1 Wednesday, 8 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.
7 We are still in the stage of examination-in-chief of this
8 witness. Good afternoon to you as well. And, Mr. Vanderpuye, I suppose
9 you have additional questions.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Good afternoon to you, Your Honours. Good afternoon, everyone.
12 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
13 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
14 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could have P125 back in e-court, please.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you could repeat the number for the
18 record. It was not recorded yet.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: P125, I believe.
20 All right, thank you.
21 Q. Ms. Frease, I believe we left off with this document yesterday.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And we were going -- well, we had gone through the time that it
24 was issued, which is indicated as 1400, to whom it was issued, and you
25 indicated among the recipients of this document, or intended recipients
1 of this document, was the commander of the Military Police Battalion of
2 the 65th Regiment, and that was the military police of the 65th Regiment.
3 And you've indicated that that was Zoran Malinic; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it discusses a thousand members of the former 28th Division
6 of the so-called BiH Army in the area of Dusanovo/Kasaba?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, were you able to relate this particular document to any
9 other intercepts, other than the two that we discussed yesterday?
10 A. I don't remember.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Can I have P411B in e-court, please.
12 All right. We'll need to go, as you can see -- well, it's not
13 very well, but you can see, on this document, it is a print-out. We're
14 not broadcasting it, are we? It's a print-out from the northern
15 facility, and it's dated 13 July 1995
16 Q. Can you see that and make that out?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. And if we could go, please, to the
19 third page of this document in the B/C/S. All right.
20 Q. And on the third page, hopefully, you'll be able to see a part of
21 one conversation and two other conversations. One begins at 1400 hours.
22 It's between X and Y at 394. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And is that one of the conversations we discussed
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And I just want to ask you, briefly, before we move on to the
3 next conversation: Were you able to connect the extension 394 to any
4 particular location?
5 A. I'm not absolutely certain, so I'd rather not say.
6 Q. Okay. Were you able to connect any other extensions, telephone
7 numbers, in the intercepts that you reviewed to any particular person or
9 A. 155 stands out.
10 Q. And what do you recognise that to be or what did you learn that
11 that corresponded to?
12 A. That that corresponded to General Miletic's extension. It was
13 actually, I believe, General Milovanovic's, but General Milovanovic had
14 been away for a few months, and so Miletic was picking up on 155 most of
15 the time.
16 Q. All right. I'll come back to that in just a moment. But if we
17 could page down, go down the page on this particular document, all the
18 way down we'll see an intercept at 1405.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, this particular intercept is captured on the frequency
21 254.300, which is the same as the one immediately preceding it, and it
22 indicates: "Direction, Pravac," "Y" and "I," "South-east." Do you
23 recognise this intercept?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could have -- I hope we have an
1 English translation of this one. If we could show both of them, that
2 would be helpful at this point.
3 Q. In this particular intercept, were you able to relate this to the
4 telegram that we just saw at P125?
5 A. Yes, this conversation mentions -- X mentions that he is going to
6 be sending an urgent telegram.
7 Q. And the time of this one is at 1405?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Did you compare it or did you consider that in relation to the
10 1400 hours, which is indicated as the time on P125?
11 A. On the order?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you consider that in terms of determining the authenticity of
15 this intercept and also of the order itself?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Mr. Vanderpuye is trying to prove that two documents were
20 identical, the one he showed first in the courtroom, which is --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's no -- perhaps I'm on the wrong channel.
22 Please carry on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This witness is being used to prove
24 that the document of the 13th, at 1405, is identical to the document
25 recorded at 1405 hours at the other end of the theatre. I don't think it
1 is possible. In one case, we have an electronic record, and in the
2 other, we have a typewritten text, and I don't see the correlation
3 between the two.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I think, is able to deal with
5 that. On the other hand, this is a typical remark or question. You
6 could deal with that in cross-examination, I think.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE:
10 Q. Now, there's a reference in this particular intercept to the
11 football pitch, and --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. There's a reference to, also, a telegram?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And a reference to -- well, there's a clear indication of the
16 time. And you can see, from the original print-out on the right, that
17 this document immediately follows the intercept which discusses a
18 thousand prisoners at the football stadium?
19 A. Yes. It says "more than a thousand."
20 Q. And did you consider the relationship of this intercept at 1405
21 to the intercept at 1400, its subject matter, in relation to P125, which
22 is the order that we discussed?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And as a result of having considered those factors, were you able
25 to determine whether or not the intercepts were authentic and reliable
1 and accurate?
2 A. Yes, it was a factor. Certainly, they are mutually
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show you P2960.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this number is not correct.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I'm sorry, it's 65 ter 2960. It's P842.
7 Thank you, Ms. Stewart.
8 Q. Ms. Frease, do you recognise this particular intercept?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And do you recognise what it's talking about, what the
11 subject matter is?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you tell us about it?
14 A. It's a conversation between two unknown participants. They're
15 talking about extension 394 being down at Kasaba, and then where
16 Malinic's unit is, Malinic being Zoran Malinic, the head of the military
17 police unit of the 65th Protection Regiment. And X says:
18 "They said that there are 1500 gathered at the stadium."
19 And that:
20 "There were 1500 at the stadium in Kasaba."
21 Q. And did you consider this particular intercept in the context of
22 the other intercepts and the order we've just looked at?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And does it confirm or corroborate the information that's
25 contained, well, in all of those documents?
1 A. In my view, they all relate to one another.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I'd like to show you another
3 document. Just bear with me one moment. I'll give you the P number for
5 Thanks. It's P774.
6 Q. Do you recognise this document, Ms. Frease?
7 A. I saw it briefly in the last couple of days.
8 Q. Okay. And do you know what its origin is or what it purports to
10 A. I do not know what its origin is.
11 Q. Do you recognise the extensions or telephone numbers of persons
12 that are indicated in this document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you recognise the locations that are indicated in this
16 A. Yes, some of them.
17 Q. Okay. So let's start with this, for example, at Panorama. Do
18 you know what that is?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is it?
21 A. That's the General Staff headquarters.
22 Q. And where is that located?
23 A. In Han Pijesak, Crni Vrh.
24 Q. And can I ask you: In this particular document, do you see,
25 well, what's written here is "Lokal"?
1 A. Yes, that's an extension.
2 Q. Okay. And if we go down this document, you can see these numbers
3 that correspond to various names and locations.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if we go down to "Panorama," you can see, for example,
6 "General Gvero, Milan
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it's associated with extension 154?
9 A. That's what it says here, yes.
10 Q. And if you go further down, you can see "Extension 155"?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that's associated with, it says, "Puk Miletic"?
13 A. Yes, I guess before a promotion. "Pukovnik" is the -- would be
14 the short version for "Colonel" Miletic.
15 Q. And then you see it says "Oficir Pandzic"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it also says "Panorama"?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if we go a little bit further down, we can see General Gvero,
20 it says "Cabinet for information." Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that's associated with extension 157?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And further down, you can see "Extension 168"?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you can see that's associated with a General Tolimir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it says "Puk Beara, Ljubo"?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then it says "Sekretar Zeljo"?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And are you familiar with these individuals, in terms of your
8 analysis of the intercept materials? These names, I should say.
9 A. I'm not familiar with the last name.
10 Q. Okay. And to the right on that particular column, you can see it
11 says "Glavni Stab." Can you tell us what that means?
12 A. "General Staff," "Main Staff."
13 Q. And what about at 154? You can also see "General Gvero,
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry. If we can go to the next page of
16 this document.
17 Q. If we go to this page, you can see other locations, such as
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are you familiar with that name?
21 A. I would have to look at the reference guide, but I think it's the
23 Q. All right. And are you familiar with the code-names that are
24 used in this document, generally?
25 A. Generally, sure. I mean, "Panorama" being the main one,
1 certainly, on this page.
2 Q. And in terms of this extension 155, were you able to verify that
3 extension with any other information that you came across while you were
4 examining the intercept materials?
5 A. I cannot cite one now, but I believe that there are intercepts
6 that mention 155 and then associate names with it.
7 Q. Very well, okay.
8 I'd like to take you to a totally different area, and I'd like to
9 show you an intercept --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you leave this topic, Judge Mindua has a
11 question related to this document.
12 JUDGE MINDUA: Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor. Actually, it's not a
13 question, but a clarification.
14 Likewise, Ms. Frease, we still don't know the origin of the
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry?
17 JUDGE MINDUA: The origin of this document --
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: -- we don't know it.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can tell you it, but I think the witness
21 hasn't answered the question so I'll leave it at that.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And we could see the first page, perhaps.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is, as far as I know, the first page of
24 this document.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At least the second. Now the first. Okay.
1 The witness could perhaps help us to understand the origin of
2 this document.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid I can't.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What kind of document is it, Mr. Vanderpuye?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, this is a document that came
6 from ... all right. This is -- well, as far as the MIF is indicating,
7 Mr. President, it indicates it was a document that was forwarded -- or
8 seized by, I should say, the Bosnia
9 Security Agency, and it was also furnished to the Office of the
10 Prosecutor in 2004, 6 July 2004
11 surveillance information, including some documents on a CD, which
12 included documents totalling some 6.000 pages or so. But it was seized
13 and turned over to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2004.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We see that there's no headline, no date, no
15 signature. We can't see, from the document itself, the origin and who
16 compiled this list.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand that. I'm not proposing to tender
18 it through this witness, since she hasn't laid the foundation for it, and
19 that's the reason why I said if she's not familiar with it, I'll leave it
20 at that and I'll move on to a different area.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. This is, indeed, a very good
23 But I would like to ask the witness: How do you know that the
24 extension number 155 is related to a specific person?
25 THE WITNESS: Through years of work on the intercepts, some
1 things stay in one's mind, and so through -- through just analysis. I
2 can't point to a specific, you know, moment that I remember knowing it.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you
6 very much, Mr. President.
7 Q. I want to take you to a different area altogether, Ms. Frease,
8 and that has to do with some other intercepts.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have 65 ter 3497. It's a 22nd July intercept,
10 and I think it's P773. Now, let's see which one we can get up here.
11 Is it possible -- do we have P773 -- okay. It should be
12 ERN 0080-1157.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, the Chamber learned that you want
14 to use several documents related to this intercept, but there's only one
15 offered to the Chamber yet under this number.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, you're right.
17 What we proposed to do was -- we have this -- actually, this is
18 rather convenient. We have this print-out of the intercept. There is
19 also an electronic version of the intercept which is more legible, and a
20 handwritten version of the intercept which I think is also helpful, which
21 we would like to use. We would like -- we would like to be able to show
22 the Court this. They are substantively -- the electronic version and
23 this photocopy are substantively identical, but this is actually a
24 convenient moment because perhaps Ms. Frease can -- this coincides with
25 Ms. Frease's testimony about the materials that the Office of the
1 Prosecutor received initially. These are the photocopies that had some
2 problems, in terms of legibility. So perhaps I'll ask her to comment on
3 this, that we have it on the screen already. But I would like to ask
4 your permission, the permission of the Chamber, to show her also the
5 electronic version of this intercept and the handwritten version of the
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think there will be no problem. But first of
8 all, you should move for adding these documents to the list of documents,
9 because originally you only -- the Prosecution only asked for admission
10 of one document, and it was given the P number 773, only one of them.
11 But this is quite exceptional, because in other cases we have the numbers
12 A, B, C, different versions of the same intercept, transcript and
13 translation, so that we should, for the sake of the record, be very clear
14 to which document you are referring.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 I apologise. I only realised -- and it is my fault. I only
17 realised that this was a document that was loaded into e-court, as
18 opposed to the electronic version and the handwritten version, which is
19 what we try to do in most instances. I don't know whether or not the
20 Registry has had a chance to designate the electronic version so that it
21 can be used in e-court. We have.
