1 Tuesday, 5 July 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom and
6 to those listening and watching the procedures.
7 Before the witness will be brought in, I would like to raise one
9 The Chamber has received the Prosecution's notification regarding
10 remaining witnesses, filed today, on the 5th of July, 2011, in which the
11 Prosecution submits, I quote, "a breakdown of its remaining 18
12 witnesses." The Chamber has reviewed all witnesses the Prosecution had
13 previously indicated in its 65 ter list, and has identified six remaining
14 witnesses for which it invites the Prosecution to clarify their status.
15 The Chamber would like to ask the Prosecution to confirm that the
16 two following witnesses have been withdrawn as well. These are
17 Witness Number 16, Johan de Koeijer, as well as Witness Michael Hedley,
18 who was subject to the Chamber's decision of the 31st of August, 2010.
19 Further, with regard to the remaining four witnesses which are
20 also mentioned in footnote 2 of the Prosecution's notification of
21 yesterday, filed today, and were subject of the Chamber's decision of 7th
22 of July, 2010, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to clarify its
23 intention in relation to the 65 ter numbers 63, 67, 72, and 80.
24 Is the Prosecution in a position to clarify these matters now, or
25 if not, at which stage?
1 Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours,
4 I can get back to you after the next break, and I'm sure to
5 clarify this for you, so that should be no problem.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
7 I take it that there are no other matters to be discussed. The
8 witness should be brought in, please.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 WITNESS: MIHAJLO GALIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Welcome back to the
14 I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you
15 made at the beginning of your testimony yesterday still applies.
16 Mr. Tolimir is continuing his cross-examination. Please, if
17 there is any reason for a break, please let the Chamber know. Then we
18 will have a break because of your medical situation. Thank you.
19 Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't receive interpretation. Is your
22 microphone switched on? Please try again.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear Mr. Tolimir.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, the interpreters don't hear you. There is a
25 technical problem with the microphone.
1 Mr. Gajic.
2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. Tolimir's
3 microphone is on. There must be something else, some other technical
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have now changed my microphone.
6 Can you hear me now?
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the interpreters could hear you. If it
8 is possible for you to use the other microphone, that would be very
9 helpful. Just start your cross-examination, and we will see how it
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we need a technician to help us.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm still not receiving
15 interpretation. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I'll try it again. Do you receive
17 now an interpretation of what I'm saying?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes, I am receiving
19 interpretation. It was my mistake. When I switched microphones, I did
20 not switch channels at the same time, so that was due to my mistake. I
21 apologise. Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No problem at all. This was still in relation to
23 Monday. Now we start with Tuesday.
24 Mr. Tolimir, please proceed and continue your cross-examination.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 May God's peace reign in this house, and may God's will be done
2 in these proceedings.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I wish the witness good health, a speedy recovery, and fast
6 return home.
7 Yesterday, we left it off with the rules, and we're going to look
8 at another provision from the Rules of Service of the Security Services.
9 Can we look at D02 -- D203, because I have some more questions to
10 ask you before I round the topic off. I would kindly ask the electronic
11 courtroom to display D203.
12 We can see it now. This is Rules of Service of Security Organs
13 in the Armed Forces.
14 Can we have pages 10 and 9 in English and Serbian respectively.
15 Now we have the English version. I'm interested in Article 16,
16 and we have it in the Serbian as well.
17 It says here:
18 "The security organ is directly subordinate to the commanding
19 officer of the command, unit, institution, or staff of the armed forces
20 in whose strength it is placed in the establishment, and it is
21 responsible to that officer for its work ..."
22 My question: When it comes to the Rules of Service, do they
23 regulate who the security organs are subordinated in a unit, and what was
24 the situation like in your unit? Who was the security organ in your unit
25 subordinated to? Thank you.
1 A. Yesterday, I said that I had not studied the rules and that I'm
2 not familiar with the text of the rules. It is very difficult for me to
3 say anything or to share with you my opinions about the rules. Since I
4 am not familiar with these provisions, since I'm not familiar with the
5 rules governing the work of the security organs, I don't know what to
6 say. I can only read the text, but I'm not familiar with it. I was
7 never aware of its existence.
8 Q. The fact that you were not familiar with the rules, which is only
9 normal - I'm not familiar with your rules - was that the reason why you
10 provided answers which differ from what is provided for by the rules?
11 Thank you.
12 A. I was asked to answer questions to the best of my recollection
13 and to the best of my knowledge, and that's what I did. I said what I
14 had known at the time. That's what I was asked to do, and that's how I
15 answered. That was the only way I could answer.
16 Q. Thank you. In that case, could you please tell us who the
17 security organ in your unit was subordinated to? I'm asking for your
18 answer based on what you know from practice.
19 A. According to what it says here, the security organ should be
20 subordinated to the officer in a command. I'm reading this in
21 Article 16. It says here that it is subordinated to the commander of the
22 unit in whose strength it is placed. That's what I'm reading.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please. Judge Mindua would like to
25 put a question to the witness.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
2 I would like to complement the question that was asked by
3 General Tolimir, because Mr. Witness, you often say that you don't know,
4 in answering a question. You say you have no idea about what is asked
5 from you. But here I think that the question should be interesting for
6 you, since I note that in 1995, you were a major in the Zvornik Brigade
7 and that your position was that of assistant to the chief of staff. So
8 in this position, I think that you should have known at least what was
9 the work of the assistant in charge of security. Is that too complicated
10 for you? I really don't know how to ask my question differently.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was involved with personnel, and
12 I didn't have to study any documents that referred to the work of other
13 organs in the brigade, and that's why my answers are mostly, I don't
14 know, I didn't study, I didn't read. For me, it is an unknown ground.
15 And despite of the fact that I was involved in the Personnel Affairs, you
16 have to understand that I did not know what other officers did during
17 that period of time, and you also have to bear in mind that before that
18 time and after that time, I never worked in the army.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Okay. So if I understand what you
20 just said, as an assistant to the chief of staff within your brigade, you
21 didn't know to whom your other colleagues, the other assistants, were to
22 report. I'm not putting this question based on a theoretical document.
23 I'm asking you based on your experience. Is that too difficult for you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can tell you what I
25 know. I did draft reports, as did other organs for their respective
1 levels, operative reports, logistics reports, security reports, personnel
2 reports, a report on morale. I was not in a position to learn how other
3 people wrote their report. I did not have the authority to inspect a
4 report sent by any other organ on any other matter.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, all right. This is
6 sufficient for me for the time being. Thank you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a follow-up question to you, sir.
8 Mr. Tolimir asked you, in his last question:
9 "Could you please tell us who the security organ in your unit was
10 subordinated to? I'm asking you for your answer based on what you know
11 from practice."
12 Are you able to provide us with your knowledge and your
13 recollection about this question?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The security organ was subordinated
15 to the brigade commander.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
17 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
18 One moment, please. Judge Nyambe has a question.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
20 Just in follow-up to Judge Mindua's questions and position, which
21 I share, may I ask you the following question which flows immediately
22 from what you said in lines -- page 6, lines, I think, 24 to 25, through
23 to 7 and 2. You said:
24 "I can tell you what I know. I did draft reports, as did other
25 organs for their respective levels, operative reports, logistical
1 reports, security reports."
2 And the accused is asking you questions regarding management of
3 security organs. What was your practice specifically with regard to the
4 security reports that you drafted, as it's stated here by yourself?
5 There must have been some rules under which you operated or co-operated
6 with the security organs.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of security wrote reports
8 on security, and he was the one who sent them to the corps command. As
9 far as I can remember, he also participated in the drafting of operative
10 reports which were daily sent to the corps command by the duty operations
11 officers. That's as much as I can remember at this point.
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another follow-up question to the last
14 one by Judge Nyambe.
15 In your previous answer, you said:
16 "I did draft reports, as did other organs for their respective
17 levels ..."
18 And then you mentioned a list of different reports, operative
19 reports, logistic reports, security reports, personnel reports, report on
20 morale. Can you tell us who drafted these reports to the superior units
21 or persons?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Duty operations officers drafted
23 those reports. They followed a certain guide-line, and other people
24 wrote reports. The assistant for morale wrote about morale, the
25 assistant for personnel wrote about personnel, the assistant for security
1 wrote about security. Each assistant wrote their part. In other words,
2 we all participated in the drafting of daily operative reports that were
3 sent on a daily basis to the superior command.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do I understand you correctly that you drafted,
5 as the assistant for personnel, the reports on personnel matters? Is
6 that correct?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. That was
8 just one segment in the overall report. My contribution consisted of a
9 couple of sentences, and so did the contributions of all the other
10 participants in the drafting of those reports. I was one of the drafters
11 who was in charge of covering the personnel matters. I contributed one
12 to three sentences. If there was something interesting or if I had
13 received an order to cover a certain area, then I would cover that area
14 for the daily reports that were sent to the corps command. My
15 contribution to the operative report were a couple of sentences on the
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To fully understand your answer: All these
18 assistant commanders contributed to a common report; is that correct?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, [as interpreted] all
20 assistants of the chief of staff did that.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who compiled the final report?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The final report was compiled by
23 the duty operations officer in the brigade command.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And who signed the final report which was
25 compiled by the duty officer?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Either the brigade commander or the
2 chief of staff.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this final report was sent to which unit?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sent daily to the corps
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
8 Mr. Gajic.
9 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 9, line 19, I
10 believe that there should be an "and" following a "Yes." So the sentence
11 should read: "Yes, and all assistants of the chief of staff." So there
12 is an "and" missing from this sentence.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This may be your position. I really don't see
14 the difference, but that is perhaps a question of interpretation.
15 Mr. Gajic.
16 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, your question referred
17 to the assistant -- assistants to the commander, and the witness answered
18 "and also the assistants chief of staff," which means that he was
19 referring both to the assistants to the commander as well as to the
20 assistants to the chief of staff. At least that is what I heard in the
21 original Serbian.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'll try to clarify the matter with the witness.
23 Sir, once again, my question:
24 "All these assistant commanders contributed to a common report;
25 is that correct?"
1 That was my question. Could you please repeat your answer?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Assistants to the commander
3 contributed in the writing of that report, and I added to that that the
4 assistants chief of staff also wrote their parts for that common joint
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, and I
9 would like to thank the Judges for their questions.
10 I will no longer need the document that is now on the screen, but
11 I would rather call up P1112. This is an instruction on control and
12 command in the security organs. The witness mentioned that document
13 early on yesterday, and he was also asked about that instruction by the
15 Let's look at the instruction now.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Please, is this the set of instructions that you meant when you
18 said that a set of instructions had arrived at the brigade command?
19 A. General, sir, I said that some instructions arrived. I didn't
20 see them, and I was not familiar with the contents of those instructions.
21 I only heard that they had arrived, and I believed that it may be this
22 one. I never read it myself. I never learned about its contents.
23 Q. Thank you. Did the Prosecutor ever show you these instructions
24 in the proofing sessions?
25 A. No, I don't remember. I don't think that this was ever shown to
1 me. I don't remember, I don't know.
2 Q. In that case, I'm going to ask you only this: Can you look at
3 bullet point 2, from which I'm going to quote:
4 "The security and intelligence organs are directly commanded by
5 the commander of the unit or institution of which they form part, but
6 with regard to professional activities, they are controlled centrally by
7 the security and intelligence organs of the superior command."
