
12 Q. Thank you very much. I only have two questions about this
13 intercept. You will agree, this appears to be a conversation about the
14 provision of some fuel, doesn't it?
15 A. Yes, that's what it seems.
16 Q. One of the names you've written down in this conversation is the
17 name Trbic. Was that a name that meant anything to you in September of
19 A. I can't remember that now.
20 Q. And lastly this: On the computer printout of this conversation
21 the date that's given to this conversation is the 22nd of September, but
22 we don't see that in the notebook. Is that because the date will have
23 appeared further back in the notebook?
24 A. I really couldn't say.
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
2 Mr. Meek or Mr. Ostojic, I don't know. Yesterday you were still
3 in consultations with your client with a view to deciding whether to
4 cross-examine this witness or not. Do you have a cross-examination?
5 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour, and we have determined that we have
6 no questions for this witness. Thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I think we have covered everyone
8 except Ms. Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon, yeah. Go ahead.
9 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
11 Q. Good morning, Witness.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. I only have a few questions for you this morning, further to your
14 testimony, and my first question goes as follows: You mentioned in your
15 statement that in order to be as accurate as possible that you would
16 listen to the tape as often as was necessary. I would just like to
17 confirm with you that indeed this is something that was necessary for
18 every single intercept, that you could never make out what was on it the
19 first time. Is that correct?
20 A. In case something was unclear, we would play that back. If
21 something was clear, then we -- there was no need to play it back a few
22 times. Sometimes some things were inaudible, we couldn't hear it very
23 well, there were was some kind of crackling or buzzing. That's the --
24 those were the parts that we would play back then to see what was being
1 Q. Now, I would just like to -- to confirm whether it was more often
2 that you would get -- that you would need to listen to the tape many
3 times, or that you could transcribe the conversation the first time
4 around. Which was more regular?
5 A. It was more regular to hear it back several times in order to
6 avoid sending information to our superiors that was inaccurate.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, you mention also in your statement that when a
8 portion of the conversation was inaudible, that this would be indicated on
9 the transcript. And I would like to draw your attention to Exhibit P1200B
10 for Bravo, and I'd like to have this exhibit placed on the e-court,
11 please. Now, from this conversation, Witness, you indicated as
12 participants in this conversation someone called -- sorry for the
13 pronunciation, but Djurdjic, and beside you have a Jelena, and then it
14 says "inaudible." My question to you is what was inaudible here? Is it
15 the Jelena that was inaudible, is it the second name of the Jelena, or is
16 it something to do with the Djurdjic?
17 A. I think that it states here clearly that Jelena was inaudible.
18 Q. Now, if Jelena was inaudible, how could you write "Jelena"?
19 A. Djurdjic probably addressed her as Jelena and that's how we
20 established that the name was Jelena.
21 Q. Now, as a -- when I look at all -- the eight conversations that we
22 have in this document today, and first I'd like you to confirm that you
23 did look at each and every one of these conversations; is that right?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, just in reference to the series of questions
1 on this intercept, I wonder, looking at the questions that have been
2 asked, if the Witness be could be allowed to read the entire intercept. I
3 think's he's probably just seen what I see on my page, which is the first,
4 small portion of it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough. Good point, Mr. Nicholls, if the
6 Witness thinks it is necessary.
7 Witness, would you like to read the entire transcript or
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, let's give him the opportunity to read -- to
11 go through it. Perhaps it's easier if we give him a hard copy of it.
12 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, my question was not -- did not relate
13 to the intercept at all, other than at the very beginning. But if we want
14 to take the time for him to read it, that's fine with me.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: It depends on what the rest of the questions are,
16 Mr. Bourgon. I mean, I understand what you say, obviously, but I don't
17 know what other questions you have in mind.
18 MR. BOURGON: Maybe my colleague should wait before he does his
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But it's fair enough. I mean, if he's going to be
21 asked on this intercept, I think he perhaps should be given the
22 opportunity to read it through again.
23 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Just to briefly respond and not waste time, I think
25 the question, "How did you come up with the name Jelena?" calls for him to
1 be allowed to read the whole conversation.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's give him a short time.
3 As soon as you are ready, Witness, please tell us.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can see clearly here, "let
5 me just note down these details. Just wait a little bit, Jelena."
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.
7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Witness, I did not intend to ask this question, but now that we
9 are into this intercept, I see from the conversation that the
10 word "Jelena" appears a couple of times on the complete intercept. But at
11 the top part it says Jelena as being inaudible. So I just want to -- to
12 explain --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think --
14 MR. BOURGON:
15 Q. -- what exactly is inaudible at that point.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: It's actually been answered, that question.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I see a little bit point in what he is asking. I
18 think it's next -- simple explanation that we need to have from the
20 Yes, Witness, can you answer that question?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this conversation was maybe
22 not recorded from the very beginning. We recorded this part, and that's
23 why we did not hear Jelena at the very beginning until the other speaker
24 mentioned her name.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think it's clear now, Mr. Bourgon, and you can
1 move to something different.
2 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now, Witness, the -- what is important to me is not that intercept
4 itself, but it's the fact that if you did write a name in the notebook
5 that is because you heard the name correctly; is that so?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if there was a doubt as to the name that you heard, you would
8 put something beside that name to indicate that you were not sure at that
9 particular moment; is that so?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And my last question is what I asked previously, that you did have
12 an opportunity to look at the eight intercepts that are in the package
13 that I have with me this morning; is that correct?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. General Miletic would like to
15 address the Trial Chamber.
16 THE ACCUSED MILETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a
17 problem with interpretation. I hear you and the Prosecutor and the
18 witness, but I cannot hear Mr. Bourgon. I can hear him as long as I keep
19 the button pressed but then I don't hear you and I can't really follow the
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That is -- that is strange. Let's
22 try -- try it out. Mr. Bourgon, can I ask you to say something.
23 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And the interpreters to translate in B/C/S, please.
25 MR. BOURGON: Just in relation to my last question.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: You can repeat the question, for example and we see
2 whether General Miletic is receiving --
3 MR. BOURGON: It doesn't appear to be working, Mr. President, but
4 the ...
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Popovic, Mr. Beara, are you receiving, you have
6 no problems? And General Pandurevic? Okay. Borovcanin? Okay.
7 General Miletic, can you -- can you -- are you receiving
8 interpretation of what I am saying now?
9 THE ACCUSED MILETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I do.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Bourgon, can I kindly ask you again to say
12 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Mr. President. Concerning my last question,
13 the question was ...
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you, General Miletic, for having
15 drawn our attention to that. Please sit down.
16 And Mr. Bourgon can proceed.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Witness, I will say my question once again and simply that the --
19 I have here a series of intercepts that you have identified other than one
20 of them, and I would simply confirm that you did look at all of these
21 intercepts and confirmed that they were yours and you have looked at them;
22 is that so?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you, Witness. I have no more questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Just trying to refresh my memory, I
1 don't think there were any other cross-examinations. Mr. Nicholls, would
2 you like to re-examine your witness?
3 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Witness, that means that your testimony
5 finishes here, ends here. Madam Usher will escort you out of the
6 courtroom and you will receive the assistance. I am still -- you will be
7 escorted out of the courtroom and we will assist you to facilitate your
8 return back home at the earliest. On behalf of the Tribunal, I wish to
9 thank you for coming to give your testimony and also wish you a safe
10 journey back home.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed with the document-tendering process.
13 The first two documents as per the list that has been circulated by the
14 Prosecution, namely the witness statement of the 23rd of January of this
15 year, and the pseudonym sheet, are being admitted under seal. As PO2389
16 and PO2390 respectfully. The rest are intercepts, they are listed as I
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Together with a handwritten intercept notebook.
20 What appears in bold characters will be kept under seal. I take it that
21 there are no objections from any of the Defence teams? I hear none.
22 So these will all be marked for identification -- identification.
23 Thank you. Any of the Defence teams wishes to tender any documents?
24 None. So that closes this chapter.
25 Now, let's start from here. This is an order that we are issuing
1 verbally, or instructions that we are -- I don't like using the
2 word "order" that much; instructions that we are going to give to the
3 Registrar of this Tribunal. His attention is drawn by the Trial Chamber
4 to the fact that Accused Nikolic has been absent from the courtroom for
5 part of the last week and also this week due to a medical problem that he
6 seems to be encountering. The Trial Chamber wishes the -- the Registrar
7 to make full inquiries with the authorities of the Detention Unit,
8 including the medical doctor attached to that unit and report back to the
9 Trial Chamber at the earliest possible on the state of health of
10 Accused Nikolic, providing details of the medical attention that he has
11 been receiving at the unit or even outside the detention unit. And an
12 estimate or a prognosis of when Mr. Nikolic is likely to be able to return
13 to attend -- be present for -- for these proceedings. Thank you.