22 So if I may, with the Court's permission, I'd like to -- all
23 right. I'd like move to have this document, which is P773, changed to
24 P773A, and then to add P773B and C as the handwritten and the print-out,
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last one is a new print-out, because the
2 first one --
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- is an old print-out, if I understand that
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. This is a hard copy of -- it's a
7 photocopy of something that was printed out long ago, and what I propose
8 to add is -- yes, it's a new print-out from the electronic data that the
9 witness has testified that the Office of the Prosecutor received
10 subsequent to these hard-copy print-outs.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is wrong with the first print-out?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: The first print-out doesn't contain pertinent
13 information relating to this intercept, such as the date, and I think
14 that's particularly important in this instance. The date can be found on
15 the first page of the report which contains this intercept.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, I didn't understand that.
17 The old print-out doesn't contain a date?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: The old print-out does not contain the date on
19 this -- that's right. On this page, it doesn't contain the date.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it was a photocopy of the original or a
21 print-out of the original transcript?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. It's a photocopy of the original
23 500-and-some-odd pages of photocopied material that was provided to the
24 Office of the Prosecutor back in 1998, I think it was, or thereabouts.
25 March of 1998.
1 Subsequently, as the witness has mentioned, the
2 Prosecutor's Office received electronic -- that is, data disks,
3 electronic versions of this material, and what we have -- what I'm
4 proposing to add is the print-out from that material, which is
5 substantively identical to this, in terms of the content of the
6 intercept, but clearly it's not something that was compiled. It's
7 something that's printed directly from the disk. So it contains the
8 entire report for the day which contains this intercepted communication,
9 among others.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful to elaborate with this
11 witness and to show all these documents so that we can compare them.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any problems by
14 replacing one intercept by -- or adding three documents to one
15 already-listed document?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
17 I'd like to greet everyone, and may there be peace in this house.
18 Let us conclude this exercise in keeping with God's will and not my own.
19 It doesn't matter to me what the OTP is going to do, because all
20 of these documents were copied and never used. The more we have of such
21 material, the easier it will be for me to prove my assertions.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
23 In that case, the Registry will give the relevant numbers to the
24 65 ter numbers.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 65 ter 3497, previously marked as P773, is now marked as P773A.
3 65 ter 3497B is now marked as P773B. 65 ter 3497C is now marked as
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I do
8 apologise for the confusion.
9 Q. First, Ms. Frease, can you comment on this particular document
10 that you see in front of you? Can you tell us a little bit about it?
11 A. Yes. This is one of the original documents. I can tell from the
12 ERN number, which starts 0072. This was among the 550 pages that we
13 first received in 1998.
14 Q. Now, were these -- well, were these -- you've testified these
15 were received in hard copy, or were they received electronically back in
17 A. No, they were received in hard copy in one single binder.
18 Q. And if I could just refer you to the very top of this document --
19 I think we can see the whole thing there, but in this case do you see the
20 black line at the top of the document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
23 A. Yes. That's an example of what I referred to yesterday, when I
24 mentioned that at times we couldn't see the -- either the top line or the
25 bottom line of the intercepts that we first received. So I think that I
1 said yesterday that they were incomplete and that in the Popovic trial we
2 tried to present the complete intercepts, and this is an example of what
3 I mean by that. It's very difficult to read this first word. I think it
4 says "hocete," which is "do you want to" or "can you call me," but you
5 can see it's very difficult to read. And those sorts of lines -- there
6 may have been another line above that that could have been missing and
7 the same thing with lines at the bottom of the pages that we received as
9 Q. And as a result of that, when these documents were translated,
10 was that reflected in the translation?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. How so?
13 A. As missing text, usually, though at times it also might not have
14 been clear that the text was missing, so the intercept would just end.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. What I'd like to do, if I can, is to
16 display --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, for the record, we have now P773A
18 on the screen; is that correct?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. We do.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Because it was not mentioned yet.
21 Please carry on.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much.
23 I'd like to display alongside this exhibit P773C, which is the
24 print-out. And we'll start with the first page, and we'll go through it
25 up until we get to this intercept.
1 All right, I think this is okay. We can start here. And we're
2 not broadcasting it, are we?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to raise the problem of legibility
4 of this document. I was told that the witness can see it on her screen
5 much better than the parties and the Chamber and the courtroom.
6 Therefore, we can be sure that she is able to read it. For us it's
7 really hardly legible.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: It might be a good idea, Mr. President, if we
9 can -- you know, we can blow it up section by section. I think we can
10 maybe get through it that way.
11 Q. All right. At the top of this document, we can see it says
12 "Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine"?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. "2nd Corps," "Command of the 2nd Corps"?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Then it has a location which indicates the northern site?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The strictly confidential number of 03/22795?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then the date of "22/7/1995
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now, what I'd like to do -- as you can see on this
23 document, the first recorded communication, the first recorded intercept,
24 is at 742 hours, 0742 hours?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Now we can go to the next page, and
2 we can go down.
3 Q. You'll see the next -- well, the first recorded conversation on
4 this page is at 902 hours and the one following at 0917 hours. You see
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And then if we go to the next page, all right. If we go
8 down the page, you can see the conversation at 0928 hours?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. Could I just point out one thing? That on that previous document
12 that we saw, on the print-out, that 550 pages, that top line that was
13 missing that I said you could kind of make out, but you couldn't really,
14 you can see it if you look -- whoops, I touched the screen and everything
15 got big. If you look two, four, six lines up in the previous
16 conversation, so the one before 928, you'll see that line. "Hocete mi
17 javiti." That was the line that was cut off on the print-out.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is if we could display them
19 side by side so the Chamber can actually see exactly what the witness is
20 talking about. Yes, it will be 773A and C, and it will be page 3 of
22 I think we --
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: We'll have to take the rubber band from the --
25 near the -- about a third of the way from the bottom, where you can see
1 the words "Hocete mi javiti." Just about a third down. Down, down,
2 that's correct. All right.
3 Q. Now, what you were referring to, Ms. Frease, was the very top of
4 the document on the right, 773A?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And that's the line that cannot be read?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And can you see that line on the document on the right, which is
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you read it into the record?
12 A. "Hocete mi javiti da znam da ssaljem auto jer gore mi trazze
13 nemaju ni jedne." The "ni jedne" is on the line that is possible to
15 Q. And can you see --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, this is a little bit problematic,
17 because we can't understand. We hear the original version without
18 translation, and it is not recorded because we have a record in English.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand. All right.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you want to compare something, you should deal
21 with the language in a different way.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. In this case, it's not a comparison in
23 terms of what the substance of it is, because if it's possible, we can
24 just blow up the words and we can see that the words are the same. And
25 the meaning of it really is irrelevant. What we're concerned about and
1 what I'd like to convey to the Trial Chamber is that the substances, that
2 is, the language, the dots, the periods, the Xs, the Ys, are all
3 identical in this material. So it really doesn't matter whether there's
4 a translation. It's really more of a visual issue.
5 I don't know if it's possible to blow it up in such a way that we
6 can see the text so that you can follow just the words from one line to
7 another, side by side.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand very well what you are doing, but we
9 must have it on the same level, the portions which relate to each other,
10 so that we can compare it. And you should help the Usher to find the
11 relevant portion.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Well, the relevant portion, for the
13 purposes of the document on the left, is the first five lines of that
14 document. It ends with "Zdravo," and the first line that you can see is
15 "Ni jedne." That's the document on the left, which is now gone.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Including the top line, the black line we see
17 there. It's important to see that.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. It's gone now, but I'm sure it
19 will be back.
20 THE WITNESS: It's the top five or six lines of the document on
21 the left.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need the document P773A on the left side of
23 the screen, and especially the top of that page. Which page of that
24 document is it, Mr. Vanderpuye?
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: It appears to be on the right page. It's just a
1 few lines down. So if we can just go up on the document on the left,
2 we'll be right there.
3 There's the black line, and you have to go to the left now. All
4 right, now it's back at the top of the page. If we can move it, fine.
5 If we can't, then we can move the other --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need -- we need the black line and the
7 following 10 lines.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's fine, that's fine. Okay.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now on the same level, please, the same
10 portion of the right document.
11 THE WITNESS: Down a little bit, down. It should --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please scroll up.
13 THE WITNESS: The top line on the document should be the X that
14 starts with the letters "H-o-c-h-e-t-e," "Hocete mi javiti," and that's
15 just above the conversation at 928, six lines up in the conversation that
16 starts at 928.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: More, more, more. No, the other way around,
18 please. Yes. Further, further, further, further, further.
19 Okay. If it's not possible, on technical reasons, please carry
20 on. If the witness could indicate to which line you are referring, that
21 would be helpful.
22 THE WITNESS: Sure. So on the document on the left --
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Actually, I have a great suggestion from
24 Ms. Stewart, which would be for the witness to actually mark the lines,
25 which I think she can do, and that will help everybody, I think.
1 As you read them, you can mark them on both documents so that we
2 can follow along.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is really a great recommendation for
4 everybody in the courtroom.
5 THE WITNESS: All right.
6 So the first line is this one up here [marks], and it's the one
7 where I said it's difficult to read, but you can see it [marks]. You can
8 just make out enough of the letters, "Hocete mi javiti," and then it
9 would be hard to say what that is, but when I look at the document on the
10 right, I can see that it matches up with -- it's two letters, right, with
11 "da," and it continues for the rest of the sentence.
12 The next line down is "ni jedne," which is identical. Then we
13 can see that line, so it's identical both of -- so I'll say line 2 here
14 and line 2 there [marks]. And then the next line down just continues.
15 This is an example of why it was important and helpful to receive
16 the electronic print-outs from the ABiH and also from the MUP, because
17 with the original documents that we received, there were passages that
18 were missing just because of this photocopying issue. So we would be
19 missing a couple of sentences and didn't know what they were.
20 Once we received the electronic versions -- and also the
21 note-books helped a lot in this, because through the note-books we could
22 also see that the conversation continued. But the electronic versions
23 mirror the information that we originally received in the 550 pages. And
24 you can see, from the typeset and from the sentence -- the length of the
25 sentences. In fact, if you go down two more lines, you can see the same
1 mistake where there are two periods put after the same sentence. "Ajde
2 molim vas.." should be just one period. There's no reason for two
3 periods. It's a mistake, and the mistake is carried over also in the
4 electronic version.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE:
6 Q. Could you please mark that so that we can see exactly what you're
7 talking about with the two periods on both documents?
8 THE WITNESS: [Marks]. Well, I think I wrote over them.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE:
10 Q. And thank you for that explanation.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could now just go to the bottom of the
12 page --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, we can't. We'll lose the markings.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I will tender these, then, into evidence
15 at this time.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These documents, P773A and 773C, will be
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And these are the original documents, and now the
20 documents with the markings will be received as separate documents.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
22 THE REGISTRAR: It will be received as Exhibit P864.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Carry on, please.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 I just wanted to briefly go down to the bottom of the page of
1 773A just to show the Trial Chamber what occurs there as well. You can
2 see the black photocopy line which covers part of the text of that
3 intercept as well, and this is -- I can ask the witness.
4 Q. Was this something that was a consistent pattern in the
5 photocopied material that the Office of the Prosecutor received, the
6 500-and-some-odd pages?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I'd like to actually get to --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, may I ask you a question?
10 Yesterday, we received these binders of different intercepts. Is
11 this a document, P773, included in this binder?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, it's not. It's not included in that binder.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, it would be very helpful if you
14 could get a hard copy of these two different intercepts so that we have a
15 better copy, so that we can read it, really.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll do that. I'll have it available to you
17 after the break, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. And, of course, for the Defence as well.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is just to get to the
20 substance of this intercept. And to do that, I will need to go to P773B,
21 which is the note-book, because I believe that's the one that has the
23 Q. All right. Ms. Frease, have you had an opportunity to review
24 this particular intercept, which I think is responsive to a question that
25 was put to you by Judge Nyambe yesterday, as concerns intercepts that
1 were obtained in one location versus another location? Have you had a
2 chance to review this particular one?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And can you tell us, having reviewed this particular intercept,
5 have you had an opportunity to compare it to any other materials?
6 A. Yes, to another intercept.
7 Q. Okay. And having -- do you know if these intercepts were
8 obtained at the same sites or at different sites?