8 My question is this: Does this also envisage that security
9 organs in the units are subordinated to the commanders of the units they
10 form a part of and that they are professionally controlled by other
12 A. General, sir, I really don't see how this relates to me. How do
13 these instructions relate to me? I have already told you, and I repeat,
14 I'm not familiar with the contents of these instructions. The only thing
15 I knew at the time is what I already told the investigators, and what I
16 told them was that I had heard on the grape-vine that a set of
17 instructions had arrived at the command. I never saw the text. I never
18 saw how it was worded. I don't know what it regulated. The only thing
19 that was mentioned here and the only thing that I knew was that in
20 addition to the operative reports, the security organs sent either
21 regular or interim reports to the superior command. I don't know whether
22 they did it based on this instruction or some other document, and this is
23 the long and the short of it. This is the only thing that I discussed
24 about this topic with the investigators, that's all.
25 Q. Thank you. The investigators asked you quite a lot of questions,
1 as did lawyers, about these instructions, and you were asked whether
2 those instructions were a sticking point between the commander and the
3 security organ. If you want me to, I can read you back your answers, if
4 you don't remember. Thank you. However, I just want to ask you, and
5 then you can answer without any further adieu. You don't have to explain
6 at great length. You just tell us how things were, and we will avoid all
8 Since you said that you don't know, that you didn't read
9 instructions, I quoted from the second bullet point of the set of
10 instructions, where it says that the security and intelligence organs are
11 directly commanded by the commander of the unit or institutions of which
12 they form a part. And my question is this: Did these instructions
13 envisage the same thing as the rules envisaged, and that is that the
14 commander is in charge and responsible for the security organ in his
15 unit? Thank you.
16 A. Looking at the instructions and looking at the rules, I would say
18 Q. In the second part of the sentence, does it say that:
19 "With regard to professional activities, they are controlled
20 centrally by the security and intelligence organs of the superior
22 Is this centralised control, and does it apply to all security
23 organs in the subordinated lower-ranking units? Thank you.
24 A. General, I don't understand your question. I cannot answer.
25 This is double Dutch to me. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm
1 not familiar with the material. I can't say anything about this.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether you controlled the organs in
3 the lower-ranking units when it came to filling in some forms or
4 delivering data to be filled in two forms, so did you give them
5 instructions as to how they should do this? Thank you.
6 A. I had people dealing with general affairs in the lower-ranking
7 units who delivered reports to the organ I was a part of.
8 Q. Thank you. And these people, were they subordinated to you or
9 did you ask them to provide only the information you needed in order to
10 report to your superior command? I'm referring to general affairs
11 officers in the subordinate units.
12 A. At every point, I was able to ask for any information I needed
13 from these desk officers in charge of general affairs, regardless of what
14 unit was in question. They -- I had direct contact with them. I was
15 able to contact them and ask for the data I needed.
16 Q. Thank you. I know this. What I'm asking you is whether you
17 commanded these desk officers or whether somebody else commanded them.
18 A. In this period when I was assistant to the chief of staff, I was
19 not in command of any unit or anything. Quite simply, I had no command
20 responsibility, and nor was I able to command anyone.
21 Q. Please, yes, I understand you, but for the sake of the
22 transcript: When it comes to these desk officers, were you in command of
23 them or not?
24 A. No, I wasn't.
25 Q. When I finish my question, please answer only then so it enters
1 the transcript.
2 When it comes to these desk officers who had to submit data to
3 you, were you commanding these people or not?
4 A. I was not in command of individual desk officers. They were not
5 subordinate to me, except for the one who worked together with me in the
6 same department.
7 Q. Thank you. Now let's look at the last page of this instruction
8 so we can see who signed it and who issued it.
9 You see it was supposed to be signed by the commander, but it was
10 signed on his behalf by General Tolimir.
11 My question is the following: Are you aware whether the word
12 "instruction" - it's a Latin word which we used, unfortunately, instead
13 of using our own word - what does it mean, what does the word
14 "instruction" mean?
15 A. Instructions.
16 Q. Well, for example, a driving instructor, what does he do?
17 A. Well, I don't know what "instructions" contain. If you're asking
18 me about driving instructors, they teach people to do certain things.
19 Q. Thank you. Does it mean, then, something like teaching or
20 training someone, and when it comes to these commands to which this
21 instruction was delivered, is it an instructive document which is
22 supposed to teach people what to do, how to conduct themselves, and to
23 organise relations within the command? Thank you.
24 A. General, I don't recognise your signature, I don't know it, I'm
25 not familiar with it, but you told me now that you signed it. However,
1 when it comes to writing these instructions and -- I don't know anything
2 about it. I find it very difficult to answer your questions. What this
3 word means in Latin, I don't know. I believe that you are familiar with
4 these matters. You were the one who wrote this and signed it, so you are
5 familiar with it. I am not, and so I can't say whether it had an
6 instructive effect on the subordinates or not.
7 Q. Thank you. As you say that you are not familiar with any of
8 this, and I quite understand you, do you agree that I should read the
9 last sentence? It says, and I quote:
10 "Forward these instructions and inform of their contents all
11 commanders of units and institutions, down to battalion level."
12 My question is the following: Would all those, down to battalion
13 level, be made aware of the contents of these instructions? Was that the
14 case in your brigade?
15 A. I was not a battalion commander. Whether the battalion commander
16 was made aware of this, I don't know. And as I told you, I was never
17 aware of the contents of these instructions. I don't know whether they
18 were forwarded to all commanders of units.
19 Q. Thank you. I know that you don't know, but I'm asking you
20 whether, in line with this sentence, all commanders, down to battalion
21 level, were supposed to be made aware of these instructions.
22 A. Well, I suppose so, yes, as they were delivered to all units.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Can we now again look at document D294, page 13, the fourth
25 paragraph on that page. It's page 17 in English. Thank you, Aleksandar.
1 It's page 16 in English, last passage, and page 13 in Serbian.
2 Thank you, Aleksandar.
3 Well, we can see the fourth paragraph now. It's the second from
4 the bottom. The lawyer is asking:
5 "Did your commander express any concern because he had no control
6 over the military police?"
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Is that what it says?
9 A. Mr. General, could you please repeat your question? I --
10 Q. Well, you were asked whether your commander, because he did not
11 have command over the military police, was he dissatisfied with the
12 situation, did he express any dissatisfaction, and your answer was that,
13 no, you did not observe anything like that. You said, No, I didn't
14 observe that?
15 A. Well, I can repeat that now.
16 Q. Very well, thank you. Can you then tell us why the
17 misunderstanding arose that Mr. Manning asked you about? Do you know why
18 there was a misunderstanding between your commander and your security
19 organ, and you asked about this in your testimony and interviews? Just
20 tell us whether you know this or not.
21 A. The problem was in the sending of reports. Something is not
22 working properly. Oh, yes.
23 The problem was in the delivery of reports. That's what I
24 understood. And there was some sort of minor misunderstanding, and at
25 one of the meetings, as I told the investigator, it was said that two
1 reports were sent, and then after that there were no problems --
2 Q. Thank you. Did you report to the superior personnel organ in the
3 corps command?
4 A. Yes, when I received orders from the superior command. It was at
5 monthly intervals, or bimonthly, or every three months, but not every
7 Q. Thank you. Did they oversee your work, or, rather, the superior
8 organs in the superior command of the Drina Corps, did they supervise
9 your work?
10 A. Yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Could we now have P1108 in e-court. Thank you.
13 This is the second part of your interview with Dean Manning,
14 dated the 27th of June, 2002, and I would now like to see page 53, after
15 we see the first page, in both languages. Thank you.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you see page 53? Thank you. Do you see page 53, the third
18 passage from the bottom and the sixteenth from the top?
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We all see pages, but without any page number.
20 Now there's 53. Thank you. I think we need only one. It's
21 exactly the same. We need only one of this page because it's in both
22 languages. The lower part of this page, please.
23 Mr. Tolimir.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Look at the third -- sixth passage from the bottom, where it
3 "Mihajlo Galic: What do you say to this --"
4 There's something wrong here. It's the first passage on page 53.
5 Thank you.
6 You were asked:
7 "What do you say to the supposition that this operation was
8 planned and carried out exclusively by the Security Service, that is,
9 security officers?"
10 And you say:
11 "I don't know, and I cannot say anything about that, and I cannot
12 assume anything."
13 And then you go on to say in your next reply:
14 "I cannot claim something that I don't know. I cannot confirm
15 something that I'm not aware of."
16 My question is: Did you have the feeling that the investigators
17 and the lawyers wanted you to give opinions, conclusions, and so on about
18 your brigade, and that they were, in fact, trying to put leading
19 questions to you, trying to get you to say things that would be
20 convenient for them?
21 A. They asked me -- in the context of all other questions, they
22 asked me this question, and I gave this reply, and I would give the same
23 reply again. If I didn't participate in something or if I wasn't there,
24 I didn't know anything about it, and I would say the same today as I said
1 Q. Yes, I know very well what you're saying, but can you say why you
2 were asked this question? Why did they ask you this when they were
3 interviewing you? You can say that you know or that you don't know.
4 Thank you.
5 A. I assume that all that was done because of the proceedings that
6 were conducted before this Tribunal. I suppose that they wanted to
7 obtain information through people who could provide information. I was
8 not one of them; not then, not in the past, not now, not in the future.
9 That's why I provided the type of answers that I did.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to call up
11 P1108 in e-court.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is on the screen. This is the
13 document we have before us.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I forgot to mention the
15 page number, which is 38.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen now.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Let's look at it. I can't read English, but I would like to
19 point your attention to paragraph 3, or perhaps the first paragraph, or
20 perhaps the second paragraph, actually. No, no, no, this document that I
21 have on the screen does not correspond to what I have before me.
22 Page 38, it says you were asked:
23 "Did Drago Nikolic have his own vehicle?"
24 And you say -- we can see it at the bottom, the last paragraph
25 that we can see, or half of it:
1 "Drago Nikolic did have his own vehicle, and that was the
2 security unit vehicle that nobody else used but him. I'm sure that I did
3 not use that vehicle at the time, that's for sure."
4 My question to you is: Did Drago Nikolic, who was the brigade
5 security organ, have a car at his disposal? If he did have a car, was it
6 a car that belonged to the brigade command? Thank you.
7 A. The security organ had his own car and used it. There was a
8 vehicle. He had that vehicle. And as I've already said to the
9 investigators, that's how things were.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us now look at
11 D147, page 16. Thank you.
12 But first let's look at page 1.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. This is a statement provided by the driver who drove that car.
15 Let's see what he says about all that.
16 D147, this is the statement. Let's look at the third line, where
17 it says "Milorad Bircakovic."
18 Do you know who Milorad Bircakovic is or was? Thank you.
19 A. The name does ring a bell, but I don't know the man personally.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 And now can we go to page 16 in that same statement, and now on
22 page 16, let us look at the fifth entry from the bottom of the page.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Milorad Bircakovic says here:
25 "That lasted for two or three months, and then it was decided
1 that the car could not be assigned exclusively to the chief of
2 security ..."
3 After that, "It was used to drive around operatives and those who
4 were in charge of going and checking the battalions ..."
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 17, the
6 second entry from the top of the page.
7 It says here:
8 "You say that the car was assigned for other people to use. Did
9 that include only the military police or was it used by other units as
11 And then Mr. Bircakovic says:
12 "For other units, I believe for the command or for that part of
13 the command."