14 I don't think there is need to do the same in relation to
15 General Gvero, Mr. Krgovic. I don't think so. If there is a problem --
16 the reason is first we need to know if this is on -- a long-haul problem
17 or whether it is transient, in which case we'll proceed as we have been
18 doing. If it's on the long haul we will need to discuss further.
19 Now, yesterday I drew your attention to a Prosecution motion --
20 Prosecution motion to add another intercept operator, namely Witness 177
21 as a 92 ter witness. We heard submissions. I take it, Mr. Nicholls, that
22 this witness is here, ready to give evidence? We're talking of Witness
23 number 177.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: The witness is -- is here, Your Honour. Not ready
25 immediately to give evidence. We do have another intercept operator who
1 could give evidence I believe at about 11.00. But he -- he is here. The
2 witness you're referring to, and possibly later today, but he arrived last
4 JUDGE AGIUS: He was scheduled to start giving evidence tomorrow,
5 Thursday. But obviously you need, both of you -- both sides need to know
6 what the position is.
7 Are there any further submissions you would like to make in
8 relation to this Witness number 77 [sic]? I hear none. I think we can
9 hand down our decision orally, and we'll follow it up with a written
11 Our decision is the following: We consider that it is in the
12 interests of justice for the proposed witness to be added to the 65 ter
13 witness list, and that good cause has been shown by the Prosecution for
14 the addition of the said witness to the 65 ter witness list in light of
15 paragraph 105 of the decision on Trial Chamber's decision on Prosecution's
16 confidential motion for the admission of written evidence in lieu of viva
17 voce testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis, which we handed down on the 12th
18 of September. We hold that the Prosecution has identified a reasonable
19 basis for admitting the testimony of the proposed witness pursuant to Rule
20 92 ter, but that the identification of the specific written evidence of
21 the proposed witness to be admitted is a pre-condition for its admission
22 pursuant to the said rule.
23 We invoke Rule 75 (A). We feel that there is -- we are satisfied
24 that there is an objective basis in the circumstances and past employment
25 of the proposed witness demonstrating that he may be at risk of harassment
1 and intimidation and that the protective measures sought are consistent
2 with the rights of the accused. Consequently pursuant to Articles 21, 21
3 (2) and 22 of the Statute and Rules 54 and 75, we hereby grant the
4 Prosecution motion. And the details will be incorporated in the written
5 decision; however, we are saying that the Prosecution witness will testify
6 with the protective measures of face distortion and shall be referred to
7 by pseudonym at all times in the course of his testimony, or whenever
8 referred to in the course of the proceedings, whether during the hearing
9 or in documents, including the transcripts of proceedings.
10 In other words, I take it that you have not asked for voice
11 distortion in this particular case.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't believe so, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. The rest, you can -- you will be
14 able to follow in the -- in the written version of the proceedings.
15 One moment, I need to consult with my colleagues.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls, or Mr. McCloskey, is the next witness,
18 Mr. Nicholls said at 11.00. I don't know. Is he the -- another intercept
19 witness or is he the one -- the crime-base witness that you referred to
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have a witness that's outside and who is
22 available that is the crime-base witness, which is the subject --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So that brings me to the latest development in this
24 case. I hope that you are all privy to the Borovcanin Defence team
25 submission concerning issues in relation to the testimony of Prosecution
1 Witness PW-111, which was handed -- which was filed yesterday but which
2 was made available to us this morning, sometime before we started the
3 sitting. I don't know if Mr. Lazarevic would like to address the Trial
4 Chamber on -- on his motion. If not, and I think the motion in itself
5 is --
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just very briefly, very briefly. The main reason
7 why we submitted the submission was to avoid any delays caused by oral
8 submitting issues. But there are two things that I believe should be
9 clarified by the Prosecution which may assist the Trial Chamber in issuing
10 the right decision.
11 During yesterday's session Mr. McCloskey informed us on two
12 things. First of all, that this witness testified before Bosnian court.
13 I would really like to know if Mr. McCloskey can tell us what the date it
14 was when he testified, which would help us to establish what was the time
15 period from his testimony there and we would -- it would enable us to know
16 whether they were diligent enough to bring this testimony here.
17 Other issue is the request that was made by the Prosecution to the
18 Bosnian government, when it was submitted. If they have problems with
19 corporation with Bosnian government, it was submitted but with no
20 response, that -- I believe we are entitled to know that. And I believe
21 that have quite a lot of -- well, possibilities to deal with situation
22 when the government does not cooperate with the Prosecution.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
24 Mr. McCloskey, would you like to respond to that? And also to the
25 motion that was filed by -- by Mr. Lazarevic?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: My best information on when he testified comes
2 from Mr. Stojanovic, who is from Bosnia and is following those proceedings
3 in the language that they are in. And I -- we've all known that this was
4 something that was happening and they had every ability to make a request
5 as do we, in the language that they use. I believe Mr. Stojanovic thinks
6 that it was October that he -- that he testified. And -- but it's -- as
7 yet I'm not exactly sure. We can find that out. And I'm not exactly sure
8 when we put our -- our request for assistance in either. But it was a
9 while back. And I -- I really -- I don't look at this in any -- and
10 neither has Defence counsel, as anyone's fault, really. This is -- and
11 we've spoken about this, and in fact we've spoken to all Defence counsel
12 and everyone is communicating well and is trying to deal with all of these
13 issues with positive suggestions and we've had a number of them. And so I
14 understand their motion, I understand the concern. I spoke to the witness
15 about it. And the witness is -- the witness says he will -- he'll come
16 back in a few weeks and that he's ready to do that. Now, the problem with
17 that is, of course, is that that leaves us with a huge gap. And
18 courtrooms have gaps, in normal courtrooms that's -- I know that's a
19 terrible sin here, and I -- and I work constantly to avoid it, but he's
20 here, he's ready. I would prefer that -- that he go through all of his
21 testimony and cross-examination and that he come back for any cross
22 necessary because of his transcript. On the other hand, we're okay, and
23 he's okay with coming back in a few weeks when we can sort out this
25 We're trying to put on a perfect trial; we can't. We're trying.
1 But we'll continue to try. And we appreciate the Defence, we appreciate
2 the tone of the motion and we appreciate that we are all still trying --
3 after all these months there's no finger pointing going on, we're trying
4 to do this. And that's very much appreciated.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
6 Yes, Mr. Meek.
7 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like the
8 Chamber to note that Mr. Borovcanin's counsel are not alone and that the
9 Defence for Mr. Beara wholeheartedly supports the motion and joins in this
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the Trial Chamber looks at the Borovcanin
12 motion as one which is across the board and applies or would apply to --
13 to all the accused because it is a matter of principles of justice first
14 and foremost. I don't read the Borovcanin motion as a criticism of the
15 Prosecution, and I do not look at the whole event as -- as -- as a
16 shortcoming on the part of the Prosecution. All that has happened is
17 understandable. And if it's a sin, you have got confessors here that are
18 prepared to be understanding.
19 There are two issues, basically. One is whether to even start
20 with the testimony of this witness in chief. The other is, if we start
21 with the testimony of this witness in chief, whether we should reserve
22 cross-examination completely for all Defence teams and not just for the
23 Borovcanin team. That's the understanding. I mean, there is no sense in
24 approaching it in any different manner.
25 We have of course discussed amongst ourselves, in the short time
1 available that we had prior to entering this courtroom, and ...