9 A. They were obtained from different sites.
10 Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at what the
11 substance of this intercept is?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And have you compared that against the other intercept?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in terms of its substance, are they identical?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Why don't we have a look, then, at these intercepts.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: If it's possible, I'd like to have -- I think
19 I'm going to have to do -- I'm going to have to ask that the
20 translation -- that we have this translation in the record, if it's
21 possible to have P369B displayed side by side.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But what about this document we have on the
23 screen now?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to -- well, I'd like to display them
25 side by side, if it's possible. Otherwise, we'll do it sequentially.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In English or IN B/C/S?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: 369B, I believe is -- I think it's in English.
3 I believe it's the English version or an English translation of another
4 intercept which the witness has just talked about.
5 All right, we'll have to go to the bottom of the page.
6 Q. Now, as you'll recall, Ms. Frease, the document on the left is
7 from the northern facility, and the document on the right, as is
8 indicated at the top of the screen, is from the southern facility.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. And the timing on the document from the southern site is
11 0931 hours?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. The document on the left from the northern site is timed at
14 0928 hours?
15 A. Correct.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's necessary to have the top of that page.
17 Otherwise, we can't see it.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. And I'd like to, if it's possible,
19 although I'm not sure if it is, to get these lined up somehow in e-court
20 so that we can see the language that we have referring to both of these
21 intercepts. I know it's a bit difficult, technically, but --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The left one is okay. The right one should be
23 scrolled up. The other way around. It's not possible to do it further.
24 Now we have it more or less on the same level.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. That looks pretty good. Thank you
1 for -- thank you very much for that.
2 Q. And we can go line by line through this one. And the document on
3 the left, which is the one at 0928 hours, starts off with:
4 "Where is General Tolimir?"
5 You can see on the right that this reads:
6 "Is Tolimir around?"
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell us, having looked at these documents and having
9 looked at the original language, is that substantively the same? Was the
10 language the same or was it different?
11 A. The meaning of it is the same.
12 Q. Okay, all right. Do you know if the words that were used,
13 written down by the operators, were the same or were they different?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. All right. We can take a look at that, then, as well in just a
17 But we continue down, and the second line says:
18 "Here, right next to me."
19 And that's on the document on the left. On the right, it's:
20 "He's right next to me."
21 The same question.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know if the language that was used in the originals was
24 the same, or was it identical, or was it slightly different?
25 A. I'd have to look at both of them next to each other.
1 Q. Okay. All right. And if we continue down the document, you can
2 see, on the fourth line, it reads:
3 "Just a moment."
4 X says:
5 "Just a moment."
6 And on the document on the right, it reads:
7 "One moment, please," which is followed by a comment, it says:
8 "Popovic speaking. Hello."
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And on the document on the left, after "Just a moment," there's a
12 space, dot dot dot. What does that indicate to you?
13 A. That they couldn't hear what T said.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I stop you for a moment.
15 Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
17 These two documents were not recorded at the same time, according
18 to what is written here. One is at 9.28 and the other one is 9.31. This
19 is a major time difference, since there is no time difference, actually,
20 in the northern and the southern location. It's the same time zone. So
21 I don't know exactly what this is about.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we had this problem already several
23 times, and it's up to the Prosecution to elaborate on that and to find
24 out what might be the reason for this difference. We see the difference.
25 We have it on the screen and in the documents.
1 Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. As we continue down this document, and this is one of the reasons
4 why we're comparing the substance of the document as opposed to the
5 indicated time, which may reflect the time on a wall or somebody's watch,
6 we're looking at the substance of the document, itself. As we continue
7 down you can see, close to the bottom of the document on the left, which
8 is the document that's timed at 928 hours, it says:
9 "Sir, there's nothing yet about this cousin of mine. Popovic,"
10 it says, "did you manage to do find out anything?"
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then the document on the right says:
14 "General, I don't have anything yet about that cousin of mine.
15 Popovic, have you managed anything?"
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And following that, it reads on the document on the right:
18 "There's nothing --"
19 That's the document, for the sake of the record, that's at
20 0931 hours:
21 "There's nothing." That's what T says.
22 P says:
24 T says:
1 You can see that substantively the same, almost, on the document
2 on the left?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If we can go further down on the document on --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you go further down, it would be helpful
6 if the witness could explain. Do you think about the reason -- what
7 could be the reason of a different language of a quite similar
9 THE WITNESS: We'd have to look at exactly what the language is,
10 because sometimes it can be a matter of translation. Other times, if
11 there is -- if there are slightly different words used, it can be how
12 somebody's hearing it, depending on the location that they're at, and
13 also how many times they've listened to it. If something sounds very
14 similar and the meaning is "it's nothing," you could write it down -- you
15 could, for example, invert the order of the words, "nema nista," "nista
16 nema." So it could have to do with how many times the operator has
17 listened to a particular conversation as well.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 I don't know how much farther we can go down the page on -- okay.
22 What I'd like to do is just to basically go through to the next
23 page, I think it is, in the English translation on the left. It's at the
24 end of the intercept. I can't see from this here.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need the next page on the left side of the
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's fine. And if we can go to the next page
3 in the document on the right.
4 THE WITNESS: There's a problem with the translation, I can see
5 on the document on the right. It's cut off, and so this would be a --
6 the conversation wasn't finished, whereas on the original document there
7 were a couple more lines. So this is a classic example of, you know,
8 sort of using documents that weren't complete and translations that
9 weren't complete. I think if we looked at the original document --
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. We'll look at those in just a second.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. I just want to get this off the screen, and we can be done with
14 it, and we can look at the original so we can actually compare the
15 language that was used by the operators, themselves.
16 But in this context, have you had an opportunity to review
17 this -- you've reviewed all of these conversations?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in this context, is it the case that you have a conversation
20 purportedly between General Tolimir and Popovic --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- concerning some cousin of Popovic who's apparently missing?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in that context, you can see the conversation continues, and
25 Popovic says:
1 "Well --"
2 Well, Tolimir says:
3 "How's it going with you?"
4 And Popovic says:
5 "Well, it's going well. There are no major problems. I am at my
6 base today."
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It says:
10 "I have some things to do, so I'm staying here."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in this translation, it reads:
14 "Carry on working"?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And with respect to the document on the left, that last sequence
18 "You just do your job"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it continues:
21 "Well, that's it. Greetings, General."
22 "All the best to you."
23 "Thank you."
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is I'd like to look --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We followed what you're reading there, but I
4 can't find any similarity, perhaps except: "You just do your job," on
5 the right side. "Carry on working." That's all.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: You're right, and the reason for it is because
7 it's on the other page of the document. So for the purposes of
8 expediency, I didn't have it displayed, but I can --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should go back to the previous page on the
10 left side of the screen --
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- in order to be able to compare anything.
13 That's perfect now.
14 Please carry on.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could move it up a little bit, I think we
16 can match them. Okay, that's just fine.
17 Q. In both lines -- the document on the left -- well, the document
18 on the right says:
19 "So -- so that I can tell the family I don't know what to do
21 And that is in the middle of the page in the document on the
22 left, which reads:
23 "So that I can at least say," and there is a cross-out, it looks
24 like, "to the family. I don't know what to do."
25 Then the document on the right says:
1 "It seems that it's what I said it was."
2 The document on the left reads:
3 "Nothing, nothing. It seems that we ... what I told you."
4 The next line in the document on the left, it's: "Yes.
5 The next line on the document on the right is: "What?"
6 The document on the left then reads:
7 "That there's nothing."
8 The document on the right reads:
9 "That there isn't, it seems bad."
10 Then the document on the left reads: "Nothing," followed by:
11 "Apparently, there is nothing you can do."
12 And then: "Yes, yes."
13 And those don't appear at all in the document on the right.
14 Then you can see after "Yes, yes," it says:
15 "Do you understand?"
16 And the answer is: "I understand, sir."
17 "So how are things with you?" That's the document on the left.
18 And then the document on the right it reads: "Yes.
19 "You understand?"
20 "I understand, General. How's it going with you?"
21 And then the documents are fundamentally are similar as they are
22 translated. But what I would like to do is I'd like to actually look at
23 the original language that is used, which I think will facilitate a more
24 meaningful comparison. Hopefully, we can do it pretty quickly.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll need 773C, please, in e-court, and I will
1 need -- okay, we need 369B, the B/C/S version, please, in e-court.
2 That's also a print-out. So I should be comparing one print-out against
3 another print-out.
4 I think we'll need to go to page 3 of the document on the right,
5 which is 773C. Yes, it's the one we were just looking at at 9.28 at the
6 bottom of the page.
7 Okay, that's pretty good. And then we can see "9.31" on the page
8 on the left, and that's where we need to blow that up. It's the second
9 intercept. All right.
10 Maybe we can do what we did before, and that's to go through it
11 line by line, and maybe we can mark them as we go so we can see the
12 language that's actually used. And let's perhaps blow up the first four
13 lines of both intercepts so it will be easier to see for everyone.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And to enlarge it a little bit. It is, I think,
15 only necessary to blow up the left part of that page.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The beginning of the lines. We can't read it
18 properly in this way. Please blow up on the left part of both pages.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is the Chamber able to see that? We can --
20 maybe we should just blow up --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's much better.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and slide over as we read each line. That
23 might be to do.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's much better now on the left side. We could
25 do the same on the right side if we find the relevant part of it. We
1 don't need the end of the line. Yes.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Almost right, except it's the wrong intercept.
3 So we need to go down to "9.28," which is down. There we go, all right.
4 That's just fine like that one.
5 And if it's possible, we can move the whole screen of the left
6 part down so we can line up the -- we can line up the text. Keep going.
7 That's -- no, too far. Up, up. That's it. Okay, now I think we're
8 pretty close.
9 Q. Now, Witness -- I mean, Ms. Frease, are you able to go through
10 this and identify where there are differences in the language? And if
11 you could, maybe you could mark that.
12 A. On the first line of the document on the left, it says:
13 "Da li je tu negde Tolimir?"
14 The one on the right says:
15 "Gdje je Generale Tolimir."
16 Q. Now could you -- if you're able can you tell us -- well, could
17 you say that in English so that we can understand if there is any
19 A. The one on the left says:
20 "Is Tolimir somewhere around? Is Tolimir around there
22 And the one on the right says:
23 "Where is General Tolimir?"
24 Q. All right. Can you just mark that line so we know that there's a
25 difference in the language?
1 A. How would you like me to mark it?
2 Q. Just make a dot or a dash at the beginning of the sentence. Oh,
4 A. Oh, oh.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Better at the end of that line. There's more
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: If you just mark it with "1," and then we'll go
8 as we --
9 THE WITNESS: I don't know. This marker is --
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: -- having things disappear.
12 I would say that it's not a real substantive difference, but the
13 next line down says:
14 "Evo njega pored mene."
15 On the left. And on the right, it says exactly the same thing:
16 "Here he is right next to me."
17 This is an unidentified person.
18 The next line down is identified as P, Popovic, identified at the
19 top of the conversation:
20 "Mogu li dobiti generala bogati, reci mu Popovic ga treba."
21 The one on the right says:
22 "Mogu ga dobiti recite Popovic ga treba."
23 So the difference here is that the one on the left included a
24 small swear word, I guess you could say, "bogati," "for God's sakes," or
25 something like that, where the one on the right doesn't have that.
1 Otherwise, they are identical.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I would like to ask the Court Usher to blow
3 up the left part before -- please, no markings, but blow up the left one,
4 on the left side of the page, so that it is the same size as on the right
5 side. We don't need the right side of the page. Yes, further. Yes.
6 And now, Ms. Frease, you started to mark something. You should
7 do it again.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay. [Marks]. So that's missing, with the other
9 small difference is the one on the left says:
10 "Mogu li dobiti generala ..."
11 "Can I get the general? For God's sakes, tell him that Popovic
12 needs him."
13 And the one on the right says:
14 "Can I get him? Tell him that Popovic needs him."
15 Okay, so I can mark that [marks]. And the "Da" on the left is a
16 pronoun that refers to the general, "can I get him."
17 Okay. So then the next sentence down is:
18 "Evo samo malo."
19 Said by X. They're identical on both sides. And that just
20 means, sort of, "Yes, sure, just a minute, just a second," and implied
21 with sort of, "Here, I'm giving him to you."
