110706IT

Page 16151

1 Exhibit P2450.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry for interrupting you. The next one should

3 only be marked for identification, pending translation. We don't have a

4 translation yet.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I refer to 65 ter 7452.

7 THE REGISTRAR: And 65 ter document number 7452 shall be assigned

8 Exhibit P2451, marked for identification, pending translation. Thank

9 you.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

11 Mr. Vanderpuye, please go ahead.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

13 If I could refer the Chamber to tab number 5 and have in e-court,

14 please, 65 ter 5544 [Realtime transcript read in error "5554"].

15 We have a different intercept in the English. It should be

16 9 October 1994.

17 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

18 Q. But while that's coming up, let me ask you, Mr. Janc: Did you

19 have a chance to review this intercept, that is 9 October 1994, 1905

20 hours?

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. And were you able to able to find any material or review any

23 material supporting the content or reliability of this particular

24 intercept?

25 A. There is only one document, and this is an intercept from the

Page 16152

1 BiH State -- SDB, actually, about the same conversation.

2 Q. All right. We'll note in this context --

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't have the right one on the screen.

4 MR. VANDERPUYE: You're right. Thank you, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's still not the right one in B/C/S. It should

6 be ERN 0415-0603.

7 Now we have it.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE:

9 Q. With respect to this intercept, we can see it indicates that this

10 is a transcript of a conversation between an interpreter, Svetlana,

11 between General Briquemont and General Mladic. Were you able to confirm

12 that in the SDB -- Bosnian SDB intercept that you compared this one to?

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 3, line 13, it

15 says "5554." I think this document has a different number, 5544. At

16 least that's what it says on my list.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you are perfectly correct. Thank you for

18 this correction.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. Gajic.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, are you able to answer the last

21 question?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. My answer would be, yes,

23 that's correct, this information is contained in the SDB intercept.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE:

25 Q. In this particular conversation, we can see what the topic of it

Page 16153

1 is. Could you tell us, were you able to confirm the entirety of this

2 conversation, part of the conversation? What about it were you able to

3 confirm in the SDB intercept?

4 A. The entire conversation is also included there.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's take a look at 65 ter 5612.

6 This may be a little tricky. What I'd like to do is to put them

7 side by side, but obviously I don't believe we can have the

8 interpretations up at the same time as well. So let's first look at the

9 intercept, and then we can try that.

10 So we'll look at 5612, 65 ter 5612, and then we can compare it,

11 after we've done that, to the 65 ter 5544.

12 Q. First, Mr. Janc, is this the intercept you're referring to?

13 A. Yes, this is the one.

14 Q. And we can see that this refers to a conversation on 9 October

15 1994. The time indicated in this intercept is about 1915 hours?

16 A. Yes, correct, which is slightly different than from the Croatian

17 intercept, where we have the time at 1905.

18 Q. And we can see here, as has been General Tolimir's concern with

19 respect to these intercepts, that it says: "Translation from English."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And with respect to this intercept, is your explanation or view

23 as to why that appears in this document the same as it was with respect

24 to the other MUP SDB intercepts we've seen so far or is it different?

25 A. No, I would say it's the same, because in every single one --

Page 16154

1 single intercept, we can see, at the beginning, the sentence that one of

2 those UNPROFOR members is talking through interpreter with someone from

3 the VRS side. So the explanation would be the same for all those three

4 intercepts from the SDB.

5 Q. In the Croatian intercept, we don't have it on the screen, but

6 you may recall there's a reference here to an interpreter named Svetlana.

7 Have you come across that name, in looking at any of the intercept

8 evidence in this case, as an interpreter?

9 A. Yes, correct, this name is quite familiar to me. Of course, I

10 came across this name reviewing the intercepts; not only the Croatian

11 intercepts, but also the intercepts which were intercepted by the BiH.

12 Especially, I think there are some intercepts between General Gvero and

13 some of the UNPROFOR members, I think General Nicolai talking to

14 General Gvero through Interpreter Svetlana.

15 Q. And with respect to this intercept, this is the one we have on

16 the screen now, the SDB -- Sector SDB Sarajevo intercept, did you see

17 that -- if there were any discrepancies between this intercept, that is,

18 in terms of its content, and the Croatian intercept that we looked at

19 before?

20 A. Not really. I think they are quite the same, so I don't see any

21 big discrepancies. I would need to go carefully through them again, but

22 I think that both of them would be the same.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right, what I'd like to do is, for the

24 benefit of the Trial Chamber, is to put these two intercepts up next to

25 each other. I think we'll have to do it in the English first, and then

Page 16155

1 if there are any questions that arise from that, then we can look at it

2 also in B/C/S to see if there is any significant difference between them.

3 So if we could, I'd like to have 65 ter 5544, which is the

4 Croatian intercept, on the left side, and 5612 on the right side, and

5 perhaps we can go through it quickly.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have it on the screen, both in English.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Q. We can see here, Mr. Janc, clearly, that the dates are the same,

9 and as you've indicated previously, the times of the intercept are 1905

10 and 1915 respectively. And, once again, we can see that there is a

11 conversation between General Mladic and General Briquemont. But we can

12 see, in the Croatian intercept, an indication that the interpreter here

13 is someone by the name of Svetlana, and we see, in the MUP SDB intercept,

14 that it is a female interpreter or there is a female interpreter.

15 As you go through the conversation, you might have noticed that

16 in the MUP intercept, we have some words attributable to General Mladic

17 which don't appear in the Croatian intercept, and I can refer you to the

18 comment made by General Mladic in basically the second line of the SDB

19 intercept, where we can see General Briquemont says:

20 "I got through to General Tolimir this morning, so I suppose that

21 he told you what the two of us had talked about."

22 And you can see that line in lines 4 and 5 of the Croatian

23 intercept on the left. And then you see the letter "M" in that

24 intercept, followed by "...," but in the SDB intercept we'll see an

25 actual answer, which says: "I'm listening."

Page 16156

1 And then the conversation continues, and he says:

2 "I told General Tolimir this morning that the Sarajevo sector was

3 in a difficult situation ..."

4 And so on and so forth.

5 Did you consider those kinds of differences, the fact that one

6 side could be heard and another -- in one intercept, and perhaps not as

7 well in the other, as bearing significantly on the reliability of the

8 intercept that we're looking at now, the Croatian intercept?

9 A. Yes, I considered these problems which occurred at the time, and

10 we can also see in the Croatian intercept that there is a note that the

11 sound quality was poor. And due to these facts, I would say it's quite

12 possible that one receiver heard the same conversation better than the

13 other, so and that might explain why those differences occur in these two

14 different intercepts, because they were intercepted from the two

15 different locations.

16 Q. And did you consider -- and we can see here a specific reference

17 to the convoy number that was subject to approval. Here, we can see in

18 the Croatian intercept it is "10-139/11," and you can see that precise

19 number right in the middle of the SDB intercept as well. And we can also

20 see that in the conversation, there's a reference in it that

21 General Tolimir promised that General Briquemont would receive a reply

22 between 1900 and 2000 hours "tonight." And you can see that also

23 reflected in the Croatian intercept, where it says:

24 "General Tolimir promised that I would receive the answer tonight

25 between 1900 and 2000 hours."

Page 16157

1 Did you consider that, in terms of, I would say, assessing the

2 reliability of this particular intercept?

3 A. Yes, I did. And we can see here that this information -- these

4 numbers in both intercepts are the same, so both intercept operators from

5 both sides, they could hear exactly what they've been talking about.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender both of these

7 intercepts.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that there are no objections by the

9 Defence. Both documents have a translation, and they are in the list --

10 the 65 ter exhibit list. They will be received.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document number 5544 shall

12 be assigned Exhibit P2452, and 65 ter document 5612 shall be assigned

13 Exhibit P2453. Thank you.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

15 I'd like to move to the next tab. It will be tab 6 before the

16 Trial Chamber, and I'd like to have, in e-court, shown to the witness,

17 please, 65 ter 5547.

18 Q. Mr. Janc, have you had an opportunity to review this intercept?

19 It's dated 30 March 1995 and timed at 0915 hours.

20 A. Yes, I have.

21 Q. And can you tell us about it and whether or not you were able to

22 find any corroborating information supporting the reliability of the

23 content of this intercept?

24 A. Yes. This is an intercept about the conversation between a

25 certain Aleksandar Radovic, and in brackets we can see it's from United

Page 16158

1 States, "(USA)" - I assume this is United States - who is informing

2 General Tolimir about the intelligence he received regarding the

3 situation on the ground in Bosnia, so -- and, yes, I could find a

4 corroborative document, which is the intelligence report of the VRS

5 Main Staff, signed by General Tolimir on this same date.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could have, I'm sorry, P -- no, D237 in

7 e-court, please.