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The position we have taken, briefly put, is as
4 follows: We see, and we -- we see a lot of validity in the argument
5 brought forward by the Borovcanin Defence team in their motion for the
6 suspension of any cross-examination at -- at this stage, pending the
7 disclosure of the material that they referred to in their motion. It is,
8 however, our opinion that at this stage the same arguments need not
9 necessarily prevent the commencement of the testimony of this witness
10 in -- in chief. We are not at the moment giving or handing down an order
11 to this effect, we are just inviting the two sides to have a short
12 tete-a-tete consultation between you in the spirit of cooperation that has
13 characterised this trial from the very beginning, thanks to the attitude
14 that you have adopted. And the idea being to proceed with the
15 examination-in-chief, with the direct, as Mr. McCloskey would call it, and
16 the understanding is that when that is over the witness will be sent home
17 and he will then be called again for cross-examination at a later stage,
18 if there is a request for cross-examination which I understand -- I would
19 almost take it for granted there will be.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: So what we suggest is we'll suspend the sitting for
22 a few minutes, unless -- unless there is the go-ahead from -- from the
23 Defence teams, because if we can deal with this here and now without
24 suspending the sitting, then we will proceed that way.
25 Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it's -- I hope not to take more
2 than a couple of hours with this -- with this witness, and I think he
3 would prefer to get this done in a -- in a solid block, and I -- I know
4 that that presents problems and -- and he will do of course whatever you
5 say. But I just want -- he -- he was cross-examined by 11 Defence counsel
6 in Sarajevo and is ready to go, but given his experience he would like to
7 do it in one block, but he is ready to do it ...
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a choice or a decision that you would have --
9 you would have to take. We have not handed down a decision, as we have
10 said, but I think we have depicted a scenario that is clear enough, there
11 won't be -- it's very unlikely that there will be cross-examination today
12 anyway. So that's the position. If you prefer not to bring forward or
13 proceed with your direct today, I mean, it will be your decision, and --
14 and we will give our position on that. But we are not interfering for the
15 time being with -- if on the other hand the Defence teams agree that he
16 should proceed with the direct today, then we don't need a -- an interval
17 of time, a pause for consultations.
18 Yeah, Mr. Lazarevic.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I believe that we would have to
20 consult among ourselves. It is not something the Borovcanin decision has
21 to decide by himself. If we could have 10 minutes and we will then be
22 able to approach the Prosecution and discuss this issue.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough. We will have a short pause, a short
24 break. We will be outside the courtroom. Once you have reached an
25 agreement after these consultations, could you kindly alert
1 Madam Registrar and we will resume. Thank you.
2 --- Break taken at 10.00 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.20 a.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, for the record, General Gvero is back in the
6 Yes. Do you have any information for the Trial Chamber?
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: It appears that the Defence would prefer the one
9 block approach as well, though I think everyone is ready to hear from him
10 if that need be, but if preferences were given, I'm told that they would
11 prefer the one-block approach as well. But there is also a problem with
12 next week that we need to discuss, but one problem at a time.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, dear, dear, dear, dear, dear, dear.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You've shown a lot of cooperation and the
16 Trial Chamber will do the same. We fully understand your position, your
17 respective positions, and we are inclined to comply with your expressed
18 wishes. So we will not proceed with the testimony of this witness.
19 That's number one.
20 Number two, I take it then that the Borovcanin motion is moot, and
21 need not be decided. Agreed, Mr. Lazarevic?
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, that's right.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
24 Number three is, when can we have the pleasure of seeing another
25 witness walking into the courtroom?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Thayer has asked for 11.30. I told him 11.00,
2 and he's asked for 11.30. So I think we ought to give him until 11.30.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we have an option. All right. We
4 will resume the sitting at 11.30. And this will be the intercept operator
5 that was the subject matter of the motion that we decided orally this
6 morning, no? 177, Witness 177.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have two that are ready today, and this first
8 one I --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Whoever it is. Whoever it is, we will
10 reconvene at 11.30.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could I alert you --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, in the meantime, before -- before we have this
13 break, you intimated, you hinted that there may be again problems next
14 week. What are you really referring to, Mr. McCloskey?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, as -- as you know, when we saw the
16 acceleration, we accelerated our -- our movement to bring witnesses here,
17 but we are also planning next week for four significant acts or conducts
18 witnesses. The Nikolic issue. I see this morning that he is -- he is
19 still not here. Due to visa issues and requirements, I have to cancel all
20 those people now. In fact, I told them last night that it wasn't looking
21 good, and so those folks have now been cancelled.
22 Now, we anticipated that high probability, just in speaking with
23 Ms. Nikolic, but now that's off. And that would have taken a week, I
24 think, given anyone's estimates. But we have been trying and -- to push
25 people into next week, naturally, to help -- and so we had the double
1 Nikolic problem and the acceleration problem. This is a normal problem
2 for a Prosecutor, and it's something that you know you do. And so we have
3 given our notice to the Defence of our -- of the people that we hope and
4 we think are going to be here. Some we've got confirmations from, some we
5 have not. One was another Kravica warehouse survivor, who I believe has
6 the same problem. And a couple of the other ones, the Defence has said
7 already, "oh, my," and they may want to have some -- something to say
8 about that, because this is an acceleration on them as well. So while we
9 do have some available and we will continue to work, that has -- this --
10 again, this unforeseeable problem has -- has put us behind the eight ball
11 a bit and I would turn that over to the Defence to give you their
12 view-points on it. Again, as we are working together and communicating
13 very well on all these things and it's just where we find ourselves.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
15 Is there any -- any of the Defence counsel wishes to address the
17 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. I --
19 just briefly, so the Court can see, it's not a question of shifting blame
20 or responsibility. These are unpredictable circumstances that occurred.
21 But for the Defence of Beara and possibly others, to have the Prosecutor
22 in our view, although not intentionally, violate the spirit and the letter
23 of this Court's ruling, meaning that of this you should give us notice at
24 least at the beginning of the month for next month's witnesses, we are now
25 being given less than a week for some relevantly critical witnesses
1 that -- we have obviously reviewed, consulted with our client, but we
2 think it's going to be become, because of the accelerated process, the
3 rule and not the exception to the rule. Now, if it happens, we want to
4 strongly object to that. We think we should be given adequate notice. At
5 the very least we should be given a week to 10 days' notice of witnesses
6 that are forthcoming, not four or five days as is in this case. And then,
7 again, it's not my learned colleague's fault intentionally, and he is
8 scrambling to bring those witnesses.
9 We do object to proceeding next week with those witnesses that he
10 has identified, specifically with Witness number 113. I'm not sure if he
11 has a pseudonym assigned to him, but we will figure that out. But we've
12 worked out some formalities with the Prosecutor in our attempt to talk to
13 victim and witness on this specific witness. We are hoping to resolve it
14 but I object because it is on enormously short notice to bring this
15 witness when we anticipated him coming in March or possibly April and now
16 he's coming next week.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further submissions? All right.
18 I trust that you will continue these mutual consultations between
19 you, and try to present the Trial Chamber with a programme, a schedule
20 which is a feasible one and which is acceptable to -- to all. I mean try
21 to do your best, please, and then we'll take it up from there.
22 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could just -- on another issue, as you know,
24 Ms. Fauveau is by herself. She's been trying to have Mr. Petrusic be
25 co-counsel and I don't want to speak for her, but she's pretty healthy,
1 but if she gets sick, we're in trouble on the current situation. So we
2 need, and I know she's trying, but we need a co-counsel that can step in
3 for her. I'm just trying to anticipate other issues.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but that is being taken care of,
5 Mr. McCloskey. We should be in a position to determine it, I suppose, in
6 the course of next week.
7 Yes, Mr. Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since the Prosecutor
9 started talking about this problem, it could be a problem indeed, but I
10 think that I have a choice to choose a co-counsel and if I cannot have
11 Mr. Petrusic, I prefer to be alone.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Madam Fauveau. In the meantime,
13 try to remain healthy, please.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: And we support her choice of Mr. Petrusic. I know
15 registry is having some issues with that, but we know Mr. Petrusic and we
16 fully support him.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. That's helpful, Mr. McCloskey. As I
18 said, we will have a break now, resuming at 11.30. Or earlier, if
19 Mr. Thayer is in the position to proceed before 11.30, in which case
20 please alert everyone.
21 Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: If I can just have one clarification for the
23 record. In his submission, Mr. McCloskey, while he did inform the Chamber
24 that he received information from Mr. Stojanovic, my co-counsel, regarding
25 the witness that was supposed to testify today, that's true, but I would
1 like to avoid any misunderstanding. We received information that one of
2 Kravica survivor witnesses testified in Sarajevo through newspapers. And
3 having in mind there are just two of them, we just told two days ago to
4 Mr. McCloskey that we have this information, but we are not 100 per cent
5 sure whether it is this witness or the one who was supposed to come next
6 week. Just to have this for the record.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
8 So we will reconvene at 11.30.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I just wanted to introduce
14 you to a new member of our staff, a young lawyer, Rupert Elderkin. And
15 he -- he speaks a form of English, I've asked him to go slow. I think
16 it's the real English tongue.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Are there any submissions on
18 the quality of arms issues? Yes, Mr. Meek.