22 The one on the right -- sorry, the one on the left then says:
23 "It's Popovic speaking."
24 "E Popovic
25 On the right, that sentence is not there. It just says:
2 Can I draw between these two? Can I connect this and this?
4 And then the next line down says T is saying 'Zdravo," on both
6 The next line down is P saying:
7 "Je li tu Generale Tolimir?"
8 "Is General Tolimir there?"
9 The next line down is P saying:
10 "Zdravo ... jel tu Generale Tolimir."
11 "Is Tolimir there?"
12 And then T says on the left:
13 "I'm listening, go ahead."
14 "Slusam te," this is the familiar form of "you."
15 "Slusam te, reci."
16 "I'm listening to you, go ahead."
17 And on the right-hand side it says the same thing:
18 "Slusam te, reci." And then it adds this little "ajd," which is
19 like "go ahead." "Ajd," "Go ahead, talk to me."
20 On the left, it says:
21 "Gospodine generale, nemam joss nista za onog mog rodjaka
22 Popovic --"
23 This is cut off on the left. Is it possible to expand it a
24 little bit?
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, it's not possible. I think that it is not --
1 THE WITNESS: Necessary?
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- necessary.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Good.
4 So these are the same conversation. This would be my conclusion,
5 that these are the same conversations recorded at two different sites.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me ask -- first of all, I'd like to tender
7 this exhibit.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This marked exhibit will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P865.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. And let me just ask: Is this something that you did in comparing
12 intercepted or apparently related intercepted conversations, in terms of
13 determining its authenticity, or reliability, or accuracy, with respect
14 to the work you did prior to the Popovic case and also with respect to
15 this particular case?
16 A. Yes. For a conversation like this, I probably would not have put
17 so much time into comparing line by line, but to have made the comparison
18 that these, in fact, were two versions of the same conversation
19 taken/recorded at two different sites.
20 Q. And would that explain why there are parts of the conversation
21 that don't appear in one -- on one end of the communication or one side
22 versus another side?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Mr. President, and I apologise for the
25 delay, I think it's a good time to break. It's been a bit slow going
1 with this particular intercept, but I think I'll be able to pick up the
2 pace and finish.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And we have to discuss the question which
4 documents you offered were already exhibits, especially in the first part
5 of your submission. We are not sure if you tendered all of them or part
6 of them. You should make it clear later today.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Would you like me to do that immediately after
8 the break, or before the witness comes in, or --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps we should do that, yes.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn, and resume at quarter past 4.00.
12 [The witness stand down]
13 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First of all, Mr. Vanderpuye, I thank you for the
16 hard copies we received in B/C/S, the handwritten version, the version
17 with the black line on the top, and the other one we saw on the screen.
18 I would like to raise a problem with the numbers of the
19 documents. If I recall correctly, you tendered only some of the
20 documents in the first part of the list, because they were not used with
21 this witness and admitted with this witness in another case; is that
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President, and I have --
24 well, I've gone through the list and I can articulate specifically which
25 ones I will be tendering through with her in this part and also with
1 respect to the other documents that weren't used with her before,
2 category 4 documents, I understand.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. Are you in a position to indicate which
4 documents you are tendering from the first part of this list?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am. Should I just --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I will admit -- I will move to admit
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which was used with this witness yesterday?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it was. I will not move to admit at this
11 time P703 or P704. That will be -- will have to come in through another
12 witness. It's PW-070.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's not necessary to mention these you are not
14 tendering, only those you intend to tender.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay, I'm sorry.
16 P759 I will move to admit. This is part of the packet of
17 materials that you have before you and I intend to qualify through the
18 witness. P705. I will move to admit P760 and 761. These are the audio
19 materials that the witness referred to, Q1 and Q2, out of the Q1 through
20 19 series of audio material.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You mentioned P705.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, I did, P705.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You want to tender that as well?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I intend to -- that's in the packet also
25 of the materials that you have.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you will examine the witness in relation to
2 these documents?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I may not be able to examine her with respect to
6 every detail of every document, but she has a copy of the packet and
7 she's reviewed it.
8 I did mention 760 and 761. These are the two tapes. I will move
9 to admit P762. This is a map of the Zepa area. I've not used it with
10 the witness yet, but I plan to use it with her only briefly pretty much
11 at the end of her testimony. I will move to admit P763. That's the
12 index of code-names that was shown to the witness yesterday. I will move
13 to admit P776A and 776B -- oh, I'm sorry, 766A and 766B. Those are
14 intercepted conversations which are contained in Q2, which is the --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need only the numbers, not an explanation,
16 because we have the list.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I'll move to admit P702, P773A, B and C.
18 I think you may have --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're recorded with "P702." That must be a
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is P702. That, I believe, was marked but not
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm very sorry. I don't see it on the list.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have it at page 5 of my exhibit list.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay, I see it now. It's not in numerical order.
1 Thank you.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry. All right, then, P773A, B and C. P774.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You indicated not to tender this document with
4 this witness?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. I'm sorry. Thank you very much,
6 Mr. President. I appreciate that.
7 P699, that's also in the packet of materials that you have.
8 P701, P775, P776, P777, P778. Then I'll move to admit also P698, P780,
9 P781, P782, P783, P784, 85, and 86.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Would you like me to go over the last category
12 or should we save that for later?
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, we just started with this procedure. We
14 should continue.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 With respect to the last category of material, I will move to
17 admit P856, P858, P840C. It should be audio material. And then I will
18 move to admit P859, P860, and P863.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You mentioned P840C?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: P840C.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not sure if this is a correct number.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have it as 65 ter 2899C. It should be the
23 audio material of the April 20th, 1995
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I'm not mistaken, we have received it already.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was admitted yesterday with the other
2 package. That was part of the third category.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Well, thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 First, you should continue with your examination, and we hope
6 that you will finish quite soon. And the witness should be brought in,
7 and then we will see how you deal with these different documents.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please sit down. Mr. Vanderpuye is continuing
10 his examination.
11 Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
13 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. I want to take you to yet another area, and that relates to some
16 other intercepts which I think you have in a binder in front of you
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And I just want to qualify this material first. Have you had an
20 opportunity to review it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And does that consist of the material that's indicated in the
23 index of this binder?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And your binder consists of 12 documents, together with
1 corroborating materials, does it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And have you had an opportunity to listen to audiotapes
4 concerning these -- concerning this material?
5 A. Not to all of it, but to some of it I have.
6 Q. Okay. And have you had an opportunity to review the transcripts
7 of the audio materials for all of the tabs where audio material is
8 indicated and available?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And having done that, were you able to ascertain or at least
11 analyse the authenticity or reliability of these materials?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you tell us what, if anything, your view is with respect
14 to these documents?
15 A. The sources of some of this material are new to me, but they
16 reinforce both -- to me both the authenticity and the reliability of the
17 material that I've reviewed.
18 Q. Now, I'd like to -- if you could maybe -- could you expand for
19 the Trial Chamber and tell the Trial Chamber what you looked at, in terms
20 of comparing these documents, or how you were able to compare them in
21 order to arrive at the conclusion that they were at least reliable and
22 accurate, if not authentic?
23 A. Well, I looked at them in a similar way that I used to review the
24 previous documentation. So that entailed looking at dates, times,
25 participants, the substance of conversations, I'd say the subject matter,
1 some details within conversations that seemed very unique, factors like
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I'd like to go over just a few
4 examples of this, because it is quite extensive. But let's start with,
5 for example, tab number 1. And I think we may need in e-court -- I think
6 I can give you the P number for this one. All right, it should be P786.
7 The very first one should be in e-court, P786. Okay, I think we have it
8 here. All right.
9 Q. Now, with respect to tab 1, were you able to compare this against
10 other materials?
11 A. Contained within this folder?
12 Q. Yes, contained within the folder.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what did you compare it against?
15 A. Well, the two conversations here -- there are two versions of a
16 conversation here. One of them, the top one, is apparently from a
17 Croatian source, and the second one is from the -- is a transcript made
18 by the SDB in Tuzla
19 Q. And the SDB in Tuzla
20 Croatian-sourced materials or intercepts that you reviewed, as far as you
22 A. As far as I know, they are not.
23 Q. Do you know whether or not they exchanged information
24 particularly of this nature during the course of the war?
25 A. I'm not aware that they exchanged such information.
1 Q. And in terms of this particular intercept, can you tell us what
2 specific features you looked at in terms of determining whether or not
3 they were of the same conversation, in fact?
4 A. Start with the date, the date is mentioned as the 8th of July,
5 1995. On the first intercept, the time is noted at 1517. On the second
6 version, it's noted as 1530. So for me, that's a -- that's reasonably
8 Q. If I can just interrupt for a second and put on the record that
9 the second document you're referring to is the SDB intercept?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And that's report number 512?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And that is P306, just so the record is clear.
14 I'm sorry, please continue.
15 A. So the first conversation is a summary of a conversation, the
16 Croatian intercept, and it says that it's taking place between the
17 interpreter of General -- this person wasn't quite sure who, whether it
18 was Micolai -- it is written down as "Micolai," but it is
19 General Nicolai, most likely, the UN general, and an unidentified person.
20 They mention here:
21 "One of the generals from the Main Staff of the VRS, the Army of
22 Republika Srpska."
23 And then they summarised the conversation.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask a question?
25 If I look at the B/C/S version, I only see the word "Micolai"
1 with an M at the beginning. In the conversation, there's
2 "General Micolai," and then with a question mark, "Nicolai."
3 THE WITNESS: The translators used back-slashes to denote that
4 they were making an assumption.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That it should be the General Nicolai from the
7 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has another question.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: At page 48, lines 2 and 3, you are saying:
10 "On the first intercept, the time is noted as 1517. On the
11 second version," of the same intercept I assume, "it is noted as 1530,
12 and that is reasonably proximate."
13 So there can be a difference of 15 or so minutes between the
14 recording of the same intercept by two different sites?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes. How such a thing can happen is, for example,
16 on this first one it's possible that the person would have recorded when
17 the conversation started, and on the second one they may have recorded
18 either when the conversation ended or when they typed it and sent it to
19 their headquarters. So a 13-minute gap is not -- in this context, is not
20 a -- I would say not significant.
21 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Would you like me to
24 continue or do you -- okay.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. With respect to the intercept, itself, did you look at the
3 substance, that is, what the intercept was referring to, in terms of
4 analysing whether or not there was any confluence or overlap between the
5 two or whether or not, in fact, they reflected the same conversation?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And in this conversation, can you tell us what you looked
8 at? What gave you the impression that it was the same conversation?
9 A. The people who were speaking were identified as a General Nicolai
10 and an interpreter of General Nicolai's and then somebody -- a general
11 from the Main Staff of the VRS, and then the contents -- who was an
12 unidentified person in this first conversation. And the content of the
13 conversation was summarised as that the unidentified person conveyed
14 information that the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina had six armoured
15 personnel carriers in the area. That's one point.
16 So maybe we should go to the --
17 Q. Okay, we can do that.
18 A. -- corroborating --
19 Q. Or maybe if you can identify if there is anything -- if there are
20 any other points on this document, and then we can look at the next one.
21 How ever you prefer.
22 A. Okay. So the six armoured personnel carriers, and that they are
23 in the areas of Zepa and Srebrenica. Then person X is asking to warn the
24 ABiH officers to stop the assaults.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Can we go to, please, P306.
1 Okay, I think we have them on the screen now.
2 Q. And as you've indicated, this document is report number 512 from
3 the SDB, and it indicates a time of 1530 hours?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it indicates that there was a conversation recorded between
6 the UN General Nicolai with one of General Mladic's deputies it says?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it says:
9 "We could not hear General Nicolai -- we could not hear
10 General Nicolai and his interpreter, Svetlana, at all."
12 A. Right.
13 Q. So the person speaking in this intercept is X?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And X would be the unidentified VRS general?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could we go to, please, the second page of this
18 document. In the English only, yes.
19 Q. And do you -- can you tell us what -- if you can find the
20 references that you've indicated that are present in the Croatian-sourced
21 intercept in this document, on this page.