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. My question is this: This driver from the military police who
16 used to drive that car and who used to drive other commanders from the
17 command, do you know anything about that?
18 A. General, sir, I don't have any doubts that this man did not drive
19 the security organ vehicle, and I am not questioning the fact that he
20 drove other officers to other units to accomplish certain missions. The
21 vehicles that were normally used by the commander or the chief of staff
22 could be used by other people if there were no other cars available.
23 So it was not a problem for anybody being taken from A to B, but
24 it was a well-known fact which car belongs to the commander, which car
25 belongs to the chief of staff, which belonged to the chief of security.
1 There was also a logistics vehicle. And that's how travel orders were
2 issued. That's as much as I know. Travel papers for the cars were
3 issued in respect of each and every different car in a different way.
4 Q. Thank you. Let us now look at what was said on transcript
5 page 9202 on the 9th [as interpreted] of February. Let's see what
6 Mr. Bircakovic stated during his testimony here before the Tribunal.
7 Thank you. That was on the 1st of February, 2011. Thank you.
8 Let's look at line 15. I don't know whether you have that in the
9 Serbian - I don't - where it says, lines 15, 16 and 17, and I
10 quote -- thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we need a clear record. Are you now
12 quoting from the OTP statement or are you quoting from the transcript of
13 this trial?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm reading from
15 page 9202, lines 14 through 17. This is the transcript from this trial.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. There is no B/C/S
18 translation because the transcript is only in English, just to clarify.
19 Continue, please.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Well, that's why I'm going to interpret or translate. I'm going
22 to read line 14:
23 "Later on, there was something that transpired between
24 Drago Nikolic and Pandurevic, who somewhat restricted his right to the
25 vehicle so the vehicle was placed at the disposal of the command. From
1 there on, I drove anybody who needed the vehicle, including
2 Drago Nikolic."
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. This was stated by the driver who used to drive that vehicle for
5 which you say that it belonged to Drago Nikolic. He testified here. He
6 said he was a member of the police and that he drove everybody in the
8 My question is this: Did the driver ever drive you? Do you know
9 if he ever drove any of the other officers in the command? Thank you.
10 A. In one of my previous answers, I said that any vehicle
11 [as interpreted] could drive any of the officers. Whether he drove me or
12 not, I suppose he did, but I don't remember. It was such a long time
13 ago, I really can't remember any of the days, dates, or routes that I was
14 driven on. I really can't remember.
15 Q. Thank you. Since you don't remember, I will not insist. You
16 heard what the person said whose job that was.
17 I would kindly ask the e-court to display P1112. Thank you.
18 Thank you. I apologise, I misspoke. I need D41. Thank you. I
19 apologise to the e-court. D41.
20 Thank you. Now we have the document in front of us. It was
21 issued by the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska on the 9th of
22 July, 1995. It was signed by Assistant Commander Major
23 General Zdravko Tolimir.
24 In the first part of the document, it says that:
25 "The president of Republika Srpska has been informed of
1 successful combat operations around Srebrenica ..."
2 It says in the second paragraph that he is satisfied, and in the
3 third it says that he ordered that in the follow-up combat operations,
4 and so on and so forth.
5 In the fourth paragraph, we see an instruction, as it were, and
6 it reads:
7 "In accordance with the order of the president of
8 Republika Srpska, you must issue an order to all combat units
9 participating in combat operations around Srebrenica to offer maximum
10 protection and safety to all UNPROFOR members and the civilian Muslim
11 population. You must order subordinate units to refrain from destroying
12 civilian targets unless forced to do so because of strong enemy
13 resistance. Ban the torching of residential buildings, and treat the
14 civilian population and war prisoners in accordance with the Geneva
15 Conventions of 12 August 1949."
16 And then you can see the signature of
17 Major General Zdravko Tolimir.
18 My question to you is this: Since it says here that an order
19 should be issued to all subordinated units to behave according to this
20 instruction, do you know whether an order was, indeed, issued to
21 subordinated units to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? I'm
22 talking about those units that participated in combat around Srebrenica
23 together with your unit. Thank you.
24 A. General, sir, how am I supposed to know whether that order was
25 issued to the units participating in combat around Srebrenica, the order
1 based on this document? I don't know. I was not there. I don't know.
2 I see what you see. There is a document sent to somebody, and that
3 person was supposed to do something. Whether they did that or not, I
4 don't know.
5 Q. Thank you. I didn't ask you whether you knew. I asked you
6 whether you are familiar with this, and you answered the way you did.
7 This was sent to the forward command post of the Drina Corps, to
8 Gvero and Krstic, as you can see. And in the second line of the last
9 paragraph, it says:
10 "You must issue an order to all combat units participating in
11 combat operations."
12 And based on this, my question is as follows: Did all commanders
13 who participated in combat around Srebrenica receive an order or, rather,
14 an invitation to act in accordance with Geneva Conventions? What I'm
15 asking you is: Does this document mean this? I'm not asking you whether
16 you received -- they received it or not.
17 A. As far as I can see and read this document, I would say, yes,
18 that was what was asked of them.
19 Q. Thank you. Is this contrary to what they asked you before, and
20 that is whether security organs organised or that -- could they have
21 organised all that in view of the fact that they had issued a document to
22 the effect that all combat units around Srebrenica should be made
23 familiar with this order? Thank you.
24 A. I cannot talk about the mindset of the people who were involved
25 in this process. Something is contrary to something else, but I cannot
1 be the judge of that. I can't tell you what's contrary to what. This is
2 very -- a very complex issue for me. I can't tell you whether this was
3 conveyed or not, and so on and so forth. The investigators must have had
4 a concept that they followed, I'm sure. And here we have a document
5 ordering units to do this or that. What is the true [as interpreted] in
6 that, I really don't know. This is really a tall order for me. I really
7 can't tell how people behaved and based on what they based their conduct.
8 Q. Since you talked about contradictions, for the record, could you
9 tell us whether this document was authentic, whether it was certified by
10 the encoder who sent it from the Main Staff or the person who received it
11 at the other end? Thank you.
12 A. Well, we can see a stamp, which means that the encryptors sent
13 it, but we can't see whether it arrived at the address of the addressee.
14 I suppose it did. This is a photocopy. I really don't know how this was
15 sent. But I can see a stamp in the right-hand-side corner, so this is a
16 stamp indicating that encryptors received the document and dispatched it.
17 Q. Thank you. I was asking you whether you knew this from your
18 experience, as you received telegrams, whether this one was an authentic
19 telegram. Thank you.
20 Your Honours, I have no questions for this witness -- no further
22 Witness, thank you for coming to testify here. I apologise for
23 putting the questions I had to put for the requirements of these
24 proceedings. Thank you. God bless you. I wish you a speedy recovery
25 and a safe journey home.
1 I thank you, and I wish to thank everyone who assisted us in the
2 course of this testimony.
3 Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further questions for this
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.
6 Ms. Hasan, do you have re-examination?
7 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your
9 I don't have any questions for re-examination, just a couple of
10 housekeeping matters that we can do either once the witness is dismissed
11 or at this time.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 Sir, you will be pleased to hear that this concludes your
14 examination and your testimony here in this courtroom in this trial.
15 Thank you very much that you were able to come to The Hague again and to
16 testify and to help us to establish the facts. Now you are free to
17 return to your normal activities and your normal life.
18 I see you want to say something.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't want to have
20 a stain left. When this institution contacted me, I spoke to people, and
21 never at any point did I intend to say I didn't want to come here. The
22 problem was my health. In view of certain things I had to do with a
23 doctor, and certain medical examinations I had to undergo outside my
24 place of residence, I wanted to delay my arrival. This was done, and I
25 am grateful. It was -- I received a promise that I would be able to go
1 home on Wednesday so that I will be able to go for further medical
2 examinations, but -- I don't know what the name of the letter is that I
3 received, but I did not think I would receive such a letter based on my
4 contacts with the Tribunal, and this worries me. It was something I did
5 not expect to receive, because I never said that I would not respond or
6 come to the Tribunal. It was only because of my health that there were
7 those delays.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this explanation. I think the
9 matter is resolved completely. There's no problem for you at all. You
10 are now free to return to your home.
11 Thank you very much, again, including this explanation. You are
12 now released from the courtroom. Thank you very much, again.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.
16 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, in relation to P1115, an e-mail was
17 sent out regarding a revised translation that has come in, and we'd like
18 to have that -- permission to replace the revised translation with the
19 one that was on e-court.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this has to be granted. We are grateful
21 for that.
22 MS. HASAN: And, second, a similar -- a similar request, and
23 that's in relation to P1124, which is the IKM log-book. That was
24 admitted through PW-057, and at the time there was an error noticed in
25 the translation, which has now been corrected, and so there is a revised
1 translation that we would also like to up-load and replace the previous
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think that will be appreciated by the Defence
4 as well. It should be done as proposed.
5 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Perhaps it's a good time to take the next break so that my
7 colleague can come in preparation for the next witness, but --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
9 Indeed, we should have our first break now. We will resume 10
10 minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon again, especially to you,
14 Mr. Vanderpuye. Welcome to the courtroom again.
15 Is the Prosecution in the position to give us some more
16 information about future witnesses?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
18 The first witness, Mr. Hedley, 198, he is what they call a
19 scenes-of-crime investigator who was taking part in the exhumations and
20 the review of materials from the Kravica warehouse, and he was a -- we
21 offered his report in through 94 bis, which was not accepted by the
22 Court. So if I can have some time to speak with Mr. Gajic to see if the
23 material in there is contested - I'm not really sure it is - so that we
24 can make a further decision on whether we need to call him or not, but
25 that we will be able to make that decision this week.
1 Then the other person, Mr. de Koeijer, it -- is a Dutch forensic
2 person that works in the Dutch lab here, that examined a document that
3 you have seen in court. It's the military police log of the
4 Zvornik Brigade Military Police Company, and his report examines that log
5 and identifies eraser marks at key places, and he concludes that certain
6 places were erased and identifies that other letters were written over
7 the erasure marks. I can't recall if you've actually seen that document
8 or not, and -- excuse me, Judge Nyambe, let me get in there too. Though
9 that document, you can actually see the erasure marks and you can see the
10 marks that were written in them, so I will get that original and show
11 that to Mr. Gajic and to you and perhaps that will resolve that issue,
12 because my recollection is he just basically has a report that tells you
13 what you can see. It's important because it has to do with military
14 police, and prisoners at Orahovac, and -- you know, which is, of course,
15 an issue, that are overseen by security. You're hearing a lot about
16 these issues. So -- and that's 65 ter number 642, that -- that
17 particular -- is that -- the report. Yeah, I'm sure the log is actually
18 in evidence.
19 Mr. Gajic would like to help.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to ask
22 Mr. McCloskey to slow down because the interpreters are having difficulty
23 keeping up with him, and that's why I'm on my feet. I can read what
24 Mr. McCloskey is saying on the transcript in English, but the general is
25 not receiving the entire message.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That's very helpful, and I only
2 regret that you're not on your hands.
3 Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And the roster I speak of that was the
5 subject of the report is P1754, so we'll bring that in and let everybody
6 take another look at it, and perhaps we can resolve it. It's an
7 important document, but a relatively simple issue. That may resolve
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, these two witnesses, you will be
10 in a position to clarify the position with the Defence by the end of this
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, yes. In discussions with them and perhaps
13 if I have some time to bring that document in to see -- to get your
14 viewpoint on it, then we may -- we may render that issue moot because, as
15 I recall, you can actually see the subject of his report. And if you can
16 see that, then it's not really an issue. But if it isn't, then we'll
17 have to call him --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- or request that he be called.