19 MR. MEEK: Is there a separate channel we could listen to?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So I take it that this is Witness 172; is that
22 MR. ELDERKIN: That's correct, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And he will have a pseudonym PW-147.
24 Good morning to you, sir.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good day.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You are very soon
2 going to start giving evidence. Our rules require that before you do so
3 you enter a solemn declaration to the effect that you will be testifying
4 the truth. Madam Usher is going to hand you the text of this solemn
5 declaration. Please read it out aloud and that will be your undertaking
6 with this Tribunal that you will testify the truth. Go ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable,
10 just take a seat. I just wanted to confirm to you what you probably
11 already know, namely that we have put in place for you three protective
12 measures. One is the use of a pseudonym, in fact you will be referred to
13 as PW-147, and the other two protective measures are facial and voice
14 distortion. I take it these have been already explained to you. I just
15 want a confirmation from you that this arrangement is to your
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Prosecution will go first, and they will
19 then be followed by cross-examination from Defence teams. Since your
20 voice carries quite a bit, I am making a recommendation to you, don't
21 start giving your answers or answering questions until you see the red
22 light on the microphone of whoever is putting questions to you switched
23 off. Don't speak while the red light is still on. Do you understand me?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which microphone?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Of whoever is putting questions to you. For
1 example, Mr. Nicholls has just switched on a microphone. You see a red
2 light there. Don't start --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: -- answering the questions before that red light is
5 switched off. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you.
6 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-147
7 [Witness answered through interpreter].
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
9 Examination by Mr. Elderkin:
10 Q. Good morning, Witness. Could I ask the usher to show the witness
11 a document marked for identification as P2394, please. Witness, could you
12 please look at that piece of paper and without reading what is written on
13 it, could you please confirm what is on that piece of paper?
14 A. Yes, on the paper.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. ELDERKIN: That will go under seal.
17 Q. Witness, I must start by asking if you recall providing
18 information to the Office of the Prosecutor on May the 7th and 11th of
20 A. Yes, I remember giving it.
21 Q. And was the statement you gave at that time truthful?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have you had an opportunity to read your statement before
24 testifying here today?
25 A. I read it, yes.
1 Q. And did you read this statement in your own language?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And are you satisfied that the statement that you read was correct
4 and accurate and that information in the statement is true and correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And if you were asked the same questions, would your answers be
7 the same today?
8 A. Yes, I believe so.
9 Q. Thank you. And I will now proceed to read a short summary of the
11 The witness was born in 1959.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go in to private session for a short while.
13 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
15 MR. ELDERKIN: He described the northern location as shift
16 structure and personnel, their equipment and the practice he followed for
17 intercepting, recording, and transcribing radio communications.
18 He confirmed that he was working in July 1995, but could not
19 recall any particular conversations. At the time he was able to identify
20 individual voices, including Zivanovic, Krstic, Pantic, and Legenda.
21 He reviewed intercept notebook number 97 and identified an
22 intercept at 0615 between Krstic and Trbic and then Krstic and Pandurevic
23 as being handwritten by him. He had no recollection of the particular
24 text. By reviewing the notebook he confirmed that the conversation was
25 recorded on 17th of July, 1995.
1 That ends the summary of his statement, which is P02393.
2 Q. I now have a few questions for you, Witness. Did you review seven
3 handwritten copies of intercepts in a tabbed blue binder in my office
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you identify all seven of those as your original
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. Did you also review those same intercepts in the original
11 A. I did.
12 Q. And did you confirm they were your own in the original
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Can you confirm, as you sit before the Trial Chamber today, that
16 you have listened to, recorded and transcribed those seven intercepts?
17 A. How do you mean? In what way should I confirm, just by checking
18 the handwriting or in some other way?
19 Q. If you can confirm that the handwriting in those notebooks was
21 A. The handwriting is mine in all the notebooks that I looked at.
22 Q. And are you able to say whether you wrote those intercepts in the
23 notebook on the dates confirmed in that notebook?
24 A. Yes. On the dates and at the time that I intercepted them,
25 transcribed them and wrote them down.
1 Q. Thank you. And were you also shown corresponding typed printouts
2 of those seven intercepts today?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you, Witness. I have no further questions for you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
6 Cross-examination. Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Witness. In your statement, which has
10 just been shown to you, you said, among other things, what the type of
11 equipment was that you used at the location where you worked. I would
12 just like to note that the antenna descriptions are missing here, the
13 antennas that were used. So I would like to ask you to tell us if you
14 still remember which antennas were used besides the equipment that you
15 have already mentioned you had?
16 A. The antennas that we used in the beginning were mostly television
17 antennas, which had special amplifiers and routers built in. And then
18 later so-called parabolic antennas, parabolas were set up.
19 Q. And can you as specific as possible, if you can, about the time
20 when these parabolic antennas were set up?
21 A. The parabolas were set up in late 1994 or early 1995. I don't
22 remember specifically, but I know it was winter when they were set up.
23 Q. It was one antenna of that type?
24 A. Yes. But it was of a large diameter.
25 Q. Could you be able to tell us approximately what that was?
1 A. I think that the diameter of the antenna was more than two
3 Q. Thank you. Was this an antenna that was handmade or was this an
4 authentic product of some factory?
5 A. The dish itself was original. It was taken down from some
6 building, and the receivers were made by electronics people, but the dish
7 itself was an authentic, original dish.
8 Q. Thank you. You said in your statement, and I'm going to quote
9 that part of your statement in order to remind you of it. I don't want to
10 be re-telling it. It says, "The question was asked to me if ever the same
11 message was recorded and transcribed twice. I can confirm that this
12 happened sometimes, usually when the same conversations were being
13 monitored on different frequencies and from different locations."
14 Do you remember that part of your statement?
15 A. Yes, yes, I do.
16 Q. I would now like to ask you to explain, when you say "monitored on
17 different frequencies," can you clarify a little bit exactly what this
19 A. Depending on the location of the unit, all the frequencies were
20 not possible to monitor from the same location, because of the
21 configuration of the terrain. So units that were in other locations, it
22 was then -- for them easier to monitor these other frequencies because
23 they were on a different location.
24 Q. Thank you. So if I understood you correctly, the same
25 conversation could be intercepted from different locations but on the same
1 frequency, so when you say different locations, can you please tell me
2 what you mean? Do you mean a location where you were not? For example
3 the southern location, which also existed and which also did the same work
4 as your one. So is that what you mean, or do you mean the same location,
5 but a different room or something?
6 A. No, no. A different location. We were in one place, but this was
7 a completely different location, a different elevation, where different
8 people were situated.
9 Q. Thank you. So it means a different place which would be quite far
10 from your location. We're not using the exact names here of the
11 locations. You saw that because of the protective measures. So it would
12 be a different place, different town, different mountain, this is what I'm
14 A. Yes, that's right. Different town, different mountain.
15 Q. Thank you. And just one more question. You also said in your
16 statement the name of the person who mostly entered the handwritten
17 information into the computer, and passed them on to your command. You
18 probably remember the name of the person, but please don't say the name
19 now. If necessary I can refresh your memory but in that case we would
20 need to move into private session. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes, I do remember that. And I think that name is in the
23 Q. Thank you. No further questions.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
25 Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: [French on English channel]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment because we are receiving interpretation
3 in French now. Can you repeat, Mr. Meek, please.
4 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. President. We have no questions for this
5 witness. Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I had heard you but I wanted it to go
7 into the record.
8 Madam Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon.
9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We have no
10 questions for this witness.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Nikolic.
12 Mr. Lazarevic.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: This witness does not call for cross-examination
14 on our side.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
16 Madam Fauveau.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
18 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Is it possible, sir, that you may have taped two
20 conversations within a gap of five minutes in two different notebooks? Is
21 that possible? I would like to ask you whether it's possible for you to
22 have written in two different notebooks.
23 A. That happened, too, depending on the assessment about the
24 importance of the intercepted information. If we thought that the
25 information was urgent, and it -- then it would be written to one notebook
1 and then it would be passed on to the communications, so it could be then
2 passed on to the command. We would then take a different notebook and jot
3 down the following or subsequent information.