22 A. X, partway down the page, says:
23 "What I want to say to the general is that in the last couple of
24 days, the Muslims, using six UNPROFOR armoured personnel carriers in the
25 area of Srebrenica."
1 And then he goes on to say:
2 "Your commander in Srebrenica is probably aware that we found
3 these APCs precisely in the area between Zepa and Srebrenica."
4 "Could you please caution your forces to remove all Muslims'
5 heavy weapons, especially the APCs?"
6 And then it's a bit unclear. It says "or to give us precise,"
7 and that's the end of the conversation.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE:
10 Q. This particular conversation reflects the six APCs, armoured
11 personnel carriers?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it reflects the fact that they were in the areas of Zepa and
15 A. Right.
16 Q. And it also reflects the fact that the VRS general asked
17 General Nicolai to warn the ABiH officers to stop the assault actions --
18 A. Right.
19 Q. -- on the other one. And on this one it's indicated:
20 "Caution your forces to remove all Muslims' heavy weapons," it's
21 a spelling mistake, I think, in the -- "especially the APCs"?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. And in your view, was that a sufficient basis to conclude that
24 these two documents correspond essentially to the same conversation?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And were you able to ascertain who the VRS general is that's
2 mentioned in this MUP intercept, that is, the SDB intercept?
3 A. Later in some of the SDB reports, they mention that they were
4 able to ascertain that in this report number 512, it was General Tolimir
5 who was the one who was speaking.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. What I'd like to do is to turn, if
7 we could, to tab number 4. That's P310.
8 Okay, I see that we have the document in front of us now.
9 Q. Now, what I'd like to do is, first of all, indicate what it says.
10 This is a document that is headed "Army of the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2nd -- Command of the 2nd Corps," and it talks about
12 a radio relay station, indicating the northern site. And it's dated
13 9 July 1995
14 to the CSB, Security Services Centre, SDB, State Security Service of
16 A. 521.
17 Q. 521. Did you have an opportunity to review this intercept?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And is this the intercept that you've indicated reflects the
20 identity of the participant in the first conversation that we've just
21 looked at?
22 A. I guess I would say perhaps indirectly since --
23 Q. All right. Have you had an opportunity to review this particular
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the conversation within it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And were you able to compare that to a transcript of a
4 conversation that was recorded independently and was the subject of a
5 search, that it was retrieved during a recent search?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And in that conversation, were you able to establish a connection
8 between these two intercepts, that is, the MUP intercept from SDB and the
9 transcript of an intercept?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. That is indicated here, and it's
12 65 ter 52 -- 5624A. I have it as P698.
13 Q. And can you tell us what about the features of this particular
14 conversation were you able to compare?
15 A. There are -- this requires a little bit of patience and flipping
16 through the various pages, because there are, I think, four versions of
17 this conversation. Right, or is it three? Three, three versions of it.
18 So, I have noted, say, five points that I think are significant
19 in the conversation that come through, and that's in addition to the date
20 and the time and the people who were talking.
21 May I work through this in my -- using my own initiative, since I
22 find it a little confusing and I would like to --
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. What I'd like to do, I think it might make things a little
1 easier --
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. -- is I believe we have the audiotape for this particular
4 conversation, and it might be useful to play the audiotape, and at the
5 same time we can follow this particular intercept, so that we can see --
6 and this is independently, and we can see whether or not the audiotape --
7 or the intercept tracks the audiotape from a different source. That
8 might be the most efficient way to do it.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we do that, Judge Nyambe wants to have a
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: At page 54, line 25, and 53, you refer to this
13 report number 512.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. 512 relates to the first tab here, which
15 is the intercept, MUP origin, that indicates a time of 1530 hours on
16 8 July.
17 JUDGE NYAMBE: It's 8 July?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. And in this intercept that we've
19 now been discussing, which is report number 521, there is a reference to
20 that -- there is a reference to report number 512, and it says:
21 "We recorded a conversation between General Nicolai and the
22 aggressor army Officer X. General Nicolai was looking for
23 General Mladic. The switchboard said that he was in the field.
24 General Nicolai then asked for the officer of the aggressor army with
25 whom he spoke in our conversation number 512."
1 So what I propose to do or what I'd like to do is to play a
2 recording of that conversation, or a recording of a conversation, from a
3 different source other than the MUP so that the Trial Chamber can hear
4 the translation of that conversation, and at the same time look at the
5 MUP transcript to see if it tracks the conversation that's on the tape.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: While that tape is playing, we should be looking
7 at 521?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: 521.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: 521.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: 521, that's right.
11 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I think the booths have the transcript,
13 and it should reflect 5624A, and that's what I would like them to read as
14 the tape plays. And at the same time I would like to have displayed on
15 e-court -- I think we do already -- yeah, we just need to display just
16 the MUP transcript.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I've got it. Ms. Stewart has provided
19 me with an explanation, and I would ask the Court, then, to follow along
20 in the packets, because I understand that it can't be displayed in
21 e-court at the same time. So that would be under tab number 4. It's the
22 very first intercept, and hopefully you'll be able to pick up, in the
23 translation of the tape, where it meets this transcript.
24 JUDGE NYAMBE: And just for the sake of clarity, when you say
25 "under tab 4," it is the document behind tab 4?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: The document behind tab 4. It should say:
2 "CSB/SDB, 9 July, report number 521."
3 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
4 [Audio-clip played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Hello."
7 "General, sir, I wish you a good day. I'm calling you on behalf
8 of General Nicolai. Let me hear him out and translate."
9 "Good afternoon to you ... and General Nicolai too."
10 "Good afternoon to you. And after yesterday's events, I would
11 like to tell you ..."
12 "Hello. I can't hear anything. You'll have to repeat it all."
13 "Hello, hello."
14 "Hello, yes."
15 "I did not understand anything. It's very difficult to
16 understand. Could you please repeat?"
17 "Yes. After the events from yesterday, at least, I want to tell
18 you that I appreciate at least the co-operation of your forces towards my
19 soldiers who were forced to leave their observation post. Your forces
20 enabled them to reach Bratunac safely. However, I want my soldiers to
21 return to their base in Potocari, where they are stationed anyway and
22 which is located in the Srebrenica enclave."
23 "Okay ."
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, we're not able to follow the
25 whole text, only the beginning.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. It appears that -- it appears that there
2 is an error. Just bear with me one moment and I'll see if I can
3 straighten that out.
4 Let's keep going. I think it's the right one.
5 [Audio-clip played]
6 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I have one more question for you,
7 but I would like to hear your answer to this first."
8 "One more time, I say hello to General Nicolai. Please accept my
9 condolences for the death of a UN staff member in Srebrenica. And I'm
10 going to pass his proposal to his staff currently located in the
11 territory of Republika Srpska."
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is the Chamber able to follow at this point?
13 We've just heard the middle passage on the second page.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's correct.
15 [Audio-clip played]
16 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Hello."
17 "Yes, I'm listening."
18 "Very well. I expect that they will be enabled to return to
19 their base today, and that same instructions you are going to give to
20 your subordinate commanders."
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last part was not -- what we heard was not
22 part of the English translation of the transcript.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, are you saying that it's not in
24 the record of the proceedings or it's not on the transcript that you have
25 in front of you? I was unclear about that.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We heard, like you, I suppose, the part which we
2 see on page 2 of the English version of the transcript:
3 "Please accept my condolences," and so on.
4 And it stops: "Yes, I'm listening." And everything what was
5 heard later was not part of this translation of the transcript. We
6 couldn't follow. That's on the record.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: The translation that I've asked you to look at
8 is a translation of the MUP version of this intercept. What you're
9 listening to is a tape that is not the MUP version of the intercept, but
10 a completely independent tape. So -- but you have a copy of that
11 transcript. It's also behind the MUP one. But I wanted you to look at
12 this MUP transcript to see if you can follow the otherwise independent
13 conversation taken by a completely different agency to see if there's --
14 to see if there's an overlap or confluence among those --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I see this is at the end of the pages of tab 4,
16 at the very end, we have the B/C/S version, and before that, three pages
17 of the English translation of that B/C/S version. And we see there, on
18 page 2 of this English version, mentioning the condolences for the death
19 of the UN staff member, and then it goes on, I think, as we heard it now
20 on the audio.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 JUDGE NYAMBE: As I understand you, Mr. Vanderpuye, what we have
24 in the folder, page 2, is the MUP transcript.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right.
1 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. And what we're hearing audio is an
2 independent recording of this MUP conversation?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right.
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. But just to be fair to you, there is -- a
5 lot of the conversation here does not appear in the MUP?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. And, in fact, what you can see
7 in the MUP conversation or in the MUP transcript is that there's only one
8 half of the conversation that's recorded. It's all X speaking, because
9 it says, at the beginning -- at the beginning, you can see after that X
10 responded, and it's only X that follows in the transcript. So what
11 you're hearing is one side of the conversation -- what you're seeing is
12 one side of the conversation, and you're hearing the other side of the
13 conversation as well. And that's reflected in the transcript, although
14 unfortunately it's not coming off as I'd hoped. It's reflected in the
15 transcript of the tape-recording that you're hearing now. So there are
16 parts of the tape-recording that are being translated to you that you
17 will not see in the MUP recording -- MUP transcript.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. I understand, I hope.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think we're almost there, I think we're almost
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But we realise the difficulty the witness was
22 going through during her work with the OTP.
23 Mr. Tolimir.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Mr. President, this audio-recording indicates that the
1 transcription was selective and that they left out what didn't suit them.
2 You could see in the first transcript, which was erroneously shown here
3 by the Prosecutor, that General Nicolai was thanking us for releasing or
4 letting his soldiers go, and here the general and the Prosecutor claim
5 that he was not thanking us that we had captured them. So you can see
6 how facts can be twisted.
7 I would like to have this entire transcript shown, if it is
8 available, so that we can see what this is all about.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, what is your position to that
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, I don't think it really pertains to the
13 issues that are before the Court just now. That's number 1. Number 2 is
14 that he does have a copy of the transcript, and he has the tape as well,
15 and he's perfectly free to either play it or to review it and to raise
16 any objection that he has as to either its content or any interpretation
17 of it.
18 Ms. Frease, I should emphasise, is not engaged in analysing the
19 factual context or the meaning of these intercepts. She's simply engaged
20 in comparing the two to determine whether or not they are reliable and
21 they are authentic. And when you have two versions of a conversation
22 that are independent of one another, then I think that's a relevant
23 issue, in terms of what Ms. Frease is here to testify about. And
24 clearly, there's another one that I will play to the Court where you can
25 actually listen to the voice on the tape and ascertain for yourself,
1 I think, relatively important information from it.
2 But in this particular instance, all I want to do is to
3 illustrate that there is a MUP version of this material and there is a
4 secondary version of this material that's not related to the MUP, where
5 the two clearly coincide and identify these two documents or these two
6 instances as the same conversation. That's all.
7 So whether or not it means one thing or another is completely a
8 different story. She's not a military analyst. We're not making any
9 representations as to the circumstances that are attendant to the
10 intercepts, other than the fact that they overlap.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, I would appreciate if we again can continue
12 with our examination of the witness. We were discussing the video and
13 audio -- not the video, the audio and different transcripts. We should
14 continue the examination of the witness.
15 But first, Mr. Tolimir.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
17 I wasn't addressing the question to the witness. I was making an
18 objection about the way of the Prosecutor's questioning of two witnesses
19 about one and the same event. My objection was that they were serving
20 the Trial Chamber information that they wanted them to know and were,
21 therefore, influencing the opinion of the Trial Chamber.
22 As far as General Nicolai was concerned, he said that the Serbian
23 soldiers did not save the Dutch soldiers. But at the beginning of the
24 transcript, we saw that they did and that he was thanking. So this is
25 serving up information to the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution would
1 like the Trial Chamber to have.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber will give weight to everything which
4 is in front of the Trial Chamber, at the end of the day, and we have much
5 material about this conversation and especially with the involvement of
6 General Nicolai. We have his full testimony, with all additional
7 exhibits. And we will examine that very carefully, you can be sure.