8 Q. First, Mr. Janc, can you tell us is this the document that you're

9 referring to?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And where in this document were you able to find support for the

12 content -- rather, the reliability of the content in the Croatian

13 intercept?

14 A. It is the beginning of the second paragraph on the B/C/S and the

15 second page in English, where we have a second paragraph, the beginning

16 of the second paragraph, first sentence, where it says:

17 "According to information from reliable sources, the Americans

18 are providing the Muslims intelligence on VRS units."

19 So -- and my conclusion is that this information -- or this

20 intelligence report was derived from that intercept. From the

21 information we can see in the intercept, actually.

22 Q. We can see, on the first page of this report, that it appears to

23 be dated on the 31st of March, although it's handwritten in one part and

24 typewritten in the other. This is the B/C/S version I'm referring to.

25 A. Yes, it looks like "31st," yes, so it's the day after the

Page 16159

1 conversation. My impression was it was the same date, because we can

2 clearly see the number "1" after number "3."

3 Q. Does that make any difference to you, in terms of its

4 relationship or impact on the reliability of the intercept that you've

5 reviewed?

6 A. No, not really, because this same intelligence report was

7 compiled the day after, if it is, indeed, the 31st, which I believe it

8 is, but it still contains the information, what has been discussing in

9 the conversation from the intercept.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

11 Mr. President, I'd like to tender the intercept. I see the

12 intelligence report is already in evidence.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see an objection by the Defence. This

14 document will be received.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document number 5547 shall

16 be assigned Exhibit P2454. Thank you.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, behind tab 6 we have one last

18 page, dated 30th of June, 1995, in draft translation. Is that correct?

19 Does it relate to anything under this tab or is it put there by mistake?

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: It should be a mistake if it's -- yes, it should

21 be a mistake. It should only be a document -- the last page of that tab

22 should be a document with an ERN ending 0370-9043. If it's not that,

23 then it's definitely an error.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's a short translation with the ERN number

25 0415 --

Page 16160

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, okay. I see.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- 0985.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I see what you have. Yes, it's a mistake. It

4 should go actually under tab 7.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's the first page -- should be the first

7 page under tab 7, so I apologise for that.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

9 Please carry on.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 We are actually going to tab 7 now, so if we could have, please,

12 in e-court 65 ter 5549, and this will be the 30 June 1995 intercept. It

13 has a time of 10.38.

14 And I see we have the English in e-court now.

15 Q. So, Mr. Janc, have you had an opportunity to review this

16 intercept as well?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And what can you tell us about it, in terms of any corroborating

19 or supporting information you may have reviewed concerning it?

20 A. There was -- there is information in this intercept, actually,

21 which says that at the time, General Tolimir is standing in for

22 General Mladic, and I could find a kind of document which is -- where it

23 is written, actually, the same, that General Tolimir is standing in for

24 General Mladic. But the problem with that document was and is that it is

25 actually from the same source, which I mean the Croatian government,

Page 16161

1 so -- and because in that document, and this is actually the intelligence

2 report from the Croatian government, or intelligence administration of

3 Croatian military forces, the problem is that you can't say if the

4 information which is in this intercept was used for the report or the

5 intercept corroborates the report, itself. We will see that in the

6 report, there is much more information in relation to why General Tolimir

7 is standing in at that time for General Mladic, and so I would say

8 it's -- for my purposes, I couldn't actually figure it out, what

9 corroborates what in this respect, because I was not able to definitely

10 conclude that intercept is corroborated by other document.

11 Q. And do you mean by that that it's corroborated by an independent

12 source?

13 A. Yes, correct, I was referring to independent source.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's take a look at this intelligence report.

15 It's 65 ter 7450. Mr. President, this is a document that wasn't

16 originally on the Prosecution's 65 ter list.

17 Q. Mr. Janc -- we'll wait for the English translation to come up.

18 But is this the document that you're referring to?

19 A. Yes, correct, this document, dated 1st of July 1995, is the

20 intelligence report I was referring to.

21 Q. Okay. And if we can go to the last page of the document, we can

22 see here that it is signed by Admiral Domazet, or type-signed, I should

23 say. And then we can see the individuals and agencies it is delivered

24 to?

25 A. Yes.

Page 16162

1 Q. And that includes a number of -- well, a number of individuals

2 and agencies, as we can see.

3 Now, if we go back to item number 2 in this document, it should

4 be just one page back in the B/C/S - yes, that's right - and we should be

5 on page 3 in the English, is this the assessment of the situation in the

6 Main Staff of the VRS that you were referring to concerning the

7 intercept?

8 A. Yes, correct, this first paragraph under item 2.

9 Q. And you mentioned that there was more information here concerning

10 the circumstances under which General Tolimir was standing in for

11 General Mladic at the time. Can you just tell us what that is,

12 specifically?

13 A. We can see from this paragraph that General Ratko Mladic went to

14 Belgrade to the Military Medical Academy because of his health problems

15 with kidneys, and that's why General Tolimir is standing in, based on

16 this information.

17 Q. You mentioned this information isn't in the intercept in

18 question. How does that figure in terms of the information that's

19 provided by -- or provided in the intercept? How do you view that?

20 A. Yes. As I mentioned, here we have more information than in

21 intercept, itself, because in intercept we can just see that

22 General Tolimir is standing in at the time already, and it is difficult

23 to say what was the basis for this information in this intelligence

24 report. Was it intercept, itself, or some other independent source?

25 But, in any case, both the intercept and this information are pointing at

Page 16163

1 the same thing, that General Tolimir is standing in, in absence of

2 General Ratko Mladic.

3 Q. And does the fact that this intelligence report was circulated so

4 widely to numerous agencies and individuals in the Croatian military,

5 apparently, does it suggest to you that it might contain information that

6 is -- that has been vetted and is otherwise reliable?

7 A. Yes. I would assume so, yes.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

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

10 I welcome Mr. Janc. I wish that this day will finish in keeping

11 with God's will, not mine.

12 A moment ago, Mr. Janc said that he can only confirm this

13 information with the information provided by the government in Zagreb,

14 that he has no other paper, and now Mr. Vanderpuye is trying to prove

15 that Tolimir was deputy commander based on questions that are just

16 rephrased in another form. Can something emanating from Croatia be

17 evidence that Tolimir was deputy commander? I believe this is an attempt

18 to prove something that is not contained in the documents, and I would

19 appreciate clarification.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a fair comment, but I think

21 Mr. Vanderpuye will try to clarify this.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.

23 Well, first, I would simply say I'm not trying to prove anything.

24 I'm not trying to prove that General Tolimir was a commander, deputy

25 commander, or anything. The purpose of this is to establish or provide

Page 16164

1 evidence of the reliability of the intercepts in question.

2 With respect to what is said in the intercepts, the information

3 in the report, as Mr. Janc has testified, sheds more light on what's

4 contained in the intercept, particularly in light of General Tolimir's

5 role, as it's recounted in the intercept, and we can all see that on the

6 screen. And it doesn't say anything about General Tolimir being a deputy

7 commander. What it says in the report is that during a trip to Belgrade,

8 a medical check-up is scheduled at the Military Medical Academy because

9 of Mladic's health issues with kidneys, and that during Mladic's absence,

10 he will be replaced by General Tolimir, chief of security of the

11 Main Staff of the VRS. And that's all it says, and that's all I'm

12 saying, because I can't say more than what it says.

13 So I hope that clarifies the issue for General Tolimir and for

14 the Court, and if there are any questions regarding it, but that's --

15 that's the beginning and the end of the issue, in terms of what the

16 evidence shows.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both documents, the intercept and this document,

18 are from a Croatian source?

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Both are from Croatian sources, that's correct,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

22 Please carry on.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

24 With that said, Mr. President, I would tender these documents for

25 admission; that is, 65 ter 5549 and 7450.

Page 16165

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that there is no objection to add

2 65 ter 7450 to the 65 ter exhibit list and to the admission of these two

3 documents. They will be received.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 5549 shall be

5 assigned Exhibit P2455, and 65 ter document 7450 shall be assigned

6 Exhibit P2456. Thank you.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

8 I'd like to take the Trial Chamber to tab 8, and hopefully you'll

9 find, under that tab, 65 ter 5559. It's -- oops, I'm mistaken, I'm

10 mistaken. Just a moment.

11 Yes.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's correct.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. 5559. If we could have that

14 displayed in e-court, that would be helpful.

15 Q. Yes, we have an intercept here now, Mr. Janc. It's 30 July,

16 1995, and the time is 1950 hours. Have you had a chance to look at this

17 one?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And what can you tell us about it, in terms of your assessment of

20 its reliability?