20 Then the other four witnesses that were the subject of the
21 footnote, these are women from Srebrenica who we've taken 92 bis
22 statements as part of a larger group of women from Srebrenica. And the
23 Trial Chamber has, some time back, identified some glitches or
24 inconsistencies in those statements, and we have -- we need to just
25 buckle down and study those inconsistencies and see if we can resolve
1 them without too much resources. And if we can, we'll fix them and get
2 them in front of you. If we can't, we may have to withdraw them. But
3 I -- again, this week is something we will get this done by. It's just a
4 matter of buckling down and getting that done. So this week, we will
5 resolve all of these for you, and I'm glad we're able -- I'm
6 helpful [sic] that you've helped remind us of these things.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
8 This will then be the basis of our planning for the remainder of
9 the Prosecution case and for possible 98 bis proceedings. We will come
10 back to that. Thank you very much.
11 Is the next witness ready, Mr. Vanderpuye?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
13 Your Honours.
14 He is ready.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness should be brought in, please.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Janc. Please sit down. I
18 don't think there is any need to have a further oath to be taken from
19 you. We have seen you several times here in the courtroom. But I would
20 like to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the
21 beginning of the first day of your testimony still applies for this part
22 of your examination as well.
23 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
24 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 Mr. Vanderpuye, you have the floor for your examination-in-chief.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon
4 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
5 Q. Good afternoon to you, Mr. Janc, and welcome back yet again.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. I wanted to have you - and you know this - to testify concerning
8 certain intercepts that were obtained by Croatian authorities.
9 Let me begin by asking you whether you've had an opportunity to
10 review a number of these intercepts with a view towards establishing
11 whether or not they are reliable, in fact.
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about when you became involved in
14 reviewing this material for these purposes?
15 A. I started with a detailed review of these intercepts and related
16 material sometimes at the beginning of February this year, but also
17 before I already came across most of these intercepts and material, which
18 I re-reviewed again in relation to my testimony today.
19 Q. In terms of assessing the reliability of this material, did
20 you -- can you just tell us, briefly, what sorts of things you did, in
21 terms of looking at the intercepts, either the content of the intercepts,
22 the dates, the circumstances that they speak about, those kinds of
23 things? Could you tell us, briefly, what kinds of material you looked at
24 in order to evaluate their reliability?
25 A. Yes. First of all, the intercept, itself, was important, and
1 everything what was on the -- what was written on that intercept,
2 beginning from the date and time when it was recorded. And the most
3 important part was, of course, the content of the intercept, itself,
4 because from the content, you could get an idea of what -- what perhaps
5 happened at a particular time and place, who was involved in it, what
6 kind of incident took place, and this kind of information you can get
7 from the content of the intercept, itself. Based on this information, we
8 can then compare or find supporting documents; for example, certain
9 reports from a particular date which would, for example -- describing a
10 certain event from the intercept, itself, and this would corroborate,
11 then, the intercept. In this way, we can then say that certain
12 intercepts are reliable.
13 Q. Were you able to find corroborating material or review
14 corroborating material with respect to these particular intercepts? And
15 when I say "these particular," I'm distinguishing them from intercepts
16 that originated with the 2nd Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
17 or intercepts that originated with the MUP, or other agencies that
18 engaged in that conduct. So in terms of this material, were you able to
19 find corroborating -- corroboration?
20 A. Yes, I can confirm that. And today we are talking about the
21 intercepts which were intercepted by the authorities of the Republic of
22 Croatia, and I could find and review the corroborative material in
23 relation to these intercepts.
24 Q. And before we go into that, let me just ask you: In terms of the
25 material that you compared these intercepts against, did you consider
1 material that was independent of those intercepts or related to those
2 intercepts, as it were? If you could just briefly describe the
3 relationship of the material that you used to corroborate the intercepts
4 with the intercepts themselves, so the Trial Chamber has an idea of what
5 kind of project you undertook.
6 A. Yes. I reviewed the material which is independent of these
7 intercepts, and such documents would be, for example, documents drafted
8 by different international organisations at the time; for example,
9 UNPROFOR reports or daily sitreps. Then there would be different reports
10 or documents from the VRS, itself. Then also diaries of individuals
11 involved in these meetings or incidents were important. Then, for
12 example, there were also intercepts from the BiH Army, who intercepted,
13 for example, the same conversation as the Croatian authorities did, and
14 these were, basically, the documents which I reviewed and considered for
15 my testimony today.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I would like to show you a selection
17 of these intercepts.
18 Mr. President, I have a packet that I would like to share with
19 the Trial Chamber, which I think would make it easier to follow the
20 testimony of Mr. Janc. We also have e-court, but I think it's also
21 helpful to have these packets which I'd like to pass up to the Court.
22 They do contain, and I should raise this, they do contain some material
23 that has not yet been added to the Prosecution's 65 ter list. So it's
24 the material with the 65 ter number with the star next to it to indicate
25 that the Trial Chamber -- and I've, of course, provided Mr. Gajic with a
1 copy of the same packet.
2 I don't know whether or not Mr. Gajic has an objection to the
3 Trial Chamber receiving the packet, itself, which is, I think, a separate
4 issue than whether or not it is used with the witness. But I assume that
5 if he has any objection when it's used with the witness, he can raise
6 that. With that proviso, I would like to hand it up to the
7 Trial Chamber.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position on that? May
9 that be used during the testimony of Mr. Janc?
10 Mr. Gajic.
11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as regards the first
12 issue raised by the Prosecutor, of course, we do not object that the
13 package we received also be delivered to the Chamber and the witness, if
15 As for the documents to be added to the 65 ter list, I think
16 there are just a few of these documents. I had a chance of looking at
17 them. Unfortunately, they have not all been translated into Serbian. We
18 do not, at this point, object to their being included on the 65 ter list.
19 All we ask is that the OTP, when showing these documents in the
20 courtroom, bear in mind that there are no translations of these
21 documents, and, of course, that a translation be made as soon as
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be the usual procedure, of course. And
24 if some documents are not yet on the 65 ter exhibit list, then you will
25 have the opportunity to object or to comment on the motion of the
1 Prosecution to add it.
2 The binders you have prepared should be delivered to the Chamber,
3 with the assistance of the Court Usher, to the Defence and to the
5 Mr. Gajic.
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just a brief question,
7 first of all, for the OTP. I think it's in the interests of all
8 concerned to hear the official reply.
9 When Witness PW-070 testified, we received a bundle of documents
10 in a binder. All these documents have their 65 ter number, but now on
11 this Prosecution list, I can see that only a few of the documents from
12 this bundle, about one-seventh, are on that list. So what I would like
13 to know is whether the OTP intends to ask that these documents be
14 admitted at some later stage of the proceedings or not.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 That's a fair question. As I mentioned, the object of the
18 testimony was to establish the reliability of these intercepts. The
19 intercepts that are on the exhibit list are all intercepts that are
20 derived from the list that Mr. Gajic refers to, so they all have 65 ter
21 numbers. The documents that don't have 65 ter numbers, many of them are
22 documents that simply relate to matters that are discussed in the
23 intercept or otherwise go to the reliability of the intercept, and that's
24 why you can see some documents don't have 65 ter numbers, and that's what
25 I intended to use with the witness to establish reliability.
1 In terms of their admissibility, ultimately, I think it would be
2 helpful, certainly, for the Trial Chamber to have that so the
3 Trial Chamber can see for itself whether or not the information contained
4 in the intercept is corroborated to the extent that Mr. Janc testifies.
5 But at the same time, I think merely the explanation that's given as to
6 the reliability should be sufficient -- a sufficient-enough basis to
7 establish it, so we can resolve the question of admissibility at a later
8 point. But I think at this point, since the Defence doesn't have an
9 objection to the use of the documents, we can probably just proceed and
10 then resolve the admissibility issues later.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, would you agree to this proposal to
12 decide on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the use of certain
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Mr. President. That
15 would be the usual procedure. However, I am afraid that Mr. Vanderpuye
16 didn't really understand my question. I think that it was
17 Mr. Vanderpuye. I don't know who, exactly, examined Witness PW-070. We
18 received 74 documents in a binder, and my question referred to these
19 documents only, not the documents in the binder we received today.
20 This is very important because the Defence needs to prepare, and
21 we would simply like to hear from the Prosecutor what they intend to do
22 with the rest of these documents; nothing else, well, to show you -- to
23 illustrate what I'm talking about.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I appreciate the illustration. I think I now
25 understand the issue more clearly.
1 With respect to the admissibility of this group of intercepts,
2 that is, the one that was referred to in other testimony, that
3 collection, we're seeking at this point to admit the intercepts that are
4 on my exhibit list. With respect to the remainder of those intercepts,
5 we're not tendering them at this point. They may become relevant at a
6 later point in the case, depending on whether or not there's a Defence
7 case, depending on what comes up in cross-examination, but for these
8 purposes today, and probably into tomorrow a little bit, all we're
9 seeking to admit pursuant to the testimony of Mr. Janc are the intercepts
10 that are on my exhibit list. I think there are probably 18 or 19 of
11 them. And that's it for now, and that's it pursuant to Mr. Janc's
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We fully understand you. When you refer to your
14 exhibit list, you are referring to the Prosecution's exhibit list for the
15 current witness, Mr. Janc, to use with him in your examination-in-chief?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
18 I think we now understand the procedure you want to follow. You
19 have the floor. Please proceed.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you again, Mr. President.
21 Q. Mr. Janc, I'd just like to start with 65 ter 5536, if we could
22 have that one on the screen.
23 Your Honours, you should find this one, with any luck, right
24 under tab 1 of your binders, and you'll see the English, which should be
25 followed by a B/C/S translation, and then it would be followed by some
1 other corroborating material which you can see referred to in the index
2 of the packet.
3 Mr. Janc, I take it you've had an opportunity to review this
4 particular intercept.
5 A. Yes, I have.
6 Q. And we'll note that this one is dated 18 June 1994. It's at 2200
7 hours, and it records here that:
8 "On more than one occasion, General Kelecevic intervened with
9 Colonel Zdravko Tolimir (chief of security in the Main Staff of the VRS),
10 to intervene with President Karadzic and Stanisic, to place under the
11 command of the 1st Krajina Corps a special forces unit of the MUP ..."
12 Now, with respect to this particular intercept, you notice here
13 that the designation is "Colonel Zdravko Tolimir" as the chief of
14 security. Were you able to find any documents relating to Mr. Tolimir's
15 rank status in around this period of time?
16 A. Yes. At that time, Mr. Zdravko Tolimir was still a colonel, and
17 the significance of this intercept is related to the one which will be --
18 the one after this one, which is a few days after 18 of June, when
19 General Tolimir, actually at that time colonel, became a
20 Major General Tolimir. So that's the significance, so -- but for this
21 particular intercept, we don't have any corroborative document.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's take a look at 65 ter 5537, please.