4 Q. Could the witness be shown 1167B. In English -- 1167A for the
5 English version.
6 Sir, can you see the intercept which has been taped at 2236? This
7 is an intercept which is at the bottom of the page. Is it one of the
8 intercepts which you transcribed, which you wrote down?
9 A. I have 2236 here. You said 2246, I think.
10 Q. No, it is 2236, that's what I asked you about.
11 A. Yes, yes, it's my handwriting.
12 Q. Is it true that for the person who apparently took part in this
13 conversation first you wrote the name Malic?
14 A. Because of frequent interruptions or interference on the
15 connection, sometimes when we were taking down the intercepts we were not
16 immediately sure about the name. So then we would go back a couple of
17 times to that place to see what the name was, and sometimes the colleagues
18 helped us to establish the name of the person that was participating in
19 the conversation and that's why the name was corrected here.
20 Q. Thank you for this explanation. Coming back to this intercept,
21 first of all you wrote "Malic" and after that "Malovic," and that was
22 corrected finally in "Malinic." Isn't that so?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, about this specific intercept, and I'm asking you this today,
25 did you conclude by yourself that it was Malic or with the help of
2 A. After so much time I really cannot confirm definitely that I did
3 it myself. I mean, you see yourself how much time has passed, but I have
4 told you what happened in specific situations, how we tried to get the
5 names as accurately as possible.
6 Q. This intercept, this one in particular, you didn't know that it
7 was urgent. True?
8 A. Sometimes it would happen that we who worked on this would think
9 something to be quite urgent, but then in frequent cases those working in
10 the communications would also decide whether something was urgent or not,
11 and then would see if it needed to be dispatched right away or if it could
12 be processed according to regular procedure.
13 Q. But when you were evaluating whether an intercept was urgent or
14 not, you did write that it was urgent on the notebook, didn't you?
15 A. We would rarely mark an intercept as urgent. If we felt it was
16 urgent, we would immediately take it to the communications person to be
17 printed and forwarded on.
18 Q. Could the witness be shown Exhibit 1168B, and for the English
20 About this specific intercept which was taped at 2241, 22 hours
21 41, is it true that you taped and transcribed this intercept yourself?
22 A. It's mine. The handwriting is mine.
23 Q. Is it true that there was a mistake again in the Malinic name
24 which had first been transcribed as Malovic? So there was a mistake. Is
25 it true that you transcribed first -- you wrote first Malovic and then you
1 corrected it in Malinic. Didn't you?
2 A. Yes. The first word was Malovic, then it was crossed out and
3 corrected into Malinic.
4 Q. Do you remember whether this intercept was taped on the same day
5 as the preceding intercept, which we have just seen?
6 A. I cannot remember exactly, there is no date here. But I see that
7 it is my handwriting. I can confirm that these are my manuscripts.
8 Whether it is the same day or not, I can't be sure. There are no facts
9 that would enable me to say that it was done the same day.
10 Q. If one assumes that these two conversations took place on the same
11 day with only five minutes between each other, is it possible that indeed
12 you didn't hear properly the name in one of these intercepts and therefore
13 you concluded it was Malinic because the name was similar to the name you
14 had heard in the former conversation or intercept?
15 A. I just told you a moment ago. Not only me, but all the other
16 people who were working on this job, if we were not sure about a name, if
17 we couldn't make it out, then we would put our heads together to try to
18 make out the name. And we would rewind and play it back and again and
19 again to try to make out the name until we are sure.
20 Q. Is it true that this specific intercept was difficult to
22 A. It's most likely that the only difficulty we had was in
23 identifying that name. We did not hear the name of the other participant,
24 and that's why he was designated as X. So the only problem was with the
25 full names of the participants.
1 Q. Isn't it true that certain passages of this intercept have been
2 crossed out and just above this passage you have noted the word "perturb,"
3 "perturbations" or "jamming"?
4 A. Specifically above this last part, why it was crossed out, I can't
6 Q. But you can see that at least in two places -- at least four
7 places you used a word between brackets "perturbations" or "jamming,"
9 A. Yes, because it occurred sometimes that we did not hear one of the
10 speakers due to interference, and it happens even today in telephone
11 traffic, sometimes you have interference on telephone lines, let alone at
12 that time when the equipment was of much lower quality.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Elderkin.
14 MR. ELDERKIN: Excuse me, Mr. President. I would ask if perhaps
15 it would help if the witness could be shown the whole intercept. I think
16 he's only seeing the first page at the moment.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't quite know that it will really help, but if
18 the witness himself is in agreement and Madam Fauveau is too, we may
19 proceed along those lines.
20 Madam Fauveau, do you have much further questions on this
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
23 THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: We didn't hear Mrs. Fauveau.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I heard Madam Fauveau, she said she's
25 got about two or three more questions of a general nature and we can
1 proceed along these lines.
2 Witness, look at me, please. If, in trying to answer Madam
3 Fauveau's next questions you need time to go through the entire intercept,
4 read it all, then please you only have to ask and we will grant you time
5 to go through it before you answer the question. But I don't think it
6 will be necessary. But if it is necessary, we'll -- we'll do that.
7 Madam Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
9 Q. For this one where you had that jamming and you had these problems
10 to hear properly, is it true that you jotted down to the best of your
11 ability what you heard?
12 A. In all intercepts we sought to be as sure, and to have intercepts
13 as authentic as possible, to record precisely what we were able to hear
14 well, and if there was any interference and we couldn't be sure, we would
15 record it in such a way as to make it obvious that we were not sure.
16 Q. And when you jotted down these intercepts, which would be
17 sometimes very difficult to hear, would you admit that in certain cases
18 you thought you heard something and that maybe indeed you didn't hear
19 properly and that, in fact, the two speakers were talking about something
20 else or saying something else?
21 A. In response to your previous question, I told you that we tried to
22 record and transcribe the things we heard well as authentically as we
23 could. But we could not make the judgement whether the speakers really
24 meant what they were saying or they were thinking something completely
25 different. That judgement was impossible for us to make. Because it did
1 occur in some conversations that certain speakers would say something but
2 in reality something entirely different happened. The reality was
3 completely different. And I know from speaking with colleagues from other
4 locations that something that happened a couple of days after an intercept
5 displayed a completely different reality.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have covered this subject enough,
7 Madam Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I agree. And I
9 would like the witness to be shown P1237B, if it could be shown to the
10 witness, please. And for the English it is 1237A.
11 Q. Sir, in this intercept you identified one of the speakers as
12 being --
13 THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: We didn't hear the name properly.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Could you tell us how you determined the name? In this
16 conversation you identified Trivic as being one of the speakers. Can you
17 tell us how you identified this person as being Trivic?
18 A. At the moment when this was done, some speakers that were involved
19 in a great number of conversations became familiar by their speech
20 mannerisms, accents, et cetera. So we would know their names when they
21 made telephone calls, even if they did not identify themselves. Some of
22 them had a very particular accent or dialect, and they were easily
24 Q. Sir, we heard a while ago a person who could be recognised by
25 voice which you could recognise by its voice. When you made a statement
1 in 1999 to the Office of the Prosecutor, you did not mention Trbic [as
2 interpreted]. Trivic.
3 A. Maybe it is not written there, but I cannot tell you, after all
4 these years, how exactly I came up with that name.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau, your 20 minutes are up. How much
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have still two or
8 three questions. And I think the other teams then --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. But please try to bring your
10 cross-examination to an end as early as possible.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Wasn't it usual that you would jot down with a question mark, put
13 a question mark when you recognised the person by his or her voice?
14 A. Such things occurred, but in most cases whenever we were unable to
15 hear a person well or we were not sure about their identity, we designated
16 them as X.
17 Q. Perhaps my question was not sufficiently clear. When you
18 recognised a person by his or her voice, wasn't it usual to put a question
19 mark just by the name?
20 A. We rarely used that, we rarely put a question mark next to a
22 Q. Do you agree that recognising a voice is not an absolutely sure
23 means, and certain mistakes a possible, some mistakes are possible?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think he needs to answer that question.
25 Take it for granted, Madam Fauveau.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, sir, Mr. President. I still
2 have two questions to ask.
3 Q. Sir, in this specific intercept, the name of Miletic is mentioned;
4 isn't it so? More or less at the middle of the page.