21 A. We can see from this intercept that it contains information that

22 General Tolimir is ordered to go to Grahovo-Glamoc front on that day.

23 And I think we don't have any clear document evidence to prove that he

24 was going to this area on this day, but from -- from the investigation

25 and especially from witnesses we interviewed, we know that he was going

Page 16166

1 to that front -- to that area, part of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, around

2 the end of July 1995.

3 Q. Were you able to look at any other Croatian-source material to

4 see if there was consistent information, at least, with that -- with

5 what's contained in the intercept?

6 A. Yes, correct. Again, we have the same issue as with the

7 intercept before. We have the Croatian intelligence report, which is

8 actually saying the same thing, so and here I think in that report, in

9 that intelligence report, it's written the same as we can see in the

10 intercept, itself. So I assume that information from the intercept was

11 used to what is written in intelligence report then.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Let's take a look at this

13 intelligence report. It's 65 ter 5827.

14 Q. And while that's coming up, let me ask you: As far as the

15 intercept is concerned, is there an indication as to why General Tolimir

16 would have been sent to Grahovo and Glamoc in the intercept?

17 A. No, there is no information why he's ordered to go there.

18 Q. All right. We've got here now this intelligence report. It

19 says, "For 30 July 1995," and this is again a Croatian-sourced report.

20 If we go to the last page of this report, we'll see again that it

21 is type-signed "Rear Admiral Domazet" and sent to the same or similar

22 agencies and individuals as the last one we saw. And then it provides

23 information on a number of -- a number of corps.

24 If we go to page 3 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S, we'll

25 see some information specific to Grahovo and Glamoc areas. Is this the

Page 16167

1 information that you're referring to as concerns General Tolimir that we

2 can see at the bottom of the screen in English?

3 A. Yes, correct, the last paragraph is talking about that.

4 Q. And in this paragraph, it says that:

5 "... General Tolimir and General Djukic from the VRS Main Staff

6 have been sent to the Grahovo-Glamoc front-line in order to consolidate

7 the situation and undertake measures to consolidate the forces."

8 And then it provides some other additional information which

9 concerns General Milovanovic and Karadzic; yes?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 Q. And you mentioned that there's certain information that you came

12 across concerning the situation in Grahovo and Glamoc around that period

13 of time?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is the information that you found in this report and in the

16 intercept consistent with the information revealed by the investigation,

17 to your knowledge?

18 A. Yes, correct. At that time in this area, Glamoc-Grahovo area,

19 there is an operation from Croatia, I think, offensive from their side,

20 and most of the VRS is deployed there.

21 Q. And in terms of the investigation --

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye --

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- a short moment, please. Judge Nyambe has a

25 question.

Page 16168

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.

2 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

3 I just wanted to follow up on an answer you've given at page 17,

4 line 14 to 18.

5 You have stated that:

6 "... we don't have any clear document evidence to prove that he

7 was going to this area on this day, but from the investigation and

8 especially from witnesses we interviewed, we know that he was going to

9 the front."

10 Do you -- can you refer us to a specific witness or witnesses who

11 testified as to that fact you referred to in this statement? Thank you.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. The witness I was having in mind

13 was -- in mind was his driver, Mile Micic, who I interviewed a few years

14 ago. And during that interview, he told us that they are going to that

15 area with General Tolimir at the end of July 1995.

16 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 I was just consulting with Ms. Stewart. I think that his

20 statement was actually admitted during the course of his testimony, and

21 that may be helpful. I don't have the specific reference, obviously, the

22 line and page number. It's D296, and perhaps it might be of help to the

23 Trial Chamber.

24 I would at this time tender these two exhibits.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any objection by the Defence.

Page 16169

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: They are 65 ter 5549 and 745 -- I've done that.

2 5559, sorry, and 5827.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These two documents will be received then as

4 exhibits.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document number 5559 shall

6 be assigned Exhibit P2457, and 65 ter document number 5827 shall be

7 assigned Exhibit P2458. Thank you.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

9 I'd like to pull up 65 ter 5589 in e-court, please. And the

10 Trial Chamber should be able to find this document under tab 9.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, just a clarification.

12 Under tab 8, in the index in the binder, there is a reference to

13 65 ter 7458, under seal. You didn't use it, and it is not contained in

14 the binder. I take it that you aren't using it and not tendering it.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And I apologise,

18 also, for the error in the index.

19 Okay, I think we have 65 ter 5589 now in e-court.

20 Q. Is this an -- first of all, have you seen this document before,

21 Mr. Janc?

22 A. Yes, correct.

23 Q. And were you able to review it, in terms of its content, to

24 establish its reliability or lack thereof?

25 A. Yes, I reviewed this intercept with a long conversation.

Page 16170

1 Q. What can you tell us about it, in terms of your efforts to find

2 material or review material that either support or detract from its

3 reliability?

4 A. This is the conversation between Mr. Budo Kosutic and

5 General Zdravko Tolimir on 13 December 1995. And on this occasion when

6 they were talking, this gentleman, Kosutic, was asking General Tolimir

7 about certain documents in relation to the fall of Srebrenica and the

8 Zepa enclaves, and specifically he was having in his hand already a kind

9 of -- a kind of declaration or statement signed by different sides,

10 including UNPROFOR in -- after the fall of Srebrenica. And later on,

11 they have been also discussing issues in relation to the list of Zepa

12 prisoners and also the events surrounding the fall of Zepa. So and in

13 this regard, there is, indeed, this declaration from Srebrenica events,

14 which was signed by the members of the UNPROFOR, so this is one document

15 which corroborates this conversation. The other one is actually the

16 agreement on disarmament of Zepa enclave.

17 Q. Can you point to us, if you could, where in this intercept we can

18 find these references to the lists that you've referred to or these

19 documents that you refer to?

20 A. Yes. Quite at the beginning, regarding Srebrenica, we can see

21 reference to Mr. Deronjic, where it says that Deronjic sent good

22 information from Srebrenica. The report sent by UNPROFOR, the commander

23 of the Dutch Staff and by the Muslims. So this is the reference in

24 relation to that document I've been talking about.

25 In relation to Zepa, later on we can see there is a discussion,

Page 16171

1 I think on the page after this one, regarding some lists. I was not able

2 to find any of those lists which have been -- they have been discussing,

3 but --

4 Q. And we'll have to go to page 2 for this.

5 A. For -- in English, yes.

6 Q. In the English.

7 A. And at the top part of this document, where it starts with "T,"

8 so Tolimir is talking:

9 "There is, for example, for Zepa, all civilians on the list are

10 the ones who left in the buses in an organised way. These lists have

11 been kept; one came to us, one went to the Muslims, one to UNPROFOR,

12 et cetera."

13 So I was looking for these lists in our records, but I couldn't

14 find them.

15 So but later on, if you go down, we can see towards the end "T"

16 is even talking, well, the agreement on taking Zepa, so I think here they

17 are discussing this agreement on Zepa disarmament.

18 Q. And were you able to locate that disarmament agreement?

19 A. Yes, and it's, I think, already part of evidence in this case.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Let's take a look at P735.

21 Q. Do you recognise what we have on the screen now, Mr. Janc?

22 A. Yes, I do. This is Agreement on the Disarmament of the

23 Able-Bodied Population in the Zepa Enclave, dated --

24 Q. Is this the document you're referring to?

25 A. Yes, correct, this is the document I was referring to, which is

Page 16172

1 dated 24 of July, 1995.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you P628. I think the B/C/S of this

3 document you can find at page -- perhaps page 3. Anyway, it's the next

4 page, ERN ending 110.

5 That's correct.

6 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. Janc?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. And what do you recognise it as?

9 A. This is a declaration dated 17 July 1995, signed by the

10 representatives of Muslims, UNPROFOR, and Miroslav Deronjic, which I have

11 been talking about earlier.

12 Q. Is that the reference to the "good information from Srebrenica

13 that we could use" that's contained in the intercept?

14 A. Yes, correct.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

16 Mr. President, I'd like to tender 65 ter 5589.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, I don't see any objection. It will be

18 received.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to ask Mr. Vanderpuye

22 to clarify with the witness [indiscernible] this information is.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We didn't understand the full objection. Please

24 repeat.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 16173

1 Mr. Vanderpuye asked the witness, Were you referring to this

2 document when you were talking about good information? I would like to

3 know what this "good information" is and whether Tolimir is mentioned in

4 it.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I've understood --

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I've understood the nature of the

8 objection.

9 The "good information," for the benefit of Mr. Tolimir, is a

10 reference to what's actually stated in the intercept, so perhaps we can

11 pull that up. It's 65 ter 5589, and I'll point to precisely where it

12 says so in the intercept, which will hopefully clarify the matter.