23 Q. In this intercept we can see again it's dated 29 June 1994. If
24 we look to the second paragraph of this intercept, we can see that
25 there's a reference to a decree of President Karadzic with respect to the
1 promotion of certain military officers. And, in particular, we can see,
2 in the fourth line down in the English, and it should be about the fourth
3 line or so -- fifth line from the bottom in the B/C/S, we can see a
4 reference to Zdravko Tolimir, and, in particular, it says that:
5 "Pursuant to a decree of President Karadzic, the following people
6 were promoted:"
7 And it says.
8 "... to the general major rank, Colonels Mico Grubor,
9 Zdravko Tolimir, and Jovan Maric, Stavan Tomic ..."
10 And so on and so forth. Was this the document that you were
11 referring to concerning the promotion of Zdravko Tolimir from colonel to
12 major general or general major?
13 A. Yes, correct, this was the intercept I was referring to.
14 Q. Were you able to find any corroboration with respect to this
15 intercept as concerns the promotion of Zdravko Tolimir?
16 A. Yes, I was. There is a decree of the President Karadzic from
17 20 -- dated 28th of June, 1994.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is to show you this document
19 and see if it's the one you're referring to, and it is 65 ter 5525.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the record, I take it that these
21 documents now mentioned are under tab 1 in the binder we have received.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President, they're all under
23 tab 1.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE:
1 Q. Here, we have a Decree Number 01-1275/94, dated 28 June 1994, and
2 it refers to a number of officers that are exceptionally promoted. It
4 "To the rank of Lieutenant General:"
5 And it names Major Generals Milovanovic, Manojlo; Gvero, Milan;
6 Djukic, Djordje. And then it names on the second page, and in the B/C/S
7 it's just -- it would just be -- just around the photocopy line near the
8 bottom of the page, we can see here a reference to the following colonels
9 being promoted to the rank of major. And you can see here the second
10 person listed here is "Zdravko Tolimir, son of Stanko, assistant
11 commander for security and intelligence of the VRS." It says "General
12 Staff." It should be, probably, "Main Staff."
13 But is this the document you were referring to?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One -- I think one correction is needed. You
16 misspoke. Line 5 of page 43, "promoted to the rank of major." I think
17 you wanted to say "to the rank of major general."
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, major general or general major.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, but you said "Major" --
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and it is recorded in that way.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Is this the document that you were referring to, Mr. Janc?
24 A. Yes, correct.
25 Q. All right. If we go to the -- if we go to the next page, we can
1 see here that it is from the president of the republic,
2 Dr. Radovan Karadzic; yes?
3 A. Yes, correct.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Mr. President, I would like to tender all
5 of these documents under tab 1, beginning with: 65 ter 5525, this the
6 intercept from the 28th of June, 1994, referring to the promotion of
7 General Tolimir; the document which is 5536, that's the intercept from 18
8 June, which indicates that General Tolimir at that time was a colonel;
9 65 ter 5537, which indicates -- which refers to, rather, the -- a decree
10 of the president; and there is one other document I'd like to show
11 Mr. Janc. The last of these documents is 3928, but I'll put that up on
12 the screen and show it to him first.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We want to see 65 ter 3928.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Janc, have you had an opportunity to review this document?
16 A. Yes, I have.
17 Q. And you can see here that this one is dated from the -- dated,
18 rather, 28th June 1994, which is the same day as the document we've just
19 seen. The intercept, rather.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And it's also the same date as the decree that we've seen, issued
22 by President Karadzic, promoting then Colonel Tolimir to the rank of
24 A. It's just a small correction, actually. This intelligence report
25 is dated on the day when the decree of the President Karadzic was issued,
1 but the intercept is the day after.
2 Q. Right. So it's -- this the same day as the decree?
3 A. Yes, correct.
4 Q. Okay. And on that day, if we look at the bottom of this
5 document, we can see how it is signed.
6 I'm sorry, we'll have to go to the second page in both.
7 A. Yes, we have a typed signature of General Major Zdravko Tolimir.
8 Q. And does this corroborate the information that you reviewed in
9 relation to the intercept, in terms of Mr. Tolimir's rank prior to the
10 28th of June, 1994, and following June 28th, 1994?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document
13 as well.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, since this is a quite complicated
15 procedure, I would like to ask you if you have any objections to
16 tendering these documents.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
18 We don't have any objections to admitting this document.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These four documents, 65 ter 5525, 5536, 5537 and
20 3928, will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5525 shall be
22 assigned Exhibit P2437. 65 ter number 5536 shall be assigned
23 Exhibit P2438. 65 ter number 5537 shall be assigned Exhibit P2439. And
24 65 ter 03928 shall be assigned Exhibit P2440. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Janc, I'd like to show you some of the documents I have here
4 under tab 2, and we'll start with 65 ter 5538, which is an intercept from
5 13 July 1994, at 22 hundred 18 minutes of that day.
6 Have you had a chance to look at this particular intercept?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. We can see here that the intercept talks about a meeting that was
9 supposed to occur between General Tolimir and General Van Baal on the
10 12th of July in Gorazde; yes?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. And were you able to find any information concerning the content
13 of this intercept that corroborates it?
14 A. Yes, indeed. There is several documents and a portion of a diary
15 of General Ratko Mladic where we can find corroborative information.
16 Q. And in terms of the diary of General Mladic, what, specifically,
17 were you able to identify that corroborates what we see in this
19 A. Actually, there was a meeting on 11th of July, 1994, with
20 General Mladic and members of the UNPROFOR present, and part of the diary
21 from that date shows that it was mentioned or discussed that
22 General Van Baal will be going to Gorazde with General Tolimir.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we could take a look, please, at
24 P1424. I think we'll have to go to page 206 in the B/C/S, and hopefully
25 it will be 196 in the English.
1 Q. Do you recognise what we have on the screen now, Mr. Janc?
2 A. Yes. This is a diary of General Ratko Mladic and the note --
3 notes which start on 11th of July, 1994.
4 Q. All right. Now, if we can continue up to the next page, we can
5 see here there's some note concerning freedom of movement of UNPROFOR.
6 Did you have an opportunity to review that, in light of the content of
7 the intercept?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. And having reviewed it, does it support what is written in the
10 intercept as concerns a proposed topic of a meeting between
11 General Van Baal and officers of the VRS regarding the freedom of
12 movement for UNPROFOR?
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the next page. I'm sorry, we
15 need to go to 209. It would be 199 in the English. 209 in the B/C/S and
16 199 in the English.
17 Q. And we can see at the top of the page item number 4, which is a
18 note written by General Mladic, and did you have an opportunity to review
19 this particular entry in relation to the intercept?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. And how did you -- how do you view this particular entry, in
22 terms of the reliability of the intercept?
23 A. This is a part what I was referring before, where it says that
24 General Van Baal and General Tolimir will be going to Gorazde. It
25 doesn't say when, exactly, but we can see from the intercept that
1 General Van Baal tried to go to Gorazde on 12th of July.
2 Q. And can you tell from the entry in the note-book -- or diary, I'm
3 sorry, when this was made, this particular entry that we're looking at
5 A. If we followed the diary, itself, and we have been going page by
6 page now, we could see where we started, that it is a meeting from 11th
7 of July, 1994, and this meeting goes for a while. And the diary doesn't
8 shows any change in date up until this page, so it must have been still
9 on 11 of July, 1995 -- 1994, sorry.
10 Q. Do you know if this diary reflects a date between the 11th -- I
11 should say following the 11th of July, 1994?
12 A. Yes, there is a change in date a few pages after this one, and
13 the next date is then 13 of July. So we have no entries or nothing was
14 written on 12th of July, 1994.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: So if we go over to page 204 in the English, and
16 I think it will be 214 in the B/C/S.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need 204 in the English.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE:
19 Q. Mr. Janc, is this the entry that you're referring to that we see
20 here at the top of the screen?
21 A. Yes, correct, this is the page where the date changed to 13 of
22 July, 1994.
23 Q. Your conclusion is, then, what with respect to the entry
24 concerning the meeting or the future meeting between Van Baal and Tolimir
25 that we saw at page 199 in the English and 209, I believe, in the B/C/S
1 just a moment ago?
2 A. My conclusion is that that meeting supposed to take place on 12th
3 of July.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. If we could take a look now at 65 ter --
5 well, actually, this is a document that was not on the Prosecution's
6 original 65 ter list, Mr. President. As you can see, I've identified
7 that in the packet before the Trial Chamber. It is a document that is
8 from UNPROFOR. In particular, it's from General Van Baal, and I believe
9 that it relates directly to the content of the intercept at issue.
10 I don't know whether or not General Tolimir has an objection to
11 this particular document, and I don't believe we have a translation of
12 it. However, I can -- if it's required, I can certainly articulate the
13 reason why I'd like to use it, or, rather, its relevance to the intercept
14 in question.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any concern to add this
16 document to the 65 ter exhibit list, even without a translation?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as I have no
18 translation, could Mr. Vanderpuye establish with this witness whether
19 General Mladic entered in his diary observations he heard from others,
20 those he spoke with, or whether he noted down actual events that occurred
21 on a certain day in his -- where he was present?
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would propose that you, Mr. Vanderpuye - and I
23 take the word of Mr. Tolimir into account - use this document, and later
24 we decide about adding this document to the 65 ter list and a possible
25 admission into evidence.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Very well, Mr. President. I think once you see
2 it, that will resolve a lot of issues.
3 It's 65 ter 744. And as -- yes, we don't have a translation, so
4 let me just read a little bit into the record so that General Tolimir can
5 familiarise himself, to some extent, with its content.
6 It is a letter that is addressed to
7 Lieutenant General Manojlo Milovanovic, chief of staff, and it says:
8 "Headquarters of the SR Army, Pale." And it's dated 12 July 1994.
9 If we go to the second page of the document, we will see that it
10 is signed by Brigadier General Van Baal.
11 What I'd like to focus on, in particular, is the previous page
12 for just a moment.
13 Q. And I would like to ask Mr. Janc first: Do you recognise the
14 document, and have you had a chance to review it?
15 A. Yes, for both.
16 Q. Can you just tell us, in summary, what this document -- or how
17 this document, rather, relates to the intercept that we've just seen?
18 The intercept was 65 ter 5538.
19 A. Yes, this is the actual complaint from General Van Baal to the
20 VRS, General Manojlo Milovanovic, about the incident that happened in
21 Rogatica when he was stopped at check-point by the VRS and he couldn't
22 proceed his trip towards Gorazde because his personal belongings were
23 supposed to be checked by the VRS. And in the intercept, itself, we can
24 see that this is part of the content of the intercept, where it says that
25 General Van Baal returned back to Sarajevo after refusing to have his
1 personal belongings searched.
2 Q. Let's take a look at the third paragraph of this document, and
3 here we have, in the middle of the paragraph, it says, for
4 General Tolimir's benefit:
5 "The commander, Captain Zoran, appeared there after five minutes
6 with the necessary information."
7 And he says:
8 "I personally spoke with him. He also insisted on the searching.
9 He excluded my personal belongings from the search. Once more, I told
10 him that I had been personally involved in all negotiations with the
11 BSA HQ on the matter of freedom of movement. Captain Zoran once more
12 stated that he had firm orders to search personal belongings. These were
13 direct orders from General Mladic, he said."
14 In the last paragraph -- well, I'm sorry, the second-to-last
15 paragraph on the page, he then says:
16 "I concluded that we had a different opinion on this point and
17 that I would complain about this humiliating procedure, unacceptable to
18 UNPROFOR, and that I had to turn back to Sarajevo."
19 In particular, what he's written here, how does that relate to
20 the substance of the intercept, in your view?
21 A. This, as I just explained, confirms the fact that he was, indeed,
22 stopped at Rogatica check-point, and he returned back to Sarajevo after
23 refusing to -- his personal belongings to be checked.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you one other document. That's
25 65 ter 7445.