5 A. Yes, it is mentioned.
6 Q. There is only the name Miletic, you don't have the rank there,
7 indeed? Do you agree?
8 A. I agree, that's what is written, only the last name.
9 Q. Sir, I would like you to see notebook number 9, P2308, Exhibit
10 P2308. Page ERN 0077-9661. In the e-court system it's page 44.
11 This is an intercept which I think was not transcribed by you, I
12 don't think it was you who transcribed it. Is it so?
13 A. You see at the bottom the name of the person who did this job.
14 Q. Yes, agreed. But could you read the names of the speakers in this
16 A. Sergeant Miletic, Lieutenant-Colonel Janjic, question mark, X, and
17 as far as I can see, Benak is the last participant.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no other question to ask.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.
21 Mr. Krgovic.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, we have no questions for this witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Haynes, I take it you --
24 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, nor do I.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So Mr. Elderkin, do you wish to
1 re-examine your witness?
2 MR. ELDERKIN: No, thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness, we have no further questions for you, which
4 means that your testimony finishes -- ends here. Madam Usher will escort
5 you and our staff will assist you to facilitate your return home at the
6 earliest. On behalf of the Tribunal I wish to thank you for having come
7 over to give evidence, and I also wish you a safe journey back home.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So the list of documents that the Prosecution wishes
11 to tender with this witness has been circulated. I'll start with the
12 first two, which are standard, and the first one being PO2393, and that's
13 the witness statement dated 11th May, 1999, which is being admitted and
14 kept under seal.
15 Next is PO2394, which is the pseudonym sheet. That is also being
16 admitted and will remain under seal.
17 Any objections in relation to the rest of the documents? I hear
18 none. So the rest of the documents consisting in seven intercepts and
19 various language versions, together with intercept notebooks 1979 and 232
20 are being marked for identification with the understanding that the ones
21 that appear in bold characters in the list that has been circulated will
22 be preserved under seal. Thank you.
23 Now, do you have the next witness ready to start?
24 MR. NICHOLLS: We do not at the moment, Your Honour. The -- this
25 witness has been seen this morning. The statement, I believe, it must be
1 a very brief statement in English, should be done by now. The B/C/S may
2 or may not be translated. I think Mr. Thayer can pass out the statement
3 if it hasn't been e-mailed right away in English, and the B/C/S would soon
4 follow. And then if there are no surprises in it, which I don't
5 anticipate, we could be ready to go at 1.00, I believe, and possibly
6 finish that witness today. I'm sorry that we have to break again.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But that taken, assuming that we can
8 start at 1.00, if there are no problems, okay, with that caveat. What's
9 going to happen tomorrow and the day after?
10 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: No perspiration on -- I'm using perspiration
13 rather than sweat, because I have been told that horses sweat, humans
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I've heard that. We -- I think we have an
16 agreement Ms. Frease on again to talk about how she obtained or how we
17 obtained the hard copies of the intercepts and the electronic copies of
18 the intercepts and she can also go over what we've referred to as her
19 authentication binder where she had a collection of intercepts and -- and
20 then had various ways of corroborating them. This is an exhibit that goes
21 way back to Krstic, so it's something that the Defence has had for a long
22 time. And -- and we can do it under the same agreement before, unless the
23 Defence is -- and not -- not do any cross-examination of her.
24 Otherwise, you've heard the -- the predicament we're in, and based
25 on the various reasons, we don't have anybody immediately at hand.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Are there any submissions on
2 this in relation to Ms. Frease's possible testimony?
3 Madam Fauveau.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. It's not with
5 regard to Mrs. Frease. I have nothing against her testimony. It was
6 about the witness who is supposed to come back at 1.00. I talked to the
7 Prosecutor many times yesterday who assured me that the witness would not
8 be here today but tomorrow. I would like you to postpone the
9 cross-examination for this witness for tomorrow because I am not ready
10 since I thought he was going to be here tomorrow and not today.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that correct, Mr. McCloskey? It's you or
12 Mr. Thayer.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we were thinking we were going to
14 have our big, long witness, but since nothing was sure, I'm sure we
15 couched in our plan that this person would go on when scheduled, which we
16 all know was Thursday. I think this is just a function of the knock on of
17 the decision that was made this morning.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Are we -- are you in a position, particularly
19 Madam Fauveau -- I don't know, because if the statement has not been
20 circulated as yet, it may be a useless question that I am putting, but
21 are you in a position to know of how relevant this witness is for your
23 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. It is a person
25 who apparently intercepted a conversation to which my client took part,
1 and another one in which my client is only mentioned. I just would like
2 it add that I spoke to Mr. Thayer yesterday, I believe that Mr. Nicholls
3 was also present at the time. I asked if -- I asked him if there would be
4 a change to let me know by e-mail so that I can be ready but it was not
5 done. I even got a message telling me that the witness would be here
6 tomorrow, so I was not able to know and to prepare adequately for this
7 witness today.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me consult with my colleagues.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the decision, Madam Fauveau, is that we
11 proceed at 1.00, if we can, but your cross-examination will be put off
12 until tomorrow. Maybe if it is the case. You may review your position
13 after having heard the witness.
14 So that means we will reconvene at 1.00; is that correct?
15 Mr. Meek, you don't have a copy --
16 MR. MEEK: That sounds correct to me, Judge, but I have a point of
17 clarification, if I might.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
19 MR. MEEK: I believe I understood your ruling about the
20 cross-examination and direct examination of intercept witnesses, that the
21 Defence had -- the Prosecution had 30 minutes and we had 20 minutes each
22 or a total of --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Two hours, 40 minutes, yeah.
24 MR. MEEK: Two hours, 40 minutes -- 20 minutes. So my question
25 is, for example -- or we had 20 minutes or we could split it up how we
1 wanted to. Now, in the last witness, for example, one, two, three, four,
2 that's 80 minutes were not take up yet Ms. Fauveau should have had the 80
3 minutes, maybe I'm wrong, I just want clarification on it -- how we should
4 do this.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: You can -- you can explain it.
7 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Meek, I think our decision was very clear that
8 that is the appropriate distribution, but if Defence counsel were going to
9 have another arrangement, other than 20 minutes a piece, they are to tell
10 us that in advance of starting the cross-examination. So it's not the
11 case that you can simply go along and if time hasn't been taken, someone
12 changes their predicted time. We did request that in advance we be
13 notified if there was going to be a different arrangement of distribution
14 between various Defence counsel. That was the nature of our decision and
15 that is why we are enforcing the 20 minutes for each Defence counsel.
16 MR. MEEK: Okay. Judge, would it be correct then that, for
17 example, on the next witness should I deem it not appropriate to use my 20
18 minutes, I should direct that to the Trial Chamber immediately and say I
19 want to give it to Ms. Fauveau, for example?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I --
21 MR. MEEK: That's my question.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it can be done on a bilateral basis
23 between you and Madam Fauveau, for example. Because there are other
24 counsel who may require even more time. For example, when we stopped --
25 or rather we drew the attention of Madam Fauveau that her 20 minutes had
1 lapsed, there were two other Defence teams who had still not
2 cross-examined the witness. Little did we know or had reason to know at
3 the time that they were not going to cross-examine, especially Mr. Haynes
4 in relation to one of -- because obviously we couldn't -- we couldn't tell
5 whether he was going to cross-examine the witness and how much time it
6 would be require.
7 What we ask you to do is the following: If you want to distribute
8 the available time in a different manner than the 20 minutes each that we
9 indicated, you are free to do so, but you need to tell us beforehand. In
10 that case we would know that -- for example, that you are going to
11 cross-examine the next witness for 60 minutes, one hour. But we would
12 need to know it beforehand and the knowing beforehand means that you have
13 got the consensus of all your -- your colleagues. In other words, we will
14 not find ourselves in the situation then when Mr. Haynes will stand up and
15 says but time is up, yes, but I need -- I need an hour, too. So this is
16 what we tried to make clear when we handed down our decision.