8 We should continue the examination of the witness in order to
9 save time.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 I just want to point out we're not quite at the end of the tape,
12 which goes through to 16:41:9 in the counter, but I think we can move on
13 from this point.
14 What I would like to do, though, is I would like to refer the
15 Trial Chamber, if I could, to the last -- I'd like to refer you to the
16 last page of the MUP transcript. That should be page 3 behind tab 4.
17 And at the same time, I'd like to refer you to the last page of the
18 transcript of the audio material which you just heard, and that's -- for
19 the record, it's P698. And I don't know if it's possible to display
20 these both in e-court, but I'll ask maybe the witness if she could read
21 those out into the record so it's very clear what the basis of her
22 conclusions are with respect to this material.
23 So it should be page 3 -- if we're doing it in e-court, it's
24 page 3 of P310. There we go. And it should be page 3 of P698.
25 I think we've got the same document on both sides. We should
1 have, on one side, P310, and on the other side, P698. Is that what we
2 have? Okay. No, that's not what we have. The left one, P310, should
3 have an ERN reading "0320-5142."
4 Well, you know, since we all have the binders in front of us,
5 maybe we should proceed that way.
6 Q. Ms. Frease, would you mind reading into --
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Why don't we leave what we have on the screen
8 now. Okay, we've got it. Okay.
9 Q. What I'd like to do is compare this attribution to X on the left
10 to what we have on the right.
11 A. So first you'd like me to read the attribution to X on the left,
12 the last --
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. First, let me ask did you consider --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- what you have in front on the screen, and then tell us what it
18 says and why you considered it important.
19 A. The SDB intercept says -- the last sentence is, again, attributed
20 to X:
21 "I'm going to issue necessary orders immediately by telegram so
22 the Muslims cannot listen to it and create obstacles. I hope we are
23 going to have a positive outcome of what we have agreed here.
24 "Regards to you, Svetlana, and to the general. Thank you for
25 your patience and understanding."
1 On the document on the right, the transcript of the tape, it's
2 attributed to General Tolimir. It says:
3 "Thank you, General. I am going to issue necessary orders
4 immediately by telegrams so that the Muslims cannot listen to it and
5 create obstacles. I hope we are going to have a positive outcome of what
6 we have agreed here. Regards to you, Svetlana, and to the general.
7 Thank you for your patience and understanding."
8 And then that one continues because it's possible for them to
9 hear the interpreter on that side, and she says:
10 "Thank you. That is all for now."
11 And his response is:
12 "This is all for now."
13 Q. And did you consider that important in linking these two
14 conversations to one another as one and the same?
15 A. Yes. There were other factors as well, but yes.
16 Q. Okay. And could you tell us, briefly, what those are? You don't
17 necessarily have to show us, so that we can move along in terms of time,
18 but --
19 A. Sure. There were two other points in comparing the MUP
20 transcript to the audio transcript, and the two other points are found
21 earlier in the conversation, where X says:
22 "One more time, regards to General Nicolai. Please accept my
23 condolences for the death of a UN staff member in Srebrenica. I am going
24 to pass his proposal to his staff currently located in the
25 Republika Srpska."
1 And then the other one is a few lines down and talks about -- he
2 says -- X says:
3 "I am not informed that my commanders prevented the evacuation of
4 the body by land. I would ask the general to send by land his team
5 towards Bratunac, and I will immediately order that they are accepted and
6 escorted to Zvornik."
7 And then it goes on to talk about the helicopter flight that will
8 take the body out.
9 Q. With respect to this particular intercept, did you review also a
10 UN report?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that's, for the record, P682. Maybe we can have that
13 displayed on the screen and you can tell us how that figured in your
14 review of this material.
15 A. I also consider this document to be very strong corroboration of
16 the SDB document and the audio transcript or the audiotape that we heard,
17 for a number of reasons: One, because of the date, it having taken place
18 on the 12th of July; the fact that the telephone conversation indicates
19 that it's between General Nicolai and General Tolimir, and that it's
20 taking place at, they indicate here, 12.30. The SDB intercept records
21 the time at 12.40. So, again, I consider that close enough in time that
22 it's significant.
23 And then there are five paragraphs in this document. They are
24 notes written by Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter about the conversation that
25 his general had with General Tolimir. And if you go through each of the
1 paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you go through the transcript that we --
2 you go through the audiotape of the transcript that we just heard, you
3 will find the same content in the audiotape of the transcript as one -- I
4 could go through and show you where they are.
5 Some of the conversations relate to information that is being
6 conveyed by General Nicolai, and some of it is information that's being
7 conveyed by General Tolimir.
8 Q. Could you just -- without necessarily directing us to where,
9 specifically, it is in the audiotape, could you just say what those --
10 what those specific aspects are that you -- that you're referring to in
11 the UN report that's reflected in the audio?
12 A. Okay. So the first point would be the fact that the interpreter
13 is saying that:
14 "Your forces," the Serb forces, in other words, "enabled them,
15 "the UN forces," to reach Bratunac safely. However, I want my soldiers
16 to return to their base in Potocari, where they are stationed anyway, and
17 which is in the Srebrenica enclave."
18 So that is reflected in the first paragraph of
19 Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter's note.
20 The second point is on the next page of the transcript where
21 General Tolimir is sending his condolences for the death of the UN staff
22 member in Srebrenica, and that's reflected in the second paragraph of
23 the -- of Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter's note.
24 The third point is a couple of lines down, where it says -- it's
25 the interpreter now speaking on behalf of General Nicolai, and says that:
1 "General Nicolai --"
2 Well, she's saying:
3 "I expect that they will be unable to return to their base today
4 and that the same instructions you are going to --" sorry, "and that the
5 same instructions you are going to give to your subordinate commanders."
6 And that's reflected in paragraph 3 of the UN note.
7 The next point, point 4, I would say, has to do with the
8 transportation of the body of the deceased Dutch soldier by land to
9 Zvornik, and then by helicopter from Zvornik to Tuzla, to Zagreb
10 reflected in the fourth paragraph of the UN note.
11 And the final point has to do with General Tolimir's comment that
12 he was not informed by commanders that the body had been prevented -- the
13 body was not being allowed to be evacuated by land. That's reflected in
14 the fifth paragraph of the UN note.
15 Q. All right. Thank you very much for that.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to go to tab number 5.
17 Q. Before I do, let me just ask you this: As I indicated in
18 response to a question from Her Honour Judge Nyambe, in this tab 4, P310,
19 MUP intercept, we have an attribution of -- well, it says that the
20 same -- the same officer of the aggressor army is the person who spoke in
21 report number 512?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And that is -- corresponds to the communication in tab number 1,
24 which I think you can see. Did you consider that, in terms of reaching
25 the conclusion as to who was speaking in the conversation that's under
1 tab number 1?
2 A. Yes. And then also under tab 6, to go to the reliability of the
3 MUP information, the MUP had made -- the SDB had made a note where they
4 say -- this is under tab 6, under record number 528.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. That will be, for the record, P312 -- I'm
6 sorry, P314. It is a MUP report number 528, and you'll find that under
7 tab 6, and it's the third-to-last page in that tab.
8 Q. And could you just tell us what that says? We can avoid
9 displaying that in e-court. What gave you that impression?
10 A. It says that -- the SDB made a notation, and I quote:
11 "It should also be pointed out that in the record number 512, a
12 person X was, in fact, aggressor Officer General Tolimir, which we
13 subsequently found out."
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. What I'd like to do now is go to
15 tab 5.
16 Q. And in this case, can you tell us if you had an opportunity to
17 compare the intercepts and the materials that are under that tab?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the record, tab 6 contains P701. Tab 5
20 contains P699, P311, P680, and P700.
21 Q. Can you tell us how you went about reviewing these documents and
22 what, if anything, you found among them?
23 A. I went through a similar process as we've just been through,
24 always starting with the date and the time, and then looking for
25 information that is somewhat unique, that stands out as being very
1 specific to a particular conversation, in addition, of course, to the
2 participants, the people who are noted as speaking.
3 Q. And in respect of this particular material, can you tell us what
4 you found among it -- among these documents that corresponded to one
5 another, if anything?
6 A. This conversation took place on the 9th of July, 1995. The first
7 entry is a Croatian intercept that's recorded at 1755. The MUP
8 intercept -- the SDB intercept notes the 9th of July, 1995, at a time of
9 1815, so that's 20 minutes later. The next entry are again UN notes made
10 about the conversation on the 9th of July. This time, the time is noted
11 as 1750, so close to the time of the first -- the first notation --
12 closer to the time of the first notation. And then the final entry is a
13 transcript of the conversation that does not note a time or a date. It
14 can't. It's an audio-recording, so it doesn't have that. But we can see
15 that the conversation took about 15 minutes. So that also -- could also
16 help account for the difference in time between when these took -- when
17 the various agencies recorded that the conversation took place.
18 In addition to that, the person -- the persons noted as speaking
19 in the first conversation, in the Croatian summary of this conversation,
20 is General Tolimir and General Micolai. The SDB conversation notes the
21 same participants, though they note UN General Nicolai and say "probably
22 Talimir." So, yeah, they spell it T-a-l-i-m-i-r. The third entry are
23 the UN notes, which note that the conversation took place between
24 General Nicolai and General Tolimir.
25 And then there are three or four points in the conversation that
1 run through these four different versions of that conversation. The
2 first one is the fact that -- in the brief summary, the Croatian summary,
3 that General Nicolai demanded that the VRS forces urgently withdraw some
4 4 kilometres to the south of their present locations. That's one point.
5 Another point has to do with -- during the conversation, Tolimir denied
6 that the VRS forces were around 1 kilometre from Srebrenica and claimed
7 that the VRS forces in this area were not conducting offensive
8 operations. And the third point in this summary is -- has to do with a
9 UN helicopter flight that was arranged to take place the evening of the
10 9th of July from Tuzla-Zvornik-Split -- sorry, Tuzla-Zvornik/Tuzla-Split
11 route for transporting the body of the UNPROFOR DutchBat soldier.
12 So in looking at the -- I guess I would turn to the telephone
13 conversation between General Nicolai and General Tolimir, and in the
14 first paragraph, both the 4 kilometres and the 1 kilometres are
16 In the fourth paragraph down, the route of the dead soldier is
17 mentioned from the Zvornik Stadium -- this will come up in the
18 transcripts, but the Zvornik Stadium, and then the helicopter going
19 en route from Tuzla
20 Q. Just for the record, you're referring to P680, and that's the
21 UN report --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- dated 9 July 1995
24 A. And then on the transcript, there's also mention of the
25 4 kilometres and the 1 kilometre -- mention of the 4 kilometres a couple
1 of different times.
2 And then also there are additional details that come up in the
3 actual transcripts, and a couple of those have to do with the UN soldiers
4 being allowed to return to their base in Potocari. And then there is
5 also a grid here that is discussed for the -- that has been crossed, and
6 that's grid 735838.
7 There is also reference to the fact that the UN had prevented --
8 managed to prevent the ABiH forces from taking their heavy weapons from
9 the collection point, and that -- and:
10 "We are therefore forced to defend the safe area."
11 That comes through also in paragraph 3 of the UN report, notes
12 from the report, that specific grid, 735838, and the fact there's an
13 acronym here, "WCP," used in the UN report, which is the weapons
14 collection point, which is referred to in the transcript, the lengthier
15 transcript, the final transcript.
16 Q. When you say "the lengthier transcript," you're referring to the
17 transcript of the audiotape?
18 A. That's correct.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. And for the record, that is P700.
20 THE WITNESS: And then there's also -- you know, it's a small
21 point, but in the audio transcript, on page 3 there's this reference to
22 the helicopter flight from Zvornik-Tuzla and from Tuzla to Split
23 is the route that was first referenced in the Croatian summary of that
24 conversation, where they say: "Tuzla-Zvornik/Tuzla-Split route."