1 Mr. President, this is another document that was not on the
2 Prosecution's original 65 ter list, but for the same reasons, I would
3 like to use it with this witness.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you should proceed in the same way as
5 with the previous document.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 I don't believe we have a translation of this one either, so I'll
8 read a little bit of it into the record to familiarise General Tolimir
9 with its contents.
10 This is a document which says "From," at the very top, "UNMO LO
11 Team Pale to UNPROFOR HQ Zagreb," and then it says -- it gives the date,
12 "18 July," I believe, "2030 hours," "182030B July 94." The date on the
13 document, itself, says "July 18, 1994," and it says "Headquarters of the
14 RS Army." "To: UNPROFOR Command, Zagreb,
15 Lieutenant General De Lapresle." And it says "To: UNPROFOR Command,
16 Sarajevo." "Attention: Brigadier General Van Baal."
17 If we go to the second-to-last paragraph of this document, or at
18 least down the page, we can see that this document came from the Chief of
19 Staff Lieutenant General Manojlo Milovanovic, to whom the complaint was
20 previously addressed, and he says in that second-to-last paragraph:
21 "I want to express my regret to General Van Baal and to apologise
22 for the inconvenience he had undergone."
23 Q. Did you have a chance to review this document as well, Mr. Janc?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And did you find that it supported or not the intercept in
2 A. Yes, it supported the intercept in question.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you another document. It's
4 65 ter 7446.
5 Mr. President, it's subject to the same circumstances as the
6 others, as you can see indicated in the packet. This one's in French,
7 and it has a B/C/S translation, fortunately.
8 Q. Have you had a chance to review this document, Mr. Janc?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. And in reviewing this document, were you able to find if it
11 corroborated or supported the intercept that we're dealing with now?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How so?
14 A. We'll see that the meeting which is supposed to take place in
15 Gorazde with General -- between General Van Baal and General Tolimir will
16 be discussed in this document.
17 Q. We can see on this document that it is dated 11 July 1994?
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. Okay. And is that consistent with the information in the
20 intercept thus far, up until this point?
21 A. Up until this point, I don't think so, but later on we'll see
22 that there is written the date of 12th of July, when this meeting will
23 take place.
24 Q. All right. Let's go over to item number big 3 --
25 Roman numeral III(A). That will be on page 2 in the English, and it
1 should be on page 2 in the B/C/S as well.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that there is no English, but the
3 French --
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- version.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. Were you able to review this?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. And is this the reference you made concerning the date -- or the
10 reference that you found concerning the date of 12 July?
11 A. Yes, correct, in paragraph A.
12 Q. Okay. And how does this relate to the intercept in question?
13 A. It says here that a meeting will take place between
14 General Van Baal and General Tolimir on 12th of July in Gorazde in
15 relation to the death of the British soldier.
16 Q. And is that consistent with what's recorded in the intercept as
17 concerns the meeting that was to transpire between General Tolimir and
18 General Van Baal?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. How so?
21 A. On 12 of July, General Van Baal was on his way down to Gorazde,
22 and he returned back to Sarajevo because he refused to be -- to be
23 checked at check-point. And the intercept, itself, reflects this
24 information, that he was supposed to meet General Tolimir in Gorazde.
25 Q. And have you seen any other references to the circumstances of
1 the death of a British soldier, as is indicated here, that was to be
2 discussed on or about 12 July in Gorazde pursuant to this planned
4 A. Yes, there is a reference to this same issue in Mladic's diary
5 which we have just seen before, so the same information is in his diary.
6 Q. And did you consider this together with the diary and the other
7 documents, in terms of the reliability of the intercept that we've just
8 looked at?
9 A. Yes, I did. And if you put all of them together, we are getting
10 more and more information about certain events. And in this case, we can
11 see that the intercept, itself, is just talking that he was -- I mean,
12 General Van Baal was on the way down to Gorazde. We don't see for what
13 reason. But from other corresponding documents, we can get more
14 information about what this meeting was about, and this is how you put
15 several different documents together and you get more and more
16 information. And also this is the way how to corroborate and --
17 corroborate the intercepts, itself, and to put them -- reliability.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you one other document, and this is
19 65 ter 7447. And -- okay, we have it now.
20 Q. And we can see here that this is an intercepted conversation
21 taken by the Sarajevo SDB Sector of the MUP of the BiH, and it's dated
22 13 July 1994, and it's timed at 2215 hours, and it's between
23 General Van Baal and General Mladic. And here we see -- have you had an
24 opportunity to review this particular intercept, first?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. And can you just tell us, just in general terms, what it's about
2 and what it concerns?
3 A. This is an intercepted conversation by the MUP Sarajevo on the
4 same date and, according to information on this intercept, at about the
5 same hour than the conversation from the Croatian intercept. And I
6 reviewed this document, and I can conclude that this is the same
7 conversation as it is -- as it was recorded by the Croatian authorities.
8 Q. Let me ask you this, because I'm sure everyone will be wondering:
9 Here we see a reference to the time of 1400 hours: "Tomorrow afternoon
10 at Pale, 1400 hours." Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And in the other intercept, 5538, we see here: "14 July at 1600
13 hours in Pale"; that is, to meet with General Tolimir or General Gvero.
14 And then on the intercept we have on the screen in front of us, we see
15 General Mladic say:
16 "I think it would be better if it took place at 1500 hours."
17 So we have, between the two intercepts, three basically different
18 times, one proposed at 1400, one at 1500, and then in the Croatian
19 intercept, at 1600. Can you tell us how you took that -- if you took
20 that into account at all, in terms of assessing the reliability of the
22 A. Yes, I spotted this discrepancy, and I can say that discrepancies
23 are quite common when you are reviewing the intercepts which were
24 intercepted by two different sources. For example, in this case, one
25 intercept was intercepted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia,
1 and the other one by the BiH side. Why this difference is there in this
2 time, I would say several reasons it might be for that, because, first of
3 all, the intercept which we have on the screen, the BiH intercept, is the
4 actual transcript of the whole conversation, whereas on the other side we
5 have just the summary of the Croatian intercept. So this might be one
6 reason why someone was not that precise when putting summary together.
7 So also some other reasons might be behind. And in this case, I would
8 say the most common problem would be that Croatians were so far away that
9 they couldn't hear, perhaps, the conversation clear enough to establish
10 what they are talking, and that's also, perhaps, the reason why, on the
11 other hand, the BiH side could hear this conversation better and they
12 could put this information into this intercept differently. So -- but
13 the gist of the conversation, itself, is the same, so we can say that
14 there is much more discrepancies in these two intercepts.
15 Q. Did you consider the discrepancies significant, in terms of
16 evaluating the reliability of the intercept?
17 A. No, not in this case.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would like to tender these
19 documents just as a matter of record. I don't know whether or not the
20 Defence objects to it. If they don't, then I would submit -- I would ask
21 for them to be admitted now. But if they do, then we can discuss it.
22 They were 65 ter 70 -- 7444 through 7447, and the intercept, itself,
23 which was 65 ter 5538.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are there any objections to add
25 these documents, the four mentioned documents, to the 65 ter exhibit list
1 and to admit them into evidence?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Yes, I do have an objection. The Prosecutor is speaking of
4 intercepts, whereas we can see in the intercepts that these are
5 translations from English. So let him tell us whether it was the English
6 who intercepted these conversation or whether it was Bosniaks, Croats.
7 There are many differences among them, and some have been translated,
8 some not. I cannot come to any conclusion just by looking at them.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I understood that the intercept is
11 that one of the 13th of July, 1994. The original is obviously Croatian,
12 because the English text has, in the heading, the remark "Translation."
13 This is what I take from this document, which should be 65 ter 5538.
14 This is the only intercept Mr. Vanderpuye just dealt with during this
15 part of the examination of Mr. Janc. The others were other documents.
16 Two of them don't have a translation yet. And, therefore, those
17 documents without a translation, of course, can only be marked for
18 identification, pending translation. That is clear. But in relation to
19 adding them to the 65 ter exhibit list and admission -- admissibility, in
20 principle, I would like to know the position of the Defence.
21 Mr. Gajic.
22 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that what
23 Mr. Tolimir is referring to is the document we see on the screen,
24 65 ter 7447. We will see, in the heading on the right-hand side, it
25 says: "Translation from English." I think that this is the element
1 General Tolimir was referring to. This has not been clarified in the
2 examination of the witness.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could it be scrolled down, the English text,
4 please. We want to see -- no, up, up. We want to see the heading.
5 I see the English translation and not translation -- oh, yes:
6 "Translation from English."
7 Mr. Vanderpuye, could you please clarify that with the witness?
8 In the heading I see: "English translation" --
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and further down on the right side:
11 "Translation from English."
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
13 The explanation, I think, can be found in the fact that if you
14 look immediately beneath where it says "Van Baal" and "Mladic," you will
15 see a reference to the conversation occurring with the assistance of a
16 translator. So the conversation between Van Baal and Mladic is mediated
17 by a translator, because Van Baal, presumably, doesn't speak B/C/S and
18 spoke English, and that's what gets translated in the MUP intercept so
19 that it could be understood by the relevant authorities to which this
20 document would normally go.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, would that be your understanding of
22 this entry?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct, this is also my understanding.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 If something is translated, should it say in the document that it
2 is a translation from English? This is a transcript. There's something
3 wrong here. Why does it say: "Translation from English"? Did they get
4 documents from someone else and translate them or did they actually make
5 the tapes, the audio recordings?
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 To be honest, I don't think -- I think we just have a
9 disagreement with respect to the meaning of the term, as is indicated in
10 this document: "Translation from English." I don't know that -- I don't
11 know that there's any answer that can be given to General Tolimir,
12 because that question would apply regardless of whether or not this
13 intercept reflected translation from English or not. It could apply in
14 any circumstance with respect to any intercept which could be translated
15 from any language at any time. So I don't think there's any answer that
16 can be given to General Tolimir with respect to that question.
17 However, I think Mr. Janc has identified -- or I should say
18 confirmed at least a reasonable understanding of what the term has
19 indicated, just based on the face of the document, itself, and I think
20 that's a sufficient-enough basis to be able to use it with him, in terms
21 of, in particular, its relationship to the intercept which is recorded by
22 Croatian authorities, really, within minutes of this one, a completely
23 separate authority.
24 So -- but to that extent, I think it satisfies, I would submit,
25 the burden of admissibility at this point. If General Tolimir has
1 questions as to how it could have been recorded or whether it could have
2 been obtained from other sources, I think those are appropriate questions
3 to put during the course of cross-examination or, perhaps, are issues
4 that can be raised in a submission with respect to the weight to be
5 attributed to the document, but I don't think it's an admissibility
6 question at this point.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you get the floor, but I would like
8 to draw your attention to this sentence in brackets beneath the words
9 "Van Baal" and "Mladic," the two names. In the English translation, it's
11 "(Conversation conducted with the help of an interpreter of
12 General Van Baal)."
13 That could be an explanation as just -- Mr. Vanderpuye did it.
14 You have the floor, Mr. Tolimir.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 All conversations conducted by UN officers were interpreted.
17 This is the first time that it says on the transcript: "Interpretation
18 from English." I don't know how the document was drafted. You should
19 ask the one who processed other documents.