17 MR. MEEK: We understand that, Judge. I apologise. It's just
18 that I guess we always usually speak to each other, so we know who is
19 going to cross-examine and who is not; we're just not telling you up
20 front. We will start doing that. Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: One other suggestion. For Friday I have not
23 mentioned this to the Defence, but since we know that it -- the
24 submissions on the admissibility of intercepts is coming up, we would not
25 object to having the Defence make oral submissions on this, and the
1 Prosecution can as well, without prejudice or without the ability -- you
2 know, not the -- so they can file afterwards as well. And this may save
3 time in the long run, especially when the issue is we have admissibility
4 versus weight and the law as you know in this Tribunal is rather clear on
5 that. And so where they are going with suggesting these things are not
6 admissable, I think it would be interesting to hear. And orally it
7 shouldn't -- it shouldn't -- it shouldn't be a great burden on anyone by
8 Friday to come up with some oral argument.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey. And, of course,
10 needless to say, that is an interesting suggestion. However, we gave the
11 Defence teams up to the 2nd of February to file their position on -- on
12 intercepts, and I think it will be pre-empting somewhat their -- the
13 issue if we require them to stand up and -- and make oral submissions
14 Friday, which is a few days before the dead-line. I don't know. I mean,
15 I don't think that it would be appropriate. However, if the Defence teams
16 are prepared to accept that, of course we can go along with your
18 Mr. Meek.
19 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, I tend to agree with you. However, one
20 other suggestion would be, if Mr. McCloskey would like to stand up and
21 then speak to the Trial Chamber and us and tell us why he thinks they are
22 admissable, then I wouldn't have an objection with that.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, that would presume that he anticipates the
24 nature of the objections that you will be filing on the 2nd of February.
25 So asking him to answer in advance what he doesn't know is -- yeah.
1 Anyway, let's leave it at that.
2 1.00 we resume the sitting. Thank you.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, everybody.
7 And good afternoon to you, Witness. You are about to start giving
8 evidence. Before you do so, you are required to enter a solemn
9 declaration, as per the text that you are going to be handed now, that you
10 will be testifying the truth in this trial. Please go ahead, read it out,
11 and that will be your undertaking with us.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: So please make yourself comfortable.
15 Sir, we have put in place for you two protective measures, namely
16 the use of a pseudonym instead of your name, and facial distortion. I
17 trust these have been explained to you and that that arrangement is to
18 your satisfaction. Could you confirm that, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You are going to be first asked
21 questioned by Mr. Thayer, also in relation to your statement, which you
22 made today. And he will then be followed by some of the Defence teams'
23 cross-examination. However, you will probably need to return back
24 tomorrow morning when we will finish with you.
25 Mr. Thayer.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-152
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to
4 Your Honour, counsel, everyone.
5 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
6 Q. Sir, I'm handing to Madam Usher a sheet of paper and I am asking
7 to you read it to yourself and confirm that your name is written next to
8 PW-152. And for the record, the sheet is PO2396.
9 A. Yes, that is my name.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
11 MR. THAYER:
12 Q. Sir, we met to morning; is that correct? For the first time.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you provided a witness statement; is that also correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you have in a statement read back to you in your own
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you sign it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And can you attest, sir, to this Trial Chamber that the witness
22 statement is true and accurate?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you further attest that your answers would be the same if you
25 were asked the same questions reflected in that witness statement here in
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Sir, what I'd like to do now is to read a summary of your very
4 brief witness statement. And then I just have one further question for
5 you before the cross-examination will commence.
6 Your Honour, if we may move into private session just for a
7 moment, please?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that.
9 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
20 MR. THAYER: Sometime between December 1994 and early 1995 the
21 witness was asked to serve in the Anti-Electronic Warfare Unit of the army
22 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He served at the southern site from early 1995
23 through October 1995. He described the shift lengths at the southern
24 site, as well as the procedure he used when intercepting, taping, and
25 transcribing radio communications. He reviewed photocopies of three
1 handwritten intercepts and confirmed that he intercepted, recorded, and
2 transcribed those three intercepts. He additionally reviewed three
3 typewritten printouts and confirmed that those printouts contained the
4 same conversation as the three he previously confirmed taking by hand.
5 He noted that in his handwritten intercepts he wrote that Cerovic
6 was a colonel or lieutenant-colonel and that in the printout he is
7 identified as a colonel. He stated that this change may have been made by
8 the typist alone or by him in consultation with his colleagues but he does
9 not have a specific recollection.
10 While there are one or two other minor differences between the
11 handwritten and typed versions, none of those differences changes the
12 meaning of the intercept.
13 And for the record the full statement is PO2395. It's not in
14 e-court, but -- but it should be. We have hard copies. The B/C/S
15 translations should have been here by now. I apologise that they're not.
16 They should be coming through the door any second, but the English
17 translations have been furnished previously.
18 Q. Just one question, sir. Did I show you three original intercept
19 notebooks a few moments ago?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And were you able to identify the three handwritten intercepts
22 contained in the packet that I showed you in those intercept notebooks?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In other words, you identified your handwritten intercepts in
25 those three original notebooks; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. THAYER: I have no further questions at this time.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Thayer.
4 Mr. Zivanovic.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. I'm going to remind you of your short statement to the
10 Prosecution, so I would just like you to clarify a few things for me. You
11 explained that you worked in shifts, and I would like to ask you to tell
12 me, if you can, how many people worked in one shift. For example, the
13 shift which you worked in?
14 A. In our unit there were between seven and 10 people, depending on
15 the number who -- of people who came into the shift.
16 Q. Does that mean that the unit of seven to 10 men was divided into
17 two shifts and then perhaps four or five people worked in one shift from
18 seven to 10 days, like you said?
19 A. During the day there were no set shifts. Everyone was there
20 during the day. During the day we didn't have strict shifts; that didn't
21 happen very often. The shifts were organised during the night.
22 Q. Can you clarify, please, when you say seven to 10 people, do you
23 consider that there were seven to 10 people at the facility at the same
24 time, or you are thinking that there were seven to 10 people total in the
25 unit who worked in these shifts?
1 A. There were seven to 10 people at the facility during a shift at
2 the same time.
3 Q. Does that also apply to July 1995?
4 A. From what I can recall, I think that at the time there were
5 between 10 and 11 people there.
6 Q. Can you please tell me during the day how many people worked in
7 one shift?
8 A. Very often almost all the people who were at the facility were
9 present. I'm talking about during the day. During the night we worked in
10 shifts; three people would cover the night, and then during the day
11 whenever anyone was free, they would be present at the facility together
12 with the others who were working that -- on that job.
13 Q. Thank you. So can you please tell me how many workstations you
14 had at the facility in this period of July 1995. We're interested in that
16 A. From what I can remember, I think we had four to five devices or
18 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me which devices they were? Do
19 you remember, can you remember the -- the brand names?
20 A. I really don't remember. I'm not a technician by profession, so I
21 have no -- not much knowledge about the devices.
22 Q. Do you have any idea about the antennas that were used?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you. You also said in your statement that on several
25 occasions you typed in these intercepts that you noted down into the
1 computer. Can you please explain -- first, can you confirm whether this
2 is true or not?
3 A. Yes, it is. It's true.
4 Q. Can you remember if, when you were typing in the intercepts, you
5 typed in the dates yourself into the computer or was this something that
6 the computer generated automatically?
7 A. I think that we did type in the date and the time.
8 Q. Thank you. Do you remember if you typed in the number under which
9 the intercept was being sent?
10 A. No, I -- I don't remember. I think the documents were sent with
11 separate numbers. I said that in the statement. I did not send off the
12 report in its final version. When the main operator was not there, then
13 the intercept operators would type them out, but only the main operator or
14 the commander would actually send them out. We would just type in our own
15 reports that were brief.
16 Q. Does that mean that you did not assign a number to the report and
17 that this was done by the person who sent the final version off?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
22 Mr. Meek.
23 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further questions
24 and maybe I'm too late, because Mr. Zivanovic had some cross-examination.
25 I polled the Defence counsel, I think everybody is giving their time to
1 Natasha. Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Gregurevic has changed his mind. He has
2 maybe 10 minutes. I believe everybody else is willing to give their time
3 to Natasha.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
7 Yeah, okay. We haven't received interpretation. Madam Fauveau is
8 seeking leave to --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Permission.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: -- briefly in the hope of being able to finish the
11 cross-examination today. Yes, by all means.
12 You need the assistance of the security? I don't know how you are
13 going to do that. But what I suggest is that General Miletic walks out
14 with you, or approaches you. I don't know. If he's going to leave the
15 courtroom, while Mr. Lazarevic proceeds with his cross-examination, then
16 obviously we need his consent to proceed.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think it will only take two
18 minutes, Mr. President, so ...