25 That's a general overview of the analysis among those four
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. What I'd like to do is I'd like to play a little bit of this
4 recording. It's quite long, and it's only for the purposes of, one,
5 having you, Ms. Frease, confirm that it is the tape that corresponds to
6 this transcript. And I think it would also benefit the Trial Chamber, as
7 this particular intercept is attributed to General Tolimir, to be able to
8 hear the voice that's on the tape.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: So I don't think that there's any translation
10 that's necessary for these purposes, so that you can actually hear the
11 speakers on the audio material. It's tab 5. It's 65 ter 3466A.
12 Q. And, Ms. Frease, I'd just ask you to follow along in the
13 transcript so you can confirm that it's the right one.
14 A. Yes.
15 [Audio-clip played]
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I think that's all I need to play,
17 I think, at this point.
18 We're just about done. There are just a couple of documents I
19 wanted to show the witness that we'd spoken about a little bit earlier,
20 in terms of qualifying them, and then I will conclude my direct
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That would be appreciated because of the length
23 of the whole examination.
24 But I think we should have our second break now, and we will
25 resume at 10 minutes past 6.00. We adjourn.
1 --- Recess taken at 5.41 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
5 Q. Ms. Frease, we just left off with tab 5 of this group of
6 12 intercepts, with related documents, and I just wanted to -- I wanted
7 to ask you if you could refer to tab 10 of this binder.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the record, tab 10 contains two documents.
9 The first one is a Croatian intercept, and I just -- I'm looking for the
10 P number. I don't have it written on my folder here. It's 65 ter 5554.
11 And the second document is a MUP transcript. It's P315. The first one
12 is P775.
13 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in relation to this document, were you also able to hear
16 audio materials relating to this intercept?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. All right. But you did review the transcript of it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And did the transcript conform to the -- well, the
21 transcript of the MUP intercept conform to the Croatian intercept?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And can you tell us how?
24 A. The conversations are listed as taking place on the 10th of July.
25 The Croatian version, at 2010; on the SDB MUP version, at 2015. The
1 participants in both conversations are listed as General Janvier,
2 Bernard Janvier, and General Zdravko Tolimir. The substance of the --
3 well, the summary by the -- done in the Croatian intercept says that
4 General Janvier demands that the VRS stop attacking the UN troops south
5 of Srebrenica and to retreat to their previous positions from the
6 previous evening.
7 Q. Did you find that reflected in the conversation?
8 A. I have not marked it here, but yes. The Croatian intercept goes
9 on to say that:
10 "General Tolimir promises he will establish contact with the
11 commander of the Serbian unit located south of Srebrenica and order to
12 stop the attack."
13 So partway through the transcript, he says that he'll check with
14 the commander in the area:
15 "He hasn't reported to me that there's been any attack. I'll
16 check this information and will be in touch."
17 Q. Well, if you look over on page 3 of the MUP transcript, do you
18 see a reference here where it says -- about the fourth entry --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- where it says:
21 "Yes, I do. Tell the general that, in the first place, I will
22 establish contact with the units in order to prevent the conflict
23 situation between UNPROFOR and the VRS. Translate."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you can see that reflected in the Croatian intercept, do you,
1 at about three or four lines from the bottom?
2 A. Yes. General Janvier has information that the VRS members are
3 attacking the UN members with two tanks, it says here.
4 Q. And it says:
5 "General Tolimir promises that he will establish contact with the
6 commander of the Serbian unit located south of Srebrenica."
7 Is that -- did you consider that as corroborative, at least, of
8 these two documents?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And do you recall listening to any tapes in which General Tolimir
11 actually introduced himself?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you see -- in this particular document, page 2 of the MUP
14 transcript, it reads:
15 "T: I am listening to you. Give General Janvier my regards."
16 And P says:
17 "General Janvier sends his regards, as well as says good evening,
19 T says:
20 "Good evening, General, sir. My regards. General Tolimir
22 Do you recall listening to an audio of this particular intercept?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. And do you recall listening to an audio, separate and apart from
25 the MUP audio, of this particular conversation?
1 A. Yes. I believe the other audio starts at a different place than
2 this -- than this transcript.
3 Q. And was that the audio of material that was obtained by a search,
4 a recent search?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did the audio conform to the transcript, as you listened to
7 it and read the transcript, from a certain point forward?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the audio that was obtained as a result of a seizure started
10 at a different point beyond the introduction that's attributed to
11 General Tolimir in this conversation?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And was it the case that the MUP audio contained the introduction
14 that we see in the transcript here?
15 A. That's my recollection, yes.
16 Q. Okay. And with respect to all the materials in here, have you
17 had an opportunity to go through them carefully to determine whether or
18 not they coincide with one another?
19 A. I have had an opportunity to go through all of them.
20 Q. And do they, in your opinion -- do they corroborate one another
21 so as to support the idea that they are authentic and reliable?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I wanted to show you just a couple of other documents before we
24 get -- we're finished.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could just have, in e-court, please,
1 65 ter P859.
2 Q. This is unrelated to this material, but has to do with the binder
3 of photocopied intercept material that we referred to earlier in your
5 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, that is Exhibit P859.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
7 Q. Do you recognise that binder?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Okay. And what do you recognise it to be?
10 A. I recognise it to be the original binder that we received the
11 550 pages or so of transcripts from the ABiH, Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 of intercepted conversations in July, from the 9th of July to the
13 31st of July.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. And if we could just have a look at P860.
15 I see it's invisible.
16 Q. Are you able to see it at all on your monitor, Ms. Frease?
17 A. Oh, that slight typewritten -- no, not really.
18 Q. Okay, that's all right. We'll see if we can get a better
19 photocopy to the Trial Chamber on this one.
20 But let me ask you if you recall -- do you recall that the binder
21 of material came with a receipt indicating that it contained 548 pages or
22 about that number of pages?
23 A. I remember that there was a cover page. I don't remember that it
24 said "548 pages," but in my mind it's always been 550 pages. That's just
25 a number that --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Thank you for that. I wanted to
2 show you another exhibit, which is 863, P863.
3 Q. All right. Have you seen this document before? Do you recognise
5 A. Yes. I haven't seen it for a long time, though.
6 Q. And this is a document that's entitled "Report of the Visual
7 Information Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire-Arms"?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In it, it talks about specimens Q1 through Q19 received from the
10 G2 headquarters of the 2nd Corps of Bosnia-Herzegovina Army?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does this relate to -- what does this relate to, if you can
13 just tell us briefly?
14 A. It relates to the 19 tapes that Jack Hunter took possession of on
15 the 25th of April, 1998, at -- from -- that he was given at 2 Corps
16 headquarters in Tuzla
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Thank you for that. Just bear with
18 me for one moment.
19 All right. I just want to show you one last thing, and that's a
20 map. It's P762.
21 Okay, I think that's fine. If you could just blow it up a little
22 bit in the area of Zepa.
23 Q. Do you recognise this, by the way, Ms. Frease?
24 A. Not specifically.
25 Q. Okay. Does it represent locations that are indicated in the
1 intercepts that you reviewed in preparation for either this testimony or
2 the Popovic case?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Can you tell me or tell the Trial Chamber what those
5 locations are?
6 A. Stublic, Zepa. Those are the only two that I remember from the
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you very much.
9 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: That concludes my direct examination, finally,
11 and I appreciate the Trial Chamber's indulgence.
12 Thank you, Ms. Frease.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 The examination-in-chief took a long time, much longer than
15 expected. We will come back to your tendering of exhibits, not to use
16 more court time with these procedural matters.
17 So, Mr. Tolimir, it's now up to you to start your
18 cross-examination of the witness.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
21 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to greet the witness. Since we
22 speak the same [as interpreted] language, we'll pause between questions
23 and answers.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all background noise
25 please seized and could Mr. Tolimir be asked to turn his microphone
1 towards him.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Could you please clarify for the Chamber, what is your
4 understanding of authenticity and reliability of certain material, since
5 you mostly addressed the issue of authenticity and reliability, both you
6 and the Prosecutor, during examination-in-chief?
7 A. I understand the word "authenticity" to talk about the
8 genuineness of material, whether it is what it purports to be, whether it
9 comes from the sources that it purports to come from. And the term
10 "reliability" I would use to describe the consistency within that
11 material, the content of the material. That would also, in this case, go
12 to the procedures that were followed in order to create it.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Please tell us whether the document you saw for the first time,
16 the one you referred to yesterday, dated sometime in 2008, is also
17 authentic. It was line 1 through to 7, page 67. Is it, in your opinion,
18 authentic, although you saw it only then? And based on that document you
19 saw for the first time, you mentioned the authenticity of another
20 document shown to you by the Prosecutor. For reference, it is page 67,
21 lines 1 through 7.
22 A. I'd like to know the specific document to which you're referring.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please give us the document number so
24 that we can have it on the screen and the witness knows what she's asked.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 The document was shown yesterday at page 67, lines 1 through 7,
2 when the witness addressed the issue of authenticity. Maybe the document
3 was number 67, although I'm not certain. I wasn't able to write it down.
4 I didn't have time to note down the exact reference.
5 To remind the witness, it seems to have been a document from the
6 Krstic and Popovic case.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think the witness has seen so many
8 documents in the course of the examination, it is necessary to identify
9 it. Otherwise, we are all lost and don't know what you're talking about.
10 Please, with the assistance of your team, it should be possible to find
11 out the correct number of that document.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 I think I gave the right reference, line 1 to 7, page 67. And my
14 legal consultant believes it is P785.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We will try to have it on the screen. We were
16 asking not for the reference of yesterday, but for the document number.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document P785 is a map.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 I did manage to note down that it was a map. But could we please
22 have page 67, lines 1 to 7, shown to the witness? I believe we all
23 recall the situation when she was asked whether it was authentic, and the
24 witness said that she saw it for the first time in the Krstic and Popovic
25 case in 2008, I believe. You even asked whether it could be authentic
1 for the simple reason that you saw it in 2008, if you recall that. I
2 don't have the transcript before me and I have to follow my notes.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we are all in the same position.
4 Even if we see the transcript of yesterday, I'm not sure if we find the
5 correct document. We have to show the document to the witness.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we please have
7 page 67, lines 1 to 7, in e-court.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I think I have a reference and
9 that might facilitate matters, I think. It's page 5.028 in the
10 transcript, I believe, and maybe I can read it into the record so that
11 Mr. Tolimir can verify that that's the right one, and maybe we can
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That would be helpful. Thank you very much,
14 Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
16 It reads as follows:
17 "And in connection with what case did you prepare this
18 authentication binder of material?"
19 "The first time was for the Krstic case."
20 "And did you prepare a second one?"
22 "When was that and for what purposes -- when was that and for
23 what case?"
24 "In the Popovic case."
25 This is the only reference to first time that's in the vicinity
1 of the transcript that Mr. Tolimir is referring to, and it's page 68 of
2 yesterday's transcript, but there's no reference to a document at page 67
3 that the witness has said was the first time that she's seen it. So
4 perhaps that -- I don't know if that actually -- perhaps that clarifies
5 the situation, but it certainly doesn't seem to indicate that page 67 is
6 the right one.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I think now we see the problem. We don't
8 have the -- and especially the Registry doesn't have the page number 67,
9 because it is now added to the previous transcripts and it's now about
10 4.900 and something, so that the Registry is not in the position to
11 identify this portion of the transcript of yesterday by the page numbers
12 of yesterday's transcript alone.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
14 But you can see here what my problem is. From the beginning,
15 three years that I've been here, I did not get a transcript from a status
16 conference, never mind from the proceedings.
17 Mr. Vanderpuye now has read the transcript, which is in English,
18 which I'm unable to use, and I'm handicapped there. And you remember the
19 witness saying this yesterday. Perhaps if Mr. Vanderpuye would be kind
20 enough, he could read to us what you said, what the Presiding Judge asked
21 the witness.
22 My question was: Is it an authenticity matter, when you see the
23 document for the first time, and you confirm whether it is the document
24 that the Prosecutor is putting his questions on? Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm just looking at the transcript of yesterday
1 and trying to find the portion where I am putting questions to the
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 This is from that part that Vanderpuye has read out. He read out
5 the reference that I was talking about. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you are referring to that part of the
7 transcript of yesterday which Mr. Vanderpuye was reading, then you should
8 put the question to the witness again. Perhaps that was helpful to
9 understand the background of your question. I don't find it at the
10 moment, like you don't.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Since I don't have the transcript, I'm going to rephrase the
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Would any document be authentic that is drafted today, but
16 discusses events that took place at the time of the events in Srebrenica?