20 Could, perhaps, Mr. Vanderpuye tell us whether the entire
21 document is a translation from English or are just Mr. Van Baal's words
22 interpreted, because all officers who were in Bosnia spoke a foreign
23 language and all of their conversation and words had to be translated or
24 interpreted. But this is the first time ever in any of the document that
25 it is specified that the words are an interpretation or a translation
1 from English.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 I don't dispute General Tolimir's observation that we have here a
5 specific -- or an explicit, rather, reference in the document to the fact
6 that it's translated from English. There's -- like I said, there's no
7 answer to how much of it is translated, whether it was just Van Baal,
8 whether General Mladic spoke English, whether or not it was captured by
9 some third party in English, or translated into English and then fed to
10 the MUP. There's simply no way to answer that question, but I think, as
11 I mentioned, that the explanation that Mr. Janc has indicated is one
12 that, on its face, is a reasonable explanation.
13 And what we're talking about here, in terms of the admissibility
14 of the document, is, really, what's on its face, prima facie, not
15 relevance and reliability and probative value, which I think is clear.
16 It's clearly probative with respect to the intercept that is not
17 disputed, in terms of its authenticity, given the prior testimony in this
18 case, and it directly speaks to the issues in that intercept and directly
19 relates to the reliability of that intercept. So it's relevant, it's
20 probative, and, on its face, is reliable enough to be admitted.
21 So that's my argument at this point, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this document, 65 ter 5538, is already on the
23 65 ter exhibit list?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Like the Prosecution, the Chamber can't find an
2 explanation why there is this entry: "Translation from English." There
3 may be many explanations, but at the moment we are only dealing with
4 admissibility, which has a quite low threshold. If we look at this
5 document together with the other documents shown to the witness, we will
6 receive this document into evidence without giving weight to that at the
7 moment. That will be done by the Chamber at a later stage, if we really
8 can rely on this document. But it will be part of the whole package of
9 documents in evidence, to give weight to that at a later stage.
10 It will be received as an exhibit.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please. We need the document number.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5538 shall be
15 assigned Exhibit P2441. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
17 Then we have to deal with the four documents which are not yet in
18 the 65 ter exhibit list used with this witness.
19 Are there any concerns to add them to the 65 ter exhibit list,
20 Mr. Tolimir?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 The Defence does not have any objections to that. Thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
24 Leave is granted to add these four documents to the 65 ter
25 exhibit list. And I take it that you are tendering these four documents
1 as well.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am, Mr. President. It occurs to me, though,
3 that there might be some confusion in the record, and that is that the
4 document that you have in e-court now is 65 ter 7447. It is not 5538. I
5 just wasn't sure if maybe there was some confusion about that. 5538 is
6 the Croatian intercept, but that's not this document. It's another one.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're absolutely right, Mr. Vanderpuye. We
8 mixed up the two numbers. We didn't discuss the intercept, which is
9 65 ter 5538, and this is now in evidence. We discussed -- and the
10 concern of Mr. Tolimir was in relation to the other intercept, which
11 is - one moment -- please help me. Which one?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: His concern was in relation to this particular
13 intercept, which is 7447, which is a corroborating document to
14 65 ter 5538. So the principal intercept is 5538. This is the Croatian
15 intercept. A document that's used to corroborate the reliability or
16 demonstrate the reliability of that intercept is this intercept, which is
17 in a BiH MUP intercept, which was recorded very close in time to the
18 Croatian one, but it is not -- it is a separate agency, it's a separate
19 thing altogether. And it's being offered as corroboration for the
20 Croatian intercept. The one that -- so the Croatian intercept has no
21 indication that it's translated from English; none. It's only this
22 corroborating document that does.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we can resolve this problem very easily
24 if I ask Mr. Tolimir if there are any objections to the admission of the
25 other documents used with the witness, all those under tab 2 of the
1 binder. Are there any other objections?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have already said
3 that the Defence does not have any objections, save for the document
4 65 ter 07447 [as interpreted], which, in our view, is not an intercept,
5 but a translated conversation. That is our opinion.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
7 In that case, we will receive into evidence the document
8 65 ter 7444, 7445, but those only marked for identification, pending
9 translation. And then 7446 and 7447, that was the document -- we ruled
10 on that after considering your objection.
11 Now we want to have the document numbers for these four
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7444 shall be
15 assigned Exhibit P2442, marked for identification, pending translation.
16 65 ter document 7445 shall be assigned Exhibit P2443, marked for
17 identification, pending translation. 65 ter document 7446 shall be
18 assigned Exhibit P2444. And 65 ter document 7447 shall be assigned
19 Exhibit P2445. Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
21 I apologise for my mistake I made in mixing up the two intercepts
22 or conversations. Now our problems seem to be resolved.
23 Mr. Gajic.
24 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to seek
25 clarification with regard to P2244. We know that there is a translation
1 into Serbian. The document was originally drafted in French. There is
2 no translation into English. The Defence doesn't mind that fact.
3 However, we would like to see whether the Prosecution has any problems
4 with that, whether we may receive an English translation in the meantime,
5 and that would help us a lot.
6 As regards documents in French, if they are translated into
7 Serbian, they don't need to have English translations, as far as we are
8 concerned. As far as the other participants in the proceedings are
9 concerned, they should state their opinion with this regard.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, especially for those who are not able to
11 read French fluently, it would be very helpful. On the other hand, I was
12 told earlier that our Translation Unit doesn't translate documents --
13 French documents into English, and the other way around. But if it is --
14 if we could get an English translation, it would be very helpful. We
15 would --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand we've actually made a request to
17 have it translated.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that.
19 Please carry on.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we need our second break.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have our second break and resume 20
24 minutes past 6.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 6.22 p.m.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, please go ahead.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 If I could go to the next tab. It should be tab 3.
5 Q. I'd like to show you, Mr. Janc, 65 ter 5542. What we should have
6 here is an intercept from the Croatian authorities from 10 September
8 We're having problems with the B/C/S version of it. That's no
9 problem. I can read some of it into the record until that comes up.
10 All right, we have something. Great.
11 Mr. Janc, have you seen this intercept before?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. Okay. And just in general terms, were you able to find
14 information from other sources that corroborate the contents of this
15 intercept? Once again, it's 10 September 1994. It's timed at 10 hours
16 33 minutes.
17 A. Yes, in general terms, I would say yes, because there is no
18 documents which would say exactly what we can see here in this intercept,
19 but there are UNPROFOR documents which are talking about the tensions in
20 this Bihac pocket on this date.
21 Q. You're referring to the part of the conversation that, well,
22 indicated here that a message was sent to General Tolimir regarding the
23 shelling of the town of Bihac?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. And what documents were you able to identify? You
1 mentioned that there were some UN documents.
2 A. Yes, there are actually two documents, one of which is in French,
3 which I couldn't understand it, and was the relevant portion which was
4 marked -- was read out to me because I don't speak French, and the other
5 one is in English. The French document is from 10 September 1994.
6 Q. Let's take a look at that one.
7 A. The English one is from the same date.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: We'll take a look at the French one, which is
9 65 ter 7448.
10 Mr. President, this one is also a document that needs to be
11 added -- or I would be moving to add to the 65 ter list of the
12 Prosecution. I don't believe we have a B/C/S translation of this
13 document either.
14 For the benefit of General Tolimir, this is a document to
15 Mr. Annan from Mr. De Lapresle of UNPROFOR Zagreb, dated 10 September
16 1994, and it talks about the situation in the Bihac pocket?
17 Q. Is this the document that you're referring to, Mr. Janc, first of
19 A. Yes, correct.
20 Q. You indicated that part of this -- what's recounted in this
21 document is reflected -- or, rather, reflects on the content of the
22 intercept which was 65 ter 5542; is that right?
23 A. Yes. On page 4 of this document, there is a first paragraph
24 which is talking about the situation in Bihac pocket.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Let's take a look at that. That's
1 item 12 on page 4, I believe.
2 Q. Now, I could take a stab at reading this, although somewhat
3 reluctantly, in order to have it translated into the record, but could
4 you tell us, generally, what you refer to in this paragraph that's
5 relevant -- of relevance, rather, to the intercept in question?
6 A. Yes. As I explained, I can't say exactly what's written there
7 because I don't read French. But as I was read out this paragraph, I
8 could establish that this was somehow connected to the general situation
9 in Bihac pocket at that time which -- where there were tensions between
10 VRS and the other side in conflict.
11 Q. Let's take a look at the first couple of sentences of this
12 document, which I think might help General Tolimir a little bit, and I'll
13 do my best to read it into the record so it can be translated for
15 It says, at item 12 [French spoken].
16 [Interpretation] "... return to Zagreb, I was able to have an
17 update --"
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There are technical problems via receiving
19 English translation.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I thought it was my speech, but thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I don't think that it was as bad as you
23 Now we receive French translation on the English channel. You
24 should try once more, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll try again. Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. At paragraph 12, it reads -- [French spoken]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Regrettably, we don't receive any English
3 translation on the English channel. Your French is too good.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Evidently.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you receive a B/C/S translation, Mr. Gajic?
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The Serbian interpretation is
7 functioning, as always.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's hard work for you, it's really a challenge.
9 We have it -- oh, yes.
10 You should just continue, and we'll see if it will work.
11 THE INTERPRETER: It will work.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. It continues:
15 [Interpretation] "As I returned to Zagreb, I was in a position to
16 take stock of the situation by phone with General Rose in order to
17 co-ordinate the organisation of meetings between the various parties and
18 look for a settlement of this Bihac problem. He told me about his close
19 contacts with the Pale and Sarajevo authorities. And regarding these
20 contacts, he said he had asked Mr. Ganic to have the mortar fire stopped
21 immediately, mortar fire that had taken place at 12.00 noon today, by the
22 Bosnian forces from the Bihac Villa as a response to the fire from the
23 Serb Bosnian forces against military objectives located close to that
24 town. A similar action was taken with General Tolimir in Pale, with the
25 aim of having any Serbian provocation stopped, as I requested already
1 yesterday, in the evening, in my letter to General Mladic."
2 [In English] Is this the relevant part of the document you
3 considered in relation to the intercept in question, which talks about
4 the shelling of the town of Bihac?
5 A. Yes, exactly.
6 Q. And let me show you the other document that you referred to,
7 which is 65 ter 7449.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please.
9 Mr. Gajic.
10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wish to draw
11 attention to page 70, line 3. In the English text, it says "a similar
12 action." I think it would be better to say "a similar demarche" or "an
13 analogous demarche."
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I think this is a more literal
15 quotation. Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 I think I've asked for 64 [sic] 7449 in e-court, I would just
19 like to show that to Mr. Janc.
20 Q. Here we have another document, and again without a translation.
21 This one, for the benefit of General Tolimir, is also dated 10 September
22 1994, and this one is from Akashi to Annan, and it is also concerning the
23 situation in Bihac. In particular, in -- first of all, do you recognise
24 this document?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And did you consider this document also in relation to the
2 intercept that we've just looked at?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. And what about this document bears on the content of the
6 A. Again, as the one before, we will see on page 2 of this document
7 that it is talking about the situation in Bihac, the second paragraph and
8 the third one.
9 Q. Is there anything in particular in this paragraph that you found
10 supported the intercept -- supported at least the reliability of the
11 content of the intercept?