13 In the third line in the intercept, you will see where it says

14 "T," and then it says: "Da," "Yes," and then you will see it says "K,"

15 and then it starts with "Deronjic." And it says:

16 "Deronjic sent me some good information from Srebrenica," that's

17 the "good information" I'm referring to, "that we could use. The report

18 signed by UNPROFOR, by the commander of the Dutch Staff, by the Muslims

19 and by our," and it's in brackets, "(commander)," "that the entire

20 process, everything that happened in Srebrenica was in accordance with

21 the Geneva Conventions and all the rest."

22 So that's the reference that I've made in my question to Mr. Janc

23 in the context of the 17 July statement, which if we go back to, at P628,

24 we'll see that it says:

25 "During the evacuation, there were no incidents on either of the

Page 16174

1 sides, and the Serb side has adhered to all the regulations of the Geneva

2 Conventions, the International War Law ..."

3 And so on and so forth.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This part Mr. Vanderpuye has read into the

5 transcript was to be seen - now it disappeared - on line 4 and the

6 following lines of the B/C/S version.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

8 And the latter part, relating to P628, you can see I've read from

9 the bottom of the text in the English, which is on the left of the screen

10 now. We should be on page -- on the second page of the B/C/S, in the

11 last paragraph just above the signatures, and that refers to the Geneva

12 Conventions, and the absence of any incidents, and so on and so forth.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I hope that that was helpful for you,

14 Mr. Tolimir.

15 The document will be received, 65 ter 5589.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document number 5589 shall

17 be assigned Exhibit P2459. Thank you.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to take to you tab 10, and the

19 intercept is 65 ter 5598. If we could have that in e-court, please.

20 Thank you.

21 Q. Mr. Janc, have you had an opportunity to look at this -- this

22 intercept as well?

23 A. Yes.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, in our binders, at least in my

25 binder, I don't find the English translation. We only have the B/C/S

Page 16175

1 version, not the English one.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I suspect, Mr. President, that it's quite

3 possible it's the last page of your tab 9. I think I may have

4 inadvertently put it there. But if it's not there, we do have it in

5 e-court, in any event. But I suspect that's what happened.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, you're right. I found it, last page at

7 tab 9. It should be the first page of tab 10.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Again, I apologise for that.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I found it.

10 Please carry on.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: In terms of this intercept, Mr. Janc -- well,

12 let me put on the record that it's 27th of January, 1997, at 1600 hours.

13 Q. In terms of this intercept, were you able to find any information

14 that corroborates the contents of it, bearing on its reliability, of

15 course?

16 A. Yes, correct. It's about the meeting which the president of RS

17 at that time, Biljana Plavsic, organised. It was actually a farewell

18 ceremony in Banja Luka for 17 retiring generals of the VRS. And at the

19 end of the intercept, we can see who those generals are, and one of those

20 being Zdravko Tolimir.

21 Q. And were you able to confirm the information concerning the

22 retirement of General Tolimir on or about that date?

23 A. Yes, correct. We have a document from President Biljana Plavsic,

24 dated the day after this intercept, 28th of January, 1997, relieving

25 General Tolimir from his duty as of 31st of January, 1997.

Page 16176

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Let's take a look at 65 ter 4104.

2 Do we not have an English translation? We don't. All right.

3 I think there is a draft one, perhaps, in the tabs that I have --

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have it in our binder, but perhaps it was not

5 up-loaded.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Indeed.

7 Q. Mr. Janc, can you -- first of all, can you confirm that this is

8 the document that you reviewed?

9 A. Yes, correct, this is the document.

10 Q. And I can't remember. Are you able to read Cyrillic, because it

11 might be helpful to read into the record, at least, the part of this

12 document indicating when General Tolimir's retirement is effective and,

13 obviously, indicating his name.

14 A. Yes, I can read, but not as good as I would like to. In any

15 case, there is an English translation of this one. But it says, at the

16 last sentence -- in last sentence of this document, that General Tolimir

17 is relieved from the duty as of 31st of January, 1997.

18 Q. All right. And we can see here, just for the record, at least,

19 that the document number is 01-82/97, and dated "28.01.1997," and

20 General Tolimir's name is indicated under item 1; is that right?

21 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.

22 Q. "Date of birth: 27 November 1948"?

23 A. Correct.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.

25 Mr. President, I would like to tender this -- both of these

Page 16177

1 documents, 5598 and 4104 respectively. I think the 4104 would have to be

2 marked for identification, pending the up-loading of the translation.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps it's possible to up-load it now and to

4 submit it to the Registry. I have no idea.

5 But first, Mr. Tolimir -- yes, I saw it. Yes, Mr. Tolimir.

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

7 For the sake of the record, it should be said that this is not a

8 document on retirement. It says, quite clearly, he is relieved of his

9 duty and put at the disposal of the Yugoslav Army, so this should be

10 stated for the record. Thank you.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

12 We have the B/C/S version of the document, and this is the

13 original one in front of us. Do you have any objection to the request of

14 the Prosecution to tender it? I don't see any objection.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Mr. President. I

16 have no objection.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 65 ter 5598 will be received as an exhibit.

18 65 ter 4104 will be marked for identification, pending translation.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5598 shall be

20 assigned Exhibit P2460, and 65 ter document number 4104 shall be assigned

21 Exhibit P2461, marked for identification, pending translation. Thank

22 you.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 I have a number of intercepts - I think I may have mentioned this

Page 16178

1 to Mr. Gajic - relating to General Tolimir -- General Tolimir's

2 involvement with matters pertaining to the Dayton Accords, which I can

3 show to Mr. Janc, but I would submit that there's a sufficient-enough

4 basis in the record of these proceedings, both in terms of the evidence

5 the Trial Chamber has previously received pursuant to PW-70 concerning

6 the authenticity of these intercepts as well as based upon Mr. Janc's

7 testimony, that I would submit -- I would like to tender those documents

8 directly. I don't know if Mr. Gajic or Mr. Tolimir has an objection to

9 that at this point or if the Trial Chamber would prefer that I show each

10 of them to Mr. Janc, but I think the relevance of the document is clear,

11 on its face, and in light of the prior evidence in the case, I think

12 there's a sufficient-enough basis to do what I will apply to do.

13 So I can identify them, and perhaps that will assist Mr. Gajic or

14 General Tolimir if there is any objection.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, that would be the first step, that you

16 identify them and explain that, if all of them are included in your

17 exhibit list we have received.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.

19 They are on the exhibit list. They are: 65 ter 5568, which is

20 an intercept from 3 November 1995, and it's an intercept between

21 General Tolimir and General Mladic concerning the developments in Ohio,

22 where Dayton is; the next is an intercept which is 65 ter 5570, which is

23 7 November 1995, and this one involves General Tolimir and

24 General Mladic, again from Dayton; and then we have another one which is

25 65 ter 5573, which is 18 November 1995, which concerns the disposition of

Page 16179

1 a document that General Tolimir is talking about, which again concerns

2 the same issues; and then we have 65 ter 5579, which is another intercept

3 involving General Tolimir, Karadzic, which discusses the developments at

4 Dayton again; and then we have 65 ter 5580, which is dated 21 November

5 1995, again on the same issues; and, lastly, we have 65 ter 5582, which,

6 of course, is another conversation concerning the developments at Dayton.

7 I know that General Tolimir has actually raised his involvement

8 with the Dayton negotiations with a number of witnesses. The one that

9 comes to mind is -- I believe it was Milenko Todorovic, the security

10 chief at the East Bosnia Corps, and that came up in the context of some

11 discussion about his work to prepare for the Dayton Accords or

12 negotiations and the period of time that he was there, but I know that

13 he's also raised that with some other witnesses.

14 So I don't anticipate that there's any real dispute concerning

15 it, but I would invite General Tolimir, if he has any objection to the

16 admission of these intercepts, to say so.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I take it you have mentioned six

18 documents. Is that correct, not to have any misunderstanding?

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Yes, I've mentioned six

20 documents.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

22 Mr. Gajic.

23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you may recall that

24 yesterday, before Mr. Janc began testifying, I raised the issue of

25 intercepts marked by Witness PW-070, if I'm correct, and Mr. Vanderpuye

Page 16180

1 said he would be using only the documents in this binder which was

2 disclosed to us. So after this piece of information, I did not consider

3 it an urgent matter to discuss these documents with General Tolimir.

4 Could we, therefore, delay this question until a later time?

5 Unfortunately, I did not bring the binder with me today, as

6 Mr. Vanderpuye said that he might be using these documents at a later

7 stage of the proceedings, either with this witness or some other witness,

8 so we are unable to answer the question right now.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this is a fair proposal, Mr. Vanderpuye,

10 to prepare such response by the Defence and a possible decision by the

11 Chamber. Could you briefly tell us the relevance of these six documents,

12 these six intercepts?