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can either approach -- I think Mr. --
20 General Miletic, I don't know how you're going to do this, but whichever
21 way you think.
22 Mr. Lazarevic, in the meantime, I think you can start with your
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's going to be a very brief
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. When we talk about the location where you worked we will not refer
5 to it by its name, I will talk about it as the southern location to
6 distinguish it from others so that you are clear on that point.
7 May I ask you just a few preliminary questions. From what your
8 statement we have just received and the summary the Prosecutor has given
9 us, I don't find any information regarding your training for the job that
10 you did in 1994 and 1995. Did you receive any kind of training for that
12 A. When I arrived at the facility I was trained by the operators who
13 worked there before. It was very simple, they just showed me the
14 frequencies and the way to use the equipment.
15 Q. Before that you had no prior experience, no preparations?
16 A. No.
17 Q. To avoid overlapping, I know you understand me without any
18 interpretation, but please wait until I have finished with my question
19 before you begin answering.
20 Before that training you received there and it was not very
21 complicated, did your superiors - and please don't mention them for the
22 sake of protecting your own identity - point out to you some of the
23 speakers under surveillance to which you should pay particular
25 A. Yes. Some names were already well known on certain
2 Q. Was there by any chance any written record kept, any file that you
3 kept on such persons where we could read General such and such, Colonel
4 such and such occupying such and such a position in such and such unit,
5 his characteristics of speech, frequently uses foul language, such and
6 such accent, et cetera?
7 A. Not in our facility.
8 Q. Thank you. On that southern location where you were based -- I
9 withdraw that. Do you know the term 28th Division?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And we will agree that it was a unit, a division from
13 A. That's what we heard officially.
14 Q. At that southern location where you were based, there was a
15 communications unit; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Just one more question about this. Do you know that this
18 communications unit was an intermediary in communications between the 28th
19 Division and the superior command in Tuzla?
20 A. No, I had no such information. They were not in the same room
21 with us, and we did not have such intensive contacts.
22 Q. I have no further questions. Thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Lazarevic.
24 Before passing on the floor to Madam Fauveau, I just want to
25 confirm that no other Defence team wishes to cross-examine this witness.
1 Madam Nikolic?
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krgovic.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
6 MR. HAYNES: [No audible answer]
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I want to assure you,
8 I don't need all that time, actually.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues] ... use.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you said that sometimes you typed your
12 intercepts on the computer. I would like you to confirm that the people
13 who intercepted in the site you were could themselves type directly on the
14 computer the intercepts. Could you confirm this, please?
15 A. Yes, with the leave of the commander who was present.
16 Q. Is it true that the commander had direct access to the computer?
17 A. In the event that the operator did not show up, I think the
18 commander was authorised to use the computer.
19 Q. I would like now the witness to be shown 1281B, the Exhibit 1281B.
20 For the English version, it's 1281A. Maybe for the witness it would be
21 preferable to be shown the original notebook.
22 I want to ask you my question while you are being given the
23 notebook. It's about the intercept at the bottom of the page starting at
24 9.49. One can see that you identified Captain Lucic, and for the moment
25 I'll just stop there.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you look at this intercept and tell us how you managed to
3 identify Captain Lucic?
4 A. I really couldn't answer that question now. And I don't want to
5 speculate whether this Captain Lucic had been mentioned before.
6 Q. When you say that it might have been mentioned before, is it true
7 that when you were transcribing this conversation you had to jot it down
8 exactly as it was so you should have mentioned his name?
9 A. The conversation had to be transcribed the way it was recorded.
10 There is a possibility that another conversation was already recorded on
11 the tape that we had not had time to listen to. I cannot remember the
12 details precisely, but I don't see any reason why.
13 Q. Is it true therefore that sometimes you were taping a new
14 intercept before having finished transcribing the previous, already-taped
16 A. It was not possible, because -- I mean, you could do that on
17 another set of equipment, but you could not start recording something new
18 on the same tape before listening to what was on the --
19 Q. Perhaps I didn't understand what you said. I will read out what
20 you just said to my previous question. "[In English] There is a
21 possibility that another conversation was already recorded on the tape
22 that we had not had time to listen to."
23 [Interpretation] Could you explain what you mean?
24 A. No, I didn't say that it was recorded on the tape. Maybe there
25 was in a prior part, a reference to Captain Lucic. Before the recording
1 started there may have been a part of the conversation where Captain Lucic
2 was mentioned.
3 Q. When such a situation arises, weren't you obliged to say that a
4 part of the conversation had not been taped but that you heard a name or
5 part of this intercept? Were you not supposed to report that?
6 A. No, we just wrote down the part that was recorded on tape.
7 Q. Therefore, if somebody wanted to check whether it was indeed
8 properly transcribed and corresponded exactly to the tape, it was indeed
9 impossible because the transcription did not effectively correspond
10 exactly to what was taped; isn't it the case?
11 A. I don't understand. Why wouldn't it correspond?
12 Q. Let's take this example. If somebody took the tape of this
13 intercept, he wouldn't have heard the name of Captain Lucic anywhere;
14 isn't it true?
15 A. One would need to play back the tape. Now I cannot tell you
16 exactly whether there was a reference to him before that or not, because I
17 recorded only this part of the conversation.
18 Q. I would now like to call your attention on another point. Indeed
19 you spoke about this in your statement. It's about Colonel or
20 Lieutenant-Colonel Cerovic. Twice you indicate colonel or
21 lieutenant-colonel. Does this mean you were not sure of what you heard?
22 A. It was not very well audible on the tape, whether they said
23 colonel or lieutenant-colonel.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... 1281C, Exhibit 1281C,
1 Sir, on this report Colonel Cerovic features there. His name is
2 indicated there. You already explained you didn't know if it was the
3 person who typed the report or yourself who corrected this. But isn't it
4 true that the report which was typed should have exactly corresponded to
5 what had been jotted down by the interceptor?
6 A. When this report is sent, at that time the operator types in the
7 part that he is hearing and I think in this part of the statement I can't
8 remember exactly at the suggestion of my commander or somebody else, they
9 told me that -- I was given to understand that he was a colonel, so in the
10 final paper that I produced he was designated as a colonel.
11 Q. Therefore I'm going to be try to be very clear. The fact that
12 Colonel Cerovic is indicated on this document is indeed thanks to the
13 fact that a member of your team knew, but it is not what you heard during
14 the intercept. And when I say it is not what you heard, I don't mean that
15 you didn't hear that, but you were not sure of having heard precisely
17 A. If you look at the original document you will see that it
18 says "Colonel Cerovic" on the top. But there was the slightest degree of
19 uncertainty and that's why it was written lieutenant-colonel below.
20 Q. That's precisely what I am telling you. You were not sure when
21 you heard the intercept, you were not sure of what you heard, and somebody
22 told you that the person in question was Colonel Cerovic, somebody who
23 knew the rank of this person. Is it not so?
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I confer one
1 minute with my client, please.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Madam Fauveau.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no other
4 questions to ask.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.
6 Mr. Thayer, do you have any re-examination?
7 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't have any further questions for you, sir,
9 which means that your testimony finishes here. Madam Usher will escort
10 you out of the courtroom and the rest of our staff will -- one moment, I
11 haven't finished. And the rest of the staff will assist you to facilitate
12 your return home. On behalf of the Tribunal, I wish to thank you for
13 having come over to give evidence, and I also wish you a safe journey back
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's proceed with the tendering process. There
17 are the usual two documents, one being the witness statement dated 24th of
18 January, which will go under seal, as Exhibit PO2395, and then there is
19 the pseudonym sheet will go under seal as PO2396.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Are there objections in relation to the three
22 intercepts that are being tendered? I hear none. So these three
23 intercepts will be marked for identification. The understanding that the
24 ones appearing in both characters in the sheet that has been distributed
25 by the Prosecution will be kept under seal.
1 I think we can safely say that that concludes the business for
2 today. Do I take it that tomorrow morning we will see Ms. Frease again,
3 Mr. McCloskey?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that's the plan. I have asked Mr.
5 Vanderpuye to tell me -- to work as hard as he could to do that. I have
6 not heard back from him. I think he is probably working with Ms. Frease
7 right now. And I will let everyone know if there is any problems, but
8 otherwise that's what we're shooting for.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. McCloskey. So we will
10 adjourn to tomorrow morning at 9.00. I wish you all a happy afternoon and
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.40 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of
14 January, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.