12 A. Yes. The intercept, itself, says that a message was sent to
13 General Tolimir saying that aerial attacks by NATO forces on Serbian
14 units would follow unless the shelling of the town of Bihac did not stop
15 as a matter of urgency. And here in the second paragraph, we can see the
16 last part of the paragraph written that:
17 "Accordingly, General Rose has advised the BSA of our assessment
18 of the situation and warned them not to attack the safe area."
19 So this is the sentence which I would say correspond to the
20 intercept, although we can see here in the document, itself, that it
21 refers to General Rose. On the other hand, on -- in intercept we have
22 General Stanley who is calling or sending message to General Tolimir.
23 But I would say that this does not change the point.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
25 Mr. President, I would like to tender these documents; that is,
1 the intercept as well as the corroborating material. That's 65 ter 7448
2 and 7449. Neither has an English translation, and I believe we've
3 submitted translation requests for them into B/C/S, and also, for the
4 French document, I believe, also into English, as well as the intercept,
5 itself, which is 65 ter 5542.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
7 I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir if there is any objection to add
8 document 65 ter 7448 and 7449 to the 65 ter exhibit list and any
9 objection to the admission of these documents into evidence.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I do
11 have an objection.
12 These documents are not correct and are not authentic. May it be
13 checked whether General Stanley was ever at the UNPROFOR Command?
14 There's something wrong here. This is a forgery. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you please indicate to which document you are
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 05542, the first sentence, where it says "General M. Stanley." I
19 have never heard of General Stanley. I'm not supposed to testify, but
20 maybe Mr. Vanderpuye would be able to clarify with the witness whether a
21 General Stanley was in Bosnia during the conflict, whether he was
22 affiliated with the UNPROFOR Command.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I suppose I can ask Mr. Tolimir -- Mr. Janc
25 whether or not he can shed light on this, if you're able to.
1 THE WITNESS: No, not at this point. I would need to take a
2 closer look into this name to find out. So right now, I can't say, but
3 deeply inside, I think I heard this name. But I can't confirm for the
4 fact right now.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE:
6 Q. Do you see an indication in the intercept, 5542, of where
7 General Stanley is at the time that this message is sent?
8 A. No, we don't know where he was at the time. It might be
9 Sarajevo, it might be also Zagreb or anywhere else, so we don't see that
10 from the intercept, itself, where is he calling from and where is he
11 from, actually.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
13 Mr. President, I would still tender these documents. I don't see
14 that the fact that General Tolimir doesn't know or -- well, he's not
15 testifying - has represented that he doesn't know who General Stanley is,
16 or the fact that General Stanley is not -- his affiliation isn't
17 indicated in the intercept has any bearing on whether or not the
18 communication was actually made, as indicated in the intercept,
19 particularly to the extent that what is indicated in the intercept
20 relates to events which are otherwise fully corroborated by independent
22 Specifically, it refers to -- it refers to a warning to the Serb
23 forces concerning the shelling of the town of Bihac, which we can see is
24 reflected in the two UN documents that we've just reviewed, one which is
25 a specific warning, which is under 65 ter 7449, on the second page of
1 that, which Mr. Janc just testified about, concerning a warning to the
2 BSA not to attack the safe area of Bihac, in particular, and that the
3 force commander has also sent a letter to General Mladic concerning this,
4 and then also, in the version -- not the -- rather, not the version, the
5 other document, which is 65 ter 7448 from Mr. De Lapresle, the one that
6 we've just read in French, indicating that Dr. Ganic was asked to cease
7 immediately firing mortars as of 1200 hours on the part of the Bosnian
8 side from Bihac in response to firing from the Serb side, which was
9 referred to as against military objectives in the proximity of the town.
10 And this is, on its face, reflected in the substance of the intercept,
11 65 ter 5542.
12 And so I think on that basis alone, it satisfies the
13 admissibility criteria under Rule 89, notwithstanding General Tolimir's
14 objective [sic] that he doesn't know who General Stanley is or what his
15 affiliation was.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. I have two questions, one
18 for the Defence and the other one for the Prosecution.
19 General Tolimir, you challenge both documents. What is your
20 basis, apart from the fact that General Stanley, according to you, was
21 not present in Sarajevo at the moment of the facts? That's my question
22 for the Defence. In other words, do you also challenge the substance of
23 the document?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge Mindua, I do not challenge
25 the substance of the document. It suits me to have it admitted because
1 it's false. I don't know any general by this name. And I would be very
2 happy were this document admitted into evidence because then I could
3 prove that these documents are spurious and unreliable. So we, the
4 Defence, have nothing against this document. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Now my question for the
6 Prosecution: Could you tell us where those two documents come from?
7 What is their source?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: The two documents, Your Honour, are UN
9 documents. We can see that one is from the force commander of UNPROFOR
10 from Zagreb, and the other one is from Yasushi Akashi from UNPROFOR in
11 Zagreb as well. Both of them are UN documents, and they are -- well,
12 they were provided to us by the UN for the purposes of use before the
13 Tribunal. The other one is -- rather, not the other one. The intercept,
14 itself, as we know, is of Croatian origin, from prior evidence in the
15 case. If you'd like me to elaborate on it, I can, but I think we'd have
16 to go into private session for me to do that.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
18 explanation. It's not necessary to go into private session.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, just a clarification.
20 Your last comment was that you don't have anything against
21 admission of this document, but you challenge the content of it and the
22 way it was produced, this intercept. And, therefore, is it your position
23 that you will deal with that during the cross-examination of this
24 witness, or with another witness, or during the Defence case? Everything
25 is possible. Is my understanding correct that you do not object to the
1 admission of this document?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
3 I'm not objecting to anything. I just want to tell the Chamber
4 that there are incorrect things in this document and it's misleading for
5 the Chamber. If there's a general mentioned in the document, we have to
6 know who the general is. There aren't all that many generals. And it
7 says here that there's a general in Zagreb and one in Sarajevo, so the
8 transcript does not reflect the documents. Is the transcript to be
9 trusted or not? Is it incorrect, imprecise, unclear? Thank you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First, since there is no objection by Mr. Tolimir
12 to the admission of the intercept, which is 65 ter 5542, it will be
13 received, with your remarks, Mr. Tolimir, you have put on the record in
14 relation to a certain General Stanley and with your remark that, in your
15 opinion, it is a forgery. This document will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 5542 shall be assigned
17 Exhibit P2446. Thank you.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The other two documents will be marked for
19 identification, pending translation. And, again, we hope that it will be
20 possible to receive an English translation of the French letter.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7448 shall be
22 assigned Exhibit P2447, marked for identification, pending translation.
23 And 65 ter document 7449 shall be assigned Exhibit P2448, marked for
24 identification, pending translation. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
1 Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 If I could show the witness, please, 65 ter 5408.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that we are now dealing with documents
5 behind tab 4 of the binder.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
7 Q. While we're waiting for the English, let me ask you, Mr. Janc:
8 Have you had a chance to review this particular intercept? It's dated
9 October 5, 1994, and timed at 1500 hours 10 minutes.
10 A. Yes, I have reviewed it.
11 Q. And were you able to identify any additional documents supporting
12 the reliability of the content of this particular intercept?
13 A. Yes, I was. There are two documents.
14 Q. And can you tell us what those were?
15 A. Yes. One is an intercept again from Sarajevo State Security
16 Service, from this same date. And in my opinion, it is about the same
17 conversation. And the second one is a document -- is a UN document
18 again, UNPROFOR document, a daily report from that day.
19 Q. All right. So in this particular intercept, we can see that it
20 refers to the Main Staff having dispatched General Tolimir to Kopaci
21 village, and then in parenthesis it says "(Gorazde)," "... to co-ordinate
22 with the UNPROFOR the evacuation part of the population from Gorazde."
23 If I could, I'd like to show you 65 ter 5611. And this document,
24 can you tell us what it is?
25 A. This is the intercept I was talking about before. MUP SDB, State
1 Security Service, from 5th of October, 1994. It's a conversation --
2 transcribed conversation of the intercept communication.
3 Q. And, in particular, what part of this conversation is reflected
4 in the intercept 65 ter 5408 that we've just looked at, the Croatian
5 origin -- the intercept from Croatian origins?
6 A. Yes. If you move down into this, we can see the paragraph one
7 before the last one, which starts with "M." And this is
8 General Milovanovic saying:
9 "I will send General Tolimir and his crew to Kopaci near Gorazde
10 to co-ordinate the evacuation process with UNPROFOR and the Muslims."
11 So it's talking about the evacuation and General Tolimir being
12 dispatched to Kopaci village.
13 Q. And did you find that this intercept, that is the MUP intercept,
14 Sarajevo SDB sector, supported or corroborated the Croatian-origin
15 intercept in other ways, or in any other way, if you can recall?
16 A. Yes, also there are some other parts which are talking about the
17 issue of how many vehicles have been approved for evacuation, and there
18 is a dispute regarding the UNHCR vehicle in both intercepts. So it's --
19 actually, in this intercept we have more information than we have in a
20 summary of Croatian intercepts, but everything what is in Croatian
21 intercept is also in this one, in BiH one.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
23 Let's take a look at one last document, if we could,
24 Mr. President, and then we can wind up for the day, and that is
25 65 ter 7452.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Before this document is tendered, it might be a good idea if the
4 Prosecutor were to clarify with the witness why this is a translation
5 from English. If this is an intercept, was it the service that
6 intercepted the conversation that translated it as well? And if not, who
7 did translate it?
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It seems to be a quite similar issue we dealt
9 with earlier with another document. In the document 65 ter 5611, we see
10 the heading "Report Submitted on 5th of October, 1994, Translated from
11 English." I take it that Mr. Tolimir is referring to that part of the
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I'm certain that he is.
14 If we look under item number 1, we can see that there is a clear
15 indication that the conversation was again mediated through an
16 interpreter, and it seems that the same explanation that obtained with
17 respect to the other intercept from the MUP Sarajevo SDB Sector would
18 apply in this circumstance as well, as well as the same arguments with
19 respect to its admissibility and provenance in respect of the intercept
20 of Croatian origin.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the arguments are put on the record, as
22 with the previous document.
23 Please carry on and try to come to an end for today.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 We should have, hopefully, 65 ter -- no, we don't. 65 ter 7452
1 in e-court, please.
2 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. Janc?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Okay. And is this a document that you considered, in terms of
5 evaluating the reliability of the intercept that we've just seen?
6 A. Yes, correct. This is a daily sitrep from 5th of October, 1994,
7 and the relevant part is on page, I think, 8 of this document,
8 paragraph 33.
9 Q. Let's just go straight there and take a look at that. Tell us
10 what about this particular paragraph supports the reliability of the
11 intercept in question, 65 ter 5408.
12 A. First, before paragraph 32, we can see "UNMO team Gorazde," and
13 here is the summary for Gorazde, what was happening. And paragraph 33 is
14 talking about the humanitarian activity, and we can see that:
15 "Today UNPROFOR escorted and transported out of the pocket: 33
16 Serbs to Kopaci at 1530 ..."
17 And so on and so on. And the last paragraph, it says:
18 "The operation went well, and General Tolimir (head of security)
19 was present."
20 So this paragraph corroborates the intercept, itself.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Janc.
22 Mr. President, I see we're out of time, so I guess we'll -- I'll
23 tender these tomorrow so that we can cut it short now, and we'll pick up
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a very good proposal. It is appreciated.
1 We deal with that tomorrow. And we will resume tomorrow, in the
2 afternoon, at 2.15 in the same Courtroom III.
3 We adjourn.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of July,
7 2011, at 2.15 p.m.