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I can tell you in a nutshell

14 that the relevance of the documents has to do with: One, where is

15 General Tolimir in the relevant period of time? That's the first thing.

16 The second thing is it has to do with his continued contacts with other

17 members of the -- of the Supreme Command and, obviously, of his command.

18 He's in contact with President Karadzic directly in telephone -- on the

19 telephone in some of these intercepts. He's also in contact directly

20 with General Mladic. Both of these individuals, as you will know, are

21 members of the alleged JCE in this case, and, therefore, his contacts

22 with them, in terms of the importance of his role in Dayton, his

23 importance -- the importance of his role in the Command of the VRS, as a

24 member of the Command of the VRS, and his contacts and dealings with

25 President Karadzic are, I think, of fundamental importance to the case.

Page 16181

1 You'll remember that the order that -- for the troops to enter

2 into Srebrenica, to begin with, is passed through General Tolimir from

3 President Karadzic, so it's obviously that relationship is important, as

4 is his relationship to General Mladic. And so what this shows,

5 fundamentally, is that he is an important figure in all of this, and so

6 on that very basic basis, it is relevant.

7 It's also directly relevant to the issues that he, himself, has

8 raised during the course of cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses.

9 I'm not -- I can't remember exactly what I said yesterday, to be

10 fair to Mr. Gajic, but I thought I said that all the intercepts I wanted

11 to tender were on my exhibit list, I think. But maybe I said they were

12 in my -- maybe I said they were in the packet. But in any event, it

13 doesn't matter. I think if he wants to frame an appropriate response to

14 the application, I certainly would invite that. I have no problem with

15 it.

16 But I do want to emphasise that we're not just simply putting in

17 all of the intercepts that were authenticated by PW-070 during the course

18 of his testimony; rather, we have a very limited number of them that we

19 seek to admit. So it shouldn't -- it shouldn't entail Mr. Gajic having

20 to go through all of the 74; simply the ones that are on the exhibit

21 list, and that should do it.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I noted that these six intercepts are all from

23 November 1995.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

Page 16182

1 I think it's a good proposal to delay such a decision on

2 admission of these six intercepts, and we wait for your response,

3 Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Gajic.

4 You may continue, Mr. Vanderpuye.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just would like to show the witness

6 65 ter 5557.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I thought you would conclude now

8 your examination-in-chief.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is one document that I want to show him --

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should do that.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and then that's it.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.

14 Q. This is a document from 12 July 1995. It's timed at 8.27. And

15 have you had a chance to look at this particular document, Mr. Janc?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Were you able to find corroboration -- or documentary

18 corroboration, I should say, with respect to its content?

19 A. No, no, no direct document we have in relation to this intercept.

20 But what is coming out of the intercept, itself, we can say that this is

21 what was going on at the time, so the attack on Srebrenica enclave has

22 already started at that time, I think. Yeah, it's self [indiscernible].

23 Of course, it was already concluded.

24 Q. Based on the investigation -- the information that you had at

25 your disposal, are you able to determine at all whether or not the

Page 16185

1 tell you more about it, but we'd have to go into private session to do

2 that, but I think the Trial Chamber quite recalls the testimony of

3 PW-070. And our view is that, in addition to that, the evidence that's

4 provided by Mr. Janc obviously goes to the reliability and the strength

5 of the intercept material, and that's how we intend to proceed with it.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have postponed a decision on that, and we

7 would like to review the documents before we make a decision.

8 Mr. Tolimir, you may now commence your cross-examination. You

9 have the floor.

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

11 I would like to greet everyone present once again, and I hope

12 that this day of trial will end in keeping with God's will, not my will.

13 I welcome Mr. Janc. I hope his stay with us will be pleasant.

14 And if we speak the same language, I will appreciate it if we make a

15 pause between question and answer to avoid overlapping.

16 May I ask the electronic courtroom to show the first document,

17 05536, the first document introduced through this witness. 05536. I'm

18 sorry, I haven't written down the new exhibit number it received.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This now P2438.

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

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23 Q. If we look at this document, P2438, and what is written there,

24 and all the documents written in this way, without indication of who is

25 saying what, could you tell us whether these documents of this kind and

Page 16186

1 such intercepts are really intercepts or, rather, observations of those

2 who were intercepting concerning the discussion?

3 A. I wouldn't say these are observations. I would rather qualify

4 them as the summaries of the intercepted communications, because, in my

5 view, observations would look something differently. You know, you would

6 perhaps have bullet points, you know, of observations.

7 Q. Thank you. Please answer strictly the question asked.

8 Is it possible to see, from these summaries of intercepts, to see

9 what the interlocutors were actually saying and who said what exactly?

10 A. From some of those, we can -- we can say that, yes, we can see

11 that and we can conclude that. From this particular one, it's not that

12 easy, who was saying what.

13 Q. Thank you. From this and similar conversations that are

14 summaries and not a transcript, can we see that they also reflect liberal

15 interpretations made by people who were intercepting?

16 A. In order to confirm that, we would need the actual intercept,

17 itself, the transcript of intercept, what was said exactly by each

18 individual in this conversation, and then we could say, you know, if

19 everything what is part of this summary was, indeed, said within this

20 conversation or something was added by intercept operator as their

21 comment or something.

22 Q. Thank you. Do you have those transcripts to present to the

23 Chamber so that they can decide, themselves, rather than leaving it to

24 the witness or the accused?

25 A. No, we don't have, in relation to these Croatian intercepts.

Page 16187

1 This is all we have received from the authorities of Republic of Croatia.

2 Q. Thank you. Do you know that intercept operators and listening

3 services are prohibited from re-telling or making their own accounts or

4 making their own personal comments on the intercepts?

5 A. Generally speaking, I would agree with you, of course, but it is

6 always important, what is written in the rules, how they should intercept

7 the communication. So it depends on their rules. But, yeah, in general

8 terms, I would agree with you, yes, nothing should be added by the

9 intercept operators in the transcript or in the summary.

10 Q. Thank you. Since you and I shared the same profession in the

11 former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, can you tell me if you know that

12 this method of summarising, as you called it, is a police method, not a

13 method normally used by eavesdropping services?

14 A. I can say only what I know regarding as police work because I,

15 for the whole of my life, I have been working with police and have been

16 not involved in what army has been doing. So but for police work, I can

17 say yes. Also, those summaries are quite common, as well as the actual

18 transcripts, so for military I can't be precise because I have not been

19 dealing with military.

20 Q. Thank you for this answer. Please, would you tell us, is it

21 possible, when summarising the contents of a conversation, to express

22 your own opinion, if you are an intercept operator, and to show one

23 interlocutor what the other interlocutor said, or to make mistakes in

24 identifying the speakers, or because of poor audibility, or for other

25 reasons?

Page 16188

1 A. Yes, when you are summarising, it's quite possible that you mixed

2 someone, the interlocutors, so it's possible that mistakes happens. But

3 in relation to what was said, I'm sure that the content of the

4 conversation is there, regardless of, perhaps, the confusion, who said

5 something. So I would say from my experience, because I've been involved

6 also in this -- such work, that this can happen sometimes, because from

7 the intercept operator's point of view, it might be very easy and

8 understandable at the time when he is doing this work, but someone else

9 who is reading the stuff later on might be confused with the formulation

10 of the sentence or the summary. So that's possible, yes.

11 Q. Thank you. Since you said a moment ago that these summaries were

12 a common practice in the work of the police in their records of various

13 activities, my question would be: Would you and I have been able to

14 present to the courts in the former Yugoslavia such summaries and

15 observations for court purposes, or were we allowed only to present

16 transcripts to the Court, whereas we used summaries only for our own work

17 in preparing cases for the Court?

18 A. Again, I would be talking about my experience, which not

19 necessarily is the same for the whole former Yugoslavia. But for my

20 country, it was possible to present only summaries to the Court. But the

21 situation was a little bit different, because not only summary was

22 enough. Of course, we have had the supported audio files always for each

23 and every single conversation. It was just in case if someone was not

24 understandable within the summary, then the audio would be used and

25 released and transcribed, or at some point perhaps something was not

Page 16189

1 important and became important later on, then instead of summary, the

2 transcription of the actual conversation was done. So it's a little bit

3 different situation, because, yeah, in order to present something in

4 court, you would need the exact conversation recorded. But in this case,

5 we don't have the audios, the actual recordings of the intercepted

6 conversation -- conversations. This is the document we received in a

7 shape it is. We are using it here in this Court.

8 Q. Thank you. Is it possible to make a judgement based on a police

9 file or is forensic documentation necessary to convict someone of a

10 crime? Is it necessary to catch the perpetrator in flagrante delecto or

11 is it enough simply to intercept an incriminating conversation?