17 Thank you.
18 A. In the context of what we've been discussing, the documents that
19 I've been referring to relate -- relate to or were created, in large
20 part, at the time of those events. In general, I guess I would probably
21 say no.
22 Q. Thank you. Please, are you able to clarify what the difference
23 is, in your mind, between the term "authenticity" and the term
24 "reliability"? Thank you.
25 A. Yes. I think I tried to do that above. To me, "authenticity"
1 goes to the genuineness of the document, to the agency or individual that
2 created it, where the reliability of the document refers more to -- one
3 way to think about it is the internal content, the internal procedures
4 that were followed in the creation of that document. That's the way that
5 I think about those two issues.
6 Q. Thank you. Do you recall when Mr. Vanderpuye asked you yesterday
7 whether you had taken part in the interception of the conversations, and
8 you said, Yes? This was on page 56 of the transcript. Probably we would
9 need to add a number to it. I mean, it was line 8, minute 21. This is
10 what I'm able to note down.
11 He also asked you on page 57, line 13, whether you had taken part
12 in the creation of the database, and you answered:
13 "Yes, I was engaged in the entire process."
14 Later, he asked whether you testified here about the authenticity
15 of the creation of the database, and you said: "Yes."
16 So what you authorised, you state that it is authentic. I'm not
17 denying that. But based on what you compiled or authored, can it be
18 authentic in relation to something that happened 15 years ago,
19 particularly when we see that there are differences in the content?
20 Thank you.
21 A. Thank you. I don't recall saying that I had taken place in the
22 interception of conversations. If that is anywhere in the transcript, it
23 should not be.
24 Q. Thank you. In the transcript, it said that you compiled
25 databases, you created databases. Perhaps the translation was wrong.
1 Tomorrow, we are going to provide the transcript lines and these pages
2 the way that they are marked here from the markings of the Registry, and
3 then you will be able to see that. And then when my legal advisor sees
4 the original, the transcript, since I don't have it, I have no intention
5 of asking you anything that you didn't say. If you didn't say something,
6 I apologise immediately, but we will check this tomorrow.
7 All I want you to do now is to tell us whether there is a major
8 difference between the way a lawyer, an artist, or an architect
9 understands the term "authenticity," or a scientist. The same would
10 apply for the term "reliability." Would a philosopher or an analyst or a
11 lawyer understand this term differently?
12 A. I'd like to go back to one of your previous questions or
13 statements that said that I had testified also yesterday about the
14 authenticity of the creation of the database. Again, I do not believe
15 that I was asked that question and that I would have responded to it
16 positively, only that I was involved in creating a database. But that is
17 a question that's very separate from the authenticity of the material
18 that was entered into the database.
19 When we analysed the material, when we entered the material into
20 the database, we were extremely careful not to summarise the
21 information and not to put our own interpretation on the material that we
22 entered. I was extremely strict on this point with myself and with other
23 team members. We used the words --
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. We used the words that came through in the material that we were
1 using. We did not alter the words that came to us, and that was very
2 important. It was a very important internal principle, because as
3 information comes in on an investigation, words can take on new meanings.
4 And if, internally, we were putting our own meaning on words, it could
5 alter the way that those conversations could later be interpreted by
6 another member of the investigation that had received other information.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at the transcript from yesterday,
8 page 5017, lines 13 to 14. And if you can tell us what is stated there,
9 because I don't know English and I wrote down what I said back to you.
10 You said:
11 "I took part in that whole process. I was very engaged."
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'm quite confident that the
15 witness doesn't have a copy of the transcript in front of her. I have
16 found the indicated page and reference by Mr. Tolimir, which I can read
17 into the record, and perhaps Mr. Gajic can read it into the record so the
18 witness is clear -- oh, Ms. Stewart advises me that she can show it on
19 Sanction so the witness can see it.
20 THE WITNESS: Which lines?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it was 13 and 14, page 5017.
22 THE WITNESS: And the question was:
23 "And were you involved in any way in assembling or putting all of
24 these intercepts together in 2006 for the Prosecution?"
25 Is that the question?
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 That is how it was translated back to me, and this is what I
3 literally wrote, because I'm writing down, like a stenographer, exactly
4 what is being interpreted back to me. So I cannot be blamed for what I
5 heard yesterday. What I hear is what I take at face value. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, just to clarify one matter, nobody
7 is blaming you. Especially the examination of this witness, with so many
8 different documents, it's very complicated for all of us, including you.
9 No problem at all. Nobody is blaming you.
10 And I think now the witness has heard this part and could see it,
11 and I think we should wait for the answer.
12 THE WITNESS: My answer is, yes, that I was involved in
13 assembling and cross-referencing and putting together the intercepts for
14 the Popovic trial. I was not responsible for the final selection of the
15 intercepts, but I was certainly very involved in compiling the various
16 versions of the intercepts as we've been discussing; the note-books, the
17 print-outs, the electronic versions, all of that material, and the
18 transcript -- and the audio.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Earlier, towards the end of the examination-in-chief, we saw a
21 document that accompanied an audio-recording. And we saw that the
22 document, the transcript, follows the audio up to a certain point in
23 time, and then you can hear the audio segment, but this is not recorded
24 in the transcript.
25 Can you please tell me whether that transcript is both authentic
1 and reliable? Thank you.
2 A. Could you clarify which audio-recording and which transcript
3 you're referring to, please?
4 Q. Thank you. I think that that is document P306, which was
5 recorded at 1517 hours, and I'm thinking of the document P512, which was
6 recorded at 1530 hours.
7 Does this speak to the authenticity and reliability of these
8 documents, in line with the criteria of a court? Thank you.
9 A. In my view, this --
10 Q. Thank you. We can see both documents here that were recorded at
11 1530 hours. We need P306, which was recorded at 1517 hours, and the
12 document by the SDB, 512, which was recorded on the 8th of July at 1530.
13 And you said that this was not a significant difference. I'm
14 asking you whether they speak to the reliability and authenticity of each
15 one. And this is in tab 1 of your binder.
16 A. Thank you. In my view, this goes to -- more to the genuineness
17 and to the -- you could say genuineness or authenticity of the sources of
18 both of these conversations, one that was picked up by the Croatians, and
19 the other that was picked up by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
20 sorry, by the MUP, by the SDB.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'm sorry, I just want to
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. I just want to intervene for a
1 Mr. Tolimir is referring to P306, which is, in fact, the MUP
2 intercept that's indicated at 1530. The Croatian report is at 1517. And
3 for the record, that's P786, just so that we can get that in e-court if
4 he needs it.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. I was told the first number
6 we received was the wrong one.
7 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. While looking at the document on the right-hand side, the
11 Prosecutor also played the audio-recording, in which we could follow a
12 part of the conversation. Later, Judge Nyambe asked, Why wasn't the
13 entire footage reflected in the transcript.
14 So my question is: Does this satisfy the criteria of
15 reliability, because something could have been said there that was quite
16 important to the accused or for one of the parties in these proceedings?
17 There is a difference of 20 minutes here. In those 20 minutes, we're
18 going to find, in these note-books, scores of other conversations that
19 last for a minute or two minutes. Thank you.
20 A. I believe your second reference to the audio refers to tab 4. Is
21 that possible? So we've moved on from tab 1 to tab 4; is that correct?
22 Q. Thank you. It's possible, because you know this better because
23 you looked at those documents. But I just remember what happened just
24 now. We saw -- and Judge Nyambe asked you whether this was a small time
25 difference here. That is why I'm asking you why a part of the text is
1 missing, whereas it can be heard in the audio-recording. So what I'm
2 asking you is: Would this indicate that -- would the authenticity
3 principle apply to this?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tolimir is asked to repeat his question.
5 THE WITNESS: I think we're talking about two different things.
6 The first one we were talking about, tab 1, where one of the -- where the
7 Croatian intercept records a time of 1517 and where the BiH MUP, SDB,
8 police intercept, records the conversation at 1530. I mentioned that's a
9 difference of 13 minutes, and to me that's not a significant difference,
10 because it's possible that the MUP -- that the police could have recorded
11 the time when the conversation ended and not when the conversation
12 started. And then there's also just a factor of people's watches or the
13 clocks that they're looking on the wall. I'm sure that if we all compare
14 the times that we have on our watches now, they're going to be different.
15 So that's one issue.
16 The second issue, I think, does relate to tab 4, where we were --
17 the Prosecutor asked us to look at the MUP transcript while playing a
18 longer version of that same transcript. And what one should note in the
19 MUP transcript is that because of their location, as we've discussed
20 before, they were only able to hear one side of the conversation. So
21 I think that was the one where I went through five points, and really
22 only points 2 and 5 --
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you. That is a different question. We will come to that.
25 Thank you. This is a different question. We are going to discuss the
1 contents -- I just want to finish.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to finish what I was
3 saying, if I may, Mr. President.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. If you, in your analysis of short conversations that we had here,
6 miss out one word only, or part of a sentence, or an entire sentence,
7 because we could see that a few sentences were missing from the text that
8 we were looking at today, could that change the content of the entire
9 conversation or the flow of the entire conversation? Thank you.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. And also re-telling it, as we could see today on the
12 left-hand side, a kind of summary or re-telling, the process of
13 re-telling also possibly can change the whole course of a conversation,
14 as you can see. Perhaps you can see here some examples. You have the
15 place where it says "General Nikolin" instead of "General Nicolai," so
16 one letter can change the sense, and we are re-telling, summarising, this
17 conversation. So could you please tell us whether this summary
18 process -- the process of summarising can also change the course of a
19 conversation? Thank you.
20 A. Well, in this exercise, what we were doing was talking about the
21 authentication of the intercepts, as a whole, and the process that I and
22 my colleagues undertook to ensure that the intercepts were genuine or
24 Now, in the Croatian intercepts, in the ones that we mostly have
25 here, you do find summaries, and my sense of why that is the case is that
1 these were not of a high priority for the agency that was intercepting
2 them, so they wrote a summary. There isn't -- I haven't seen anything in
3 the summaries --
4 Q. Thank you. Just -- just answer my question. Thank you, thank
5 you. I apologise.
6 A. I haven't seen anything in the summaries that contradict the
7 longer transcripts that we have that were completed by other agencies or
8 other bodies.
9 Q. Thank you. It has shown in front of this Tribunal that
10 General Gvero and I spoke with General Nicolai. How could you tell here
11 who was speaking with General Nicolai, myself or Gvero? The
12 Trial Chamber heard both transcripts. And does this summarising change
13 the sense? And I'm not asking you anything else. I know how things came
14 about or how they were created, but this is all I'm asking you. Thank
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this is, indeed, the last question.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I am
18 sorry for exceeding the time.
19 THE WITNESS: We went through a process to show that it was you
20 speaking in this conversation, through looking at other conversations
21 that were recorded by the SDB in Tuzla
22 And I guess at that point, one does get into the reliability and the
23 process that was used and that was followed by the particular agencies,
24 which is why I consider the material to be both authentic and reliable.
25 And in this particular example, we could go through, again, if necessary,
1 the process that was used to determine that the general speaking to
2 General Nicolai was you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have to stop here for today.
4 First of all, I would like to express my and the Chamber's and
5 the participants' apologies to the interpreters, to the whole staff of
6 the Tribunal, for the extended sitting. We are running out of time.
7 But talking about time: The clock in the courtroom shows some
8 seconds after 10 minutes past 7.00, the LiveNote shows 1908 hours, and my
9 private clock shows me seven minutes past 7.00. This is only a remark to
10 the exact time we are following.
11 We are running out of time. We have to continue the day after
12 tomorrow, because tomorrow is a UN holiday. We are not working tomorrow.
13 On Friday, in the afternoon, 2.15, in Courtroom III.
14 We have to adjourn, and please be reminded that it is not
15 permitted to have contact with either party about the content of your
16 examination during the break.
17 Thank you very much.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day of
23 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.