12 A. I would say you have to -- you have to prove your case beyond

13 reasonable doubt, and what evidence is enough might be -- might vary

14 between different cases between different countries, and how to prove a

15 certain case might be very different in different situations. So not one

16 answer would be the perfect one for your question. I would say it

17 depends on the situation, itself.

18 Q. Thank you. Following up on your answer: Were these police

19 reports of assistance to the Court only in forming a general opinion

20 about the accused, in absence of other documents and evidence documenting

21 the specific criminal activity? In other words, were police reports a

22 sufficient piece of evidence for making a judgement?

23 A. Yes. If you're, again, now referring to what I experienced, I

24 would say it depends on the case, again, and each of those intercepted

25 conversations would be supported by audios, actual recordings of the

Page 16190

1 conversation, itself, and also with other evidence which corroborated the

2 intercept, itself. And, yeah, in order to put the case together, you

3 would need much more evidence and then such a summary of some

4 conversation. In some instances, in some cases, only the intercepted

5 conversation would be the evidence enough to convict someone, so it

6 depends on the case -- case-by-case situation, so ...

7 Q. Thank you. Since all my questions pertain to the period of the

8 war and the period before the war, when the former SFRY laws were valid,

9 and which are still relevant to judgements, do you remember that the

10 activities of Martin Spegelj in importing weapons by Kikas [phoen]

11 aeroplane and inciting soldiers to kill Serbs --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Tolimir repeat the end of his

13 question.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the interpreters asked you to repeat

15 the last part of your question. They didn't get it.

16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Janc, did you see the film in which the army documented that

18 General Martin Spegelj, ex-commander of the Croatian Army, used an

19 aeroplane called Kikas to import weapons without the approval of the

20 central authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that he

21 incited soldiers to kill Serbs by stabbing them in the stomach? Do you

22 remember that?

23 A. It's possible that I watched this film, but it should be a long,

24 long time ago, because these names are familiar to me, but the incident,

25 itself, and the film, itself, not very much.

Page 16191

1 Q. Thank you. And do you remember that the Presidency of the

2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that time in 1991, when this activity

3 took place, decided that these police films cannot be used as adequate

4 evidence against General Spegelj and they were not sufficient to take any

5 measures?

6 Maybe I should add: Do you remember that it was said in the

7 communique that the police films were insufficient, inadequate; those

8 were the words used?

9 A. No, I have no recollection of this.

10 Q. Thank you. Since you don't remember that in other republics of

11 the SFRY, police documentation was useful only to the police and the

12 Prosecutor's Office, not the Court, tell me, do you know of any country

13 in Europe whose legislation includes a provision that a conviction can be

14 made just on the basis of police documents or transcripts?

15 A. It's not easy to answer because, you know, it's not obvious, what

16 do you mean by "police documents"? So when you say "transcripts," I

17 guess, you know, you would be referring to the intercepted conversations

18 of some communications. And, yes, those are. I mean, I think all police

19 forces within Europe are using these means to prove the criminal

20 activities of criminals. It's quite common in Europe, and it's totally

21 legal.

22 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us about any law to that effect,

23 when these laws were passed, and since when such documents and such

24 police methods are enough to bring in a conviction?

25 A. Again, it depends on the country. But if you look into the

Page 16192

1 former Yugoslavia, I think that police intercepting has been ongoing

2 since, I think, 1993, 1994, at least in my country. Also, before there

3 has been interception, but for different purposes; not to prove something

4 in front of Court, but more for intelligence purposes. So but from the

5 police point of view, you know, the real interception activities started,

6 yeah, 15 years ago, perhaps, in the area of former Yugoslavia, and it was

7 in accordance to the law, and it was accepted by Courts, you know,

8 several times that it is total legally and not against any -- any human

9 rights.

10 Q. Thank you. Was it possible to conduct interception only on court

11 orders, and were intercepts acceptable as evidence in court?

12 A. This is, again, I think, different in every country. So it

13 depends on their Constitution, their legislation. You would find

14 different -- different regulations regarding these activities. So for

15 former Yugoslavia, it was a developing process. A long time before, at

16 the beginnings, when they started with these activities, I think it was a

17 kind of chief of department of certain administration approval enough to

18 intercept someone, some activities. Later on, it developed. Of course,

19 because of human rights, only court order can approve such interception,

20 so -- and this is what is now common practice in all of our countries.

21 Only Court can order any interception within the country.

22 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether you know that services for

23 anti-electronic activities engage in disinformation and misinformation to

24 gain advantage in combat?

25 A. I would say this is more your area of knowledge than mine, but,

Page 16193

1 yeah, yeah, it's possible, it's possible this is also going on.

2 Q. Thank you. In that case, I would like to ask you: Can it be a

3 relevant piece of evidence in court to use intercepts made by an enemy in

4 war?

5 A. Yes. Why not? Any piece of evidence, any piece of paper, can

6 sometime become an evidence in court, and also the transcripts of

7 intercepted communication can be evidence, especially if these

8 transcripts are corroborated with documents, what I have been presenting

9 during my testimony today and yesterday. So the sole purpose of my

10 testimony was to prove that the intercepted communication --

11 communications are reliable because some other independent document

12 sources are -- are showing the same facts, or presenting, or are talking

13 about the same issues, what is actually written in the intercept, itself.

14 So I would say, yes, you can use such documents in court as well, yes.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is a very interesting issue you

16 are discussing with the witness. Only one observation.

17 It will be, at the end of this trial, the duty of the Chamber to

18 decide which kind of document can be used for any kind of judgement.

19 There is, of course, we have to prove if there are reasons to rely on any

20 of these documents. This is the normal duty of any trial chamber in the

21 world. We are not bound by the answers of Mr. Janc, as he tries to

22 provide you with his knowledge from the former Yugoslavia or other states

23 in Europe. We will not rely on that because this is irrelevant for our

24 own legal opinion we have to form at the end of the whole trial.

25 Therefore, you should perhaps try to focus on those areas of his

Page 16194

1 knowledge and his expertise as an investigator of the Prosecution.

2 Please carry on.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for this

4 information.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Janc, since you used to be an investigator dealing with the

7 events from the war, would you say that intercepts made by the enemy

8 side may be used as impartial evidence in court?

9 A. My answer would be the same as the one previous. Yes, it can be,

10 especially if it can be corroborated by other independent sources. But

11 as just the Presiding Judge explained at the end, it's always up to the

12 Trial Chamber to decide on its reliability and admissibility and

13 everything. So it's my duty to present as much corroborative evidence as

14 possible, and at the end of the day it's up to the Trial Chamber to

15 decide.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. For example, the latest war, the one in

17 Libya, at the beginning of the war there were only insurgents in Tripoli.

18 Now there's an army. After this, can the evidence launched by one side

19 against the other be reliable, can it be impartial? Thank you.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is not an appropriate question

21 for this witness. He is an investigator of the OTP of this Tribunal,

22 dealing and investigating facts of events in the former Yugoslavia, and

23 he reviewed material documents and other things. You and I and Mr. Janc

24 are able to read newspapers, and perhaps follow television, but it is

25 absolutely irrelevant to hear the opinion of Mr. Janc in relation to

Page 16195

1 events in Libya. You should focus on his expertise and the answers he

2 can provide you with in relation to the events in the former Yugoslavia

3 relevant to the indictment against you.

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

5 Let's look at 03928, which speaks of events from the former

6 Yugoslavia, and this is a document tendered through this witness. Thank

7 you.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P2440.

9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Q. Please look at paragraph 2 of this document. I will quote:

11 "Through refugees we have confirmed the information that members

12 of the Nordic Battalion of UNPROFOR in the area of the Tuzla region are

13 organising and conducting the training of soldiers from the 2nd Corps of

14 the so-called BH Army in tanks and armoured personnel carriers. Driver

15 training is being conducted at the Poljice military training-ground, not

16 far from Tuzla. UN sources state that after the training, combat

17 vehicles of the UNPROFOR Nordic Battalion Command will be given to

18 2nd Corps units."

19 My question is the following: As an investigator, did you pay

20 attention to this piece of information concerning the illegal arming and

21 training of one side in the conflict and the partial attitude of the UN

22 towards the sides to the conflict while they were engaged in a

23 peacekeeping mission? Thank you.

24 A. Yes. During my work here for the OTP, I came across many of such

25 information, and I reviewed, I think, most, if not all, of your

Page 16196

1 intelligence information from that time. And in -- yes, if it was

2 important for our case, for what you are charged with, I would also

3 consider such information as some important, of course.

4 Q. Thank you. Is this information important when one bears in mind

5 that the BH Army planned joining up the central part of Bosnia with the

6 enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica, and that they were helped in this by

7 UNPROFOR? This is from the standpoint of these proceedings. Thank you.

8 A. The information, itself, it's interesting, but, you know, on the

9 other hand, we have to know that this is your information, your

10 intelligence, which is not necessarily correct. But for our case, I

11 don't think this was of big interest. It is more information in interest

12 for you, I think.

13 Q. Thank you. As an OTP investigator, did you find only the

14 information provided by Muslims, even if only through intercepts, to be

15 more interesting and relevant, in comparison to information provided by

16 refugees? Thank you.

17 A. No, not at all. For Prosecution, all information are important,

18 being from one or the other side engaged in the conflict. And we all

19 know that we used, in this trial, many documents from VRS side, many

20 documents from Muslim side and from UNPROFOR side, so many, many

21 documents. So everything is very important, and I would not say, you

22 know, something is more important than other -- or more reliable than

23 other. So for each and every single piece of information, you have to

24 assess it first, how important it is for your case, and then you can --

25 you can use it.

Page 16197

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.

2 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you, yes.

3 Given your expertise in documentation, which I believe you gained

4 by virtue of your position in the police of your country, maybe I should

5 start with asking: What special skills do you possess with regard to

6 handling documentation, by virtue of your position as a policeman in your

7 country, and what country is this that you belong to?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

9 I have been the member of the Slovenian police from 1993 onwards

10 up until 2006, when I joined this Tribunal, and I have been trained -- my

11 secondary -- I completed secondary police school, and later on also

12 college for police and security studies, and also I graduated from the

13 Criminal Investigations and obtained a specialist of criminal

14 investigations title. So this is my qualification. And throughout these

15 trainings and schools and studies, I've been involved in -- in these --

16 yeah, these issues how to also handle certain documentation which is

17 obtained throughout the investigation.

18 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

19 The second question I have is: Page 47, lines 16 to 20, your

20 answer is:

21 "The information, itself, is interesting, but, you know, on the

22 other hand, we have to know that this is your information, your

23 intelligence, which is not necessarily correct."

24 Given your expertise, can you assist me to understand how you

25 come to the conclusion that this particular intelligence is not

Page 16198

1 necessarily correct? Thank you.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

3 I didn't mean, actually, that it's not correct. I was just

4 speaking as hypothetically in this case, because it's not verified in

5 this case. I would need more -- more time to take a look into -- into

6 other documentation, if there is any corroborative documents which would

7 say, yes, this is what happened at that time. So when I used the word

8 "which is not necessarily correct," it was just hypothetically speaking

9 that information, especially intelligence information, might not be

10 always correct, especially when just a few minutes ago General Tolimir,

11 himself, asked me if it is possible or if I know that it is common for

12 intelligence services that some information must -- are misleading and

13 intentionally misleading, in this sense I was thinking of when testifying

14 about this might not necessarily be correct.

15 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I didn't want to ask a question to

18 the witness. I wanted to ask a question to the Defence, to

19 General Tolimir. I want to take advantage of this at this juncture,

20 because I've been listening to the questions and answers between

21 Judge Nyambe and the witness on possible false information provided by

22 one party.

23 General Tolimir, on page 44 of the transcript, lines 5 to 7, you

24 asked the witness whether the anti-electronic activities

25 services - what's the exact word in French - so the counter -- the

Page 16199

1 electronic counter-intelligence services during activities can provide

2 false information in order to gain combat advantage, and the witness said

3 it was possible. Now, I'm taking the floor because what we are dealing

4 with is a case, we're not dealing with theory, and the Prosecutor showed

5 us a series of intercepts, so intercepted conversation.

6 I would like to know how the Defence will organise its work

7 regarding that particular issue. Is the Defence going to use this

8 witness to tell us that such and such intercepts were fabricated to

9 deceive, or will you call further witnesses to confirm this submission,

10 because we're not dealing with a theory here. Actually, the President

11 told you not to do so, and rightly so.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position on that?

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

14 you, Judge Mindua.

15 I will not deny anything. Everything that the witness said

16 during the examination-in-chief is to my advantage, because not a single

17 document speaks of any activity of mine in combat. It says that in

18 Dayton, I was part of a joint criminal enterprise. Were Hill and others

19 also part of this enterprise? Then I have no need to prove anything. If

20 the Court thinks that all those who attended Dayton were members of a

21 joint criminal enterprise, I will be happy to be convicted of that. If

22 the Dayton Accord or the Accord on Freedom of Movement, signed and

23 proposed, actually, by UNPROFOR, are part of a joint criminal enterprise,

24 I accept that. Thank you.

25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Tolimir, I think that we're

Page 16200

1 talking at cross-purposes, because you did say that some intercepts may

2 have been fabricated, forged, to deceive the other party. Now, we have

3 to make -- to have an opinion on the basis of those intercepts, and my

4 question is: Will you provide evidence in order to make sure that these

5 intercepts have no probative value?

6 That's my question. Do you understand my question?

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were asked by Judge Mindua. Is

9 it possible for you to say something about it?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President. I was

11 waiting for you to finish conferring.

12 The Defence does not need to prove anything. It needs to

13 challenge the accusations by the OTP. That's what I'm trying to do. If

14 I am being asked to prove what they are saying, I'm willing to do that.

15 But it's not up to me to prove anything, but only to challenge what is

16 being put here.

17 Yesterday, I spoke about forgery. Look at 05542, admitted

18 through this witness, when I said that this was a false document, it was

19 forged by the OTP. Thank you. This is untrue, this document is untrue.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, this is

21 Exhibit P0446. Thank you.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Correction, Your Honour, P2446. Thank you.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 16201

1 As I don't have the document, let me tell you --

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are considering the situation. Please wait.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue your

6 cross-examination.

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

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Janc, we can see a document here. I won't read it out. And

10 it says that General M. Stanley sent an urgent message to

11 General Tolimir, saying that aerial attacks would follow unless the

12 shelling of the town of Bihac didn't stop, and General Tolimir denied,

13 and so on. My question: Have you checked who General M. Stanley is and

14 whether such a general, in fact, existed in Bosnia at the time of the

15 war? Thank you.

16 A. Yes, indeed, because of our conversation yesterday, I was able to

17 check this name of this individual this morning. And I have to agree

18 with you that this individual, he wasn't general at the time, but there

19 was Mike Stanley who was a colonel at the time. And I was able to find

20 that he was a member of British Army deployed in Sarajevo at the time,

21 and actually he's a Serb by origin. He's also having one other Serb

22 name, but I cannot remember it right now. So he existed at the time, and

23 I think because of his knowledge of Serb language, that's why he was in

24 contact with you.

25 Q. Thank you. As you can't recall --

Page 16202

1 [French interpretation on English channel]

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have now French in the English channel. That

3 was a mistake.

4 Please, again, your question. I think the interpreters will

5 check that. Go ahead, please.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Q. My question is: As you can't recall, it escapes you at the

8 moment, I'm asking you whether the man in question was perhaps

9 Milan Stankovic, who was in UNPROFOR and who spoke the Serbian language.

10 Thank you.

11 A. Yes, I think this is the person, yes.

12 Q. Thank you. Was he at the time of a lower rank than general and

13 colonel, quite a lot lower? Was he some sort of Serb interpreter for

14 General Rose? Thank you.

15 A. Yes, I agree with you, and I was not right when saying that he

16 was a colonel at that time. He was actually a captain.

17 Q. Thank you. Did you check whether the information provided by

18 Tolimir, that the Muslims, themselves, were shelling Bihac, was it

19 correct?

20 A. This information couldn't be corroborated by any independent

21 source, so I didn't find any corroborative documents regarding this

22 issue.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Could we now look at -- again look at document P2440, page 2,

25 which we had on the screen just a little while ago.

Page 16203

1 Could we look at page 2, paragraph 4. I will quote from

2 paragraph 4. It's the last page in English, just above the signature,

3 the second paragraph before last. It says:

4 "The conflicts between units of the 5th Corps of the so-called

5 BH Army and the forces of the National Defence of the Autonomous Province

6 of Western Bosnia continue, with no movements of the front-line. Members

7 of the 5th Corps Command stress that they will resolve the problem with

8 Fikret Abdic by negotiations, and that he will not be presented with an

9 ultimatum to surrender to 5th Corps forces."

10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11 Q. My question is as follows: Were you aware that the Muslims in

12 the Bihac pocket were at war with themselves? Some Muslims were attached

13 to Fikret Abdic, and they were at war with the 5th Corps of the BH Army,

14 and vice versa? Thank you?

15 A. I have to admit that I'm not very well aware of the situation in

16 Bihac area, because for most of the time being here with the OTP, I've

17 been dealing with Srebrenica investigations, so I wouldn't dare to say or

18 comment much on what was going on in that part of the Bosnia at the time.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

21 I'm not sure if I'm maybe missing something, but the date of this

22 document that General Tolimir is referring to seems to be from June 1994.

23 The intercept which he's put his question is from October -- I'm sorry,

24 September of 1994, so I'm not sure if the question that he's asked

25 Mr. Janc concerning the Muslim activity in Bihac is related to events

Page 16204

1 that transpired in June 1994 or in September 1994, to which the intercept

2 speaks. I haven't seen anything that connects these two documents in the

3 question, nor do I see that it arises from the context of the question

4 that such an inference can be drawn. So perhaps General Tolimir can

5 explain or elaborate, I suppose, on his question about whether or not the

6 information contained in his report in June relates to the events that

7 are in the intercept in September in some way.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

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

10 First of all, a correction to the transcript. This is not a

11 conversation from September, but 28th of June, 1996. It's written there.

12 Bear that in mind.

13 And, second, I used a quotation to show how long that conflict

14 lasted, and now I would like to ask Mr. Janc.

15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Do you know how this -- how long this conflict lasted and when it

17 ended?

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to understand your response.

19 Are you referring to the intercept of the 10th of September,

20 where this so-called General Stanley is mentioned, or are you referring

21 to another document, just to understand the different documents and

22 events and dates?

23 And I see here in the transcript, in your response:

24 "This is not a conversation from September ... 1996."

25 I think this must be another mistake. Please explain the

Page 16205

1 situation.

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

3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].

4 Q. Mr. Janc, this conversation that was allegedly intercepted, does

5 it date back to September, the one where General Mike Simon -- or,

6 rather, Milan Stankovic is mentioned?

7 A. Yes, it is dated 10 September 1994.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And not 1996, as you stated, Mr. Tolimir.

10 Please carry on.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 I note, for the record, it's a conversation recorded on the 10th

13 September 1994.

14 P24664 [as interpreted]. We're talking now about 2446, page 2,

15 paragraph 4, dealing with the origins of the conflict between Muslims in

16 the Bihac pocket.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. My question to Mr. Janc is this: Does he know whether this

19 conflict lasted until the end of the war, and was it so fierce that it

20 lasted more than a year?

21 A. Same answer as before. I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge

22 to answer this question.

23 Q. Considering that this document was introduced through you, I used

24 it as evidence because the Muslim conflict still went on at that time.

25 Now, at that time when this conversation happened in 1994, was the

Page 16206

1 conflict between the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the forces under

2 Fikret Abdic in the Bihac pocket still ongoing?

3 A. Based on information we can see from the intercept, itself, we

4 can conclude that, yes. And also from the information which are

5 contained in these reports -- UNPROFOR reports, yes, the conflict was

6 ongoing, yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc.

8 Could we now look at P2447. In English, it's page 2 in e-court,

9 paragraph 3.

10 There it is. It says -- it's the wrong document. I apologise to

11 the e-court and to the Trial Chamber. My mistake. It's 2448, page 2,

12 paragraph 3.

13 Thank you, Aleksandar.

14 Now the Trial Chamber can see this third paragraph. It says:

15 "General Rose told Vice-President Ganic that the Government of

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina cannot shell the Serbs and at the same time expect us

17 to intervene."

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. My question is: At this time, did General Rose confirm as well

20 that Muslims wanted NATO to intervene against Serb positions?

21 A. You mean by this, this document?

22 Q. I'll repeat my question. Does this document confirm - it's dated

23 10 September 1994 - that Muslims asked UNPROFOR that NATO should

24 intervene against the Army of Republika Srpska in the Bihac pocket?

25 That's also 10 September, the same date when this conversation was

Page 16207

1 recorded.

2 A. I don't think it's -- it confirms that NATO should intervene.

3 But as I read it here, you know, that they were informed -- the NATO or

4 UNPROFOR was informed, what was going on on the ground.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, in fact, I don't find the sentence

6 you have read into the record. Where is --

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, it would be in the second

8 complete paragraph, but third -- what is apparently the third paragraph

9 down in the page, and it's the second -- third sentence of that

10 paragraph. It's just about halfway through the page.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Because it was in a

12 different way recorded, and therefore I asked, I would like to read it

13 into the record. I quote:

14 "General Rose has accordingly advised Vice-President Ganic that

15 the government cannot shell the Serbs and at the same time expect us to

16 intervene."

17 Is this the relevant part of this document you were referring to,

18 Mr. Tolimir?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. That is

20 the relevant passage.

21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

22 Q. And my question to Mr. Janc is: Does this document confirm that

23 the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina expected at the same time from

24 General Rose that NATO would intervene? It's 10 September 1994, the date

25 when I said they want to force NATO to intervene against Bosnian Serbs.

Page 16208

1 Does this document confirm it?

2 A. Yes, it's written there, that -- what is expected from the

3 UNPROFOR, so this is what they were most probably told at the time; I

4 mean, the UNPROFOR was told by the Vice-President Ganic at the time. So

5 this written there, so that's all I can comment on. But what steps have

6 been taken by UNPROFOR later on, I don't know.

7 Q. Thank you for this answer. Please, does this transcript we're

8 looking at, dated 10 September 1994, 2446 - if we could see it again,

9 thank you, P2446 - the document we had before this one, is it

10 coincidental that at the same time, demands are made for NATO

11 intervention simultaneously with these intercepts, with very grand names

12 given to interlocutors, making them look like generals, and is it proper

13 evidence for a court?

14 A. Again, if it is proper evidence, I think it's up to the

15 Trial Chamber, at the end, to decide and to put weight on these

16 documents. But, yes, I can admit that Mr. Mike Stanley hasn't been a

17 general at that time. He was captain, and this information in intercept

18 is wrong. Why is it written "General," I can't say. Again, because we

19 know this is a summary, perhaps it was a confusion of the intercept

20 operator who has prepared this summary, or whoever prepared this summary,

21 or something else I can't say. But the other information from the

22 intercept, itself, has been corroborated by these documents, and this is

23 what was going on at the time on the field.

24 Q. Thank you. And did you study the situation on the ground at the

25 time, and do you know what the Muslims were demanding from NATO at the

Page 16209

1 time and all the things they were doing to cause a NATO reaction against

2 Serbs? Have you studied that? Is it something a researcher would do or

3 is it something that is for the Trial Chamber to do?

4 A. I have to admit that I haven't been studying the situation in

5 Bihac at that time very extensively, because when preparing for this

6 testimony, I've been mostly focusing on corroborative documents which

7 might confirm or support this intercept. And in order to confirm the

8 reliability of intercept, itself, I didn't go into deep details what was,

9 indeed, going on on the ground at that time in that area. That would

10 entail a lot of work, and I'm sure that other investigators who have been

11 dealing with this particular area within the OTP have been studying these

12 documents. But me, personally, not.

13 Q. Thank you. The Prosecution called another witness here, who used

14 to be a commander in Bihac, and asked absolutely no questions about this,

15 although the person was very qualified to speak about it. It had to do

16 with General Milovanovic.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is your question?

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. My question was: Does the witness know that General Milovanovic

20 was here as a Prosecution witness and that he could have been asked about

21 this issue? He was much more qualified than a researcher or an

22 investigator, but nothing was asked of him.

23 A. Yes, I can confirm that he was here and he testified, and I'm

24 sure he was much more qualified to talk about the incidents and what was

25 going in that area at the time than any researcher here from the OTP,

Page 16210

1 because he was witnessing these events.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 I would like e-court to now show P2452, to stop wasting time on

4 this event described in two sentences.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Now, when we look at P2452, it's again a transcript introduced

7 through you. Please look at line 5, which begins with the words:

8 "Tolimir." Tolimir said:

9 "Sector Sarajevo ... due to the shortage of fuel ..."

10 Et cetera, et cetera.

11 My question is: Did you see in other transcripts that Tolimir

12 said that, like you compared it to 2453, or perhaps someone else said

13 that?

14 A. I think the corroborative documents to this intercept is the

15 other intercept from the BiH side, and we would need to take a look into

16 that one, I think, to compare, perhaps, both of them and to check that.

17 But I can take a look right now, having it here.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think Mr. Tolimir is right. It could be P2453,

19 which is 65 ter 5612, behind tab 5.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I ask the electronic courtroom to

21 show it below the text in Serbian or in English, if possible. If not, we

22 should display it separately.

23 We can see it now.

24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Look at line 4, please, where it says:

Page 16211

1 "Brinkman: I told Tolimir this morning that Sarajevo was in a

2 difficult situation ...," et cetera.

3 Did such a transcript lead to confusion, ascribing certain words

4 to one person, whereas they were actually uttered by another person? In

5 other words, was something that Brinkman said ascribed to

6 General Tolimir?

7 A. Yes, you're right. Here we have a situation where we have such a

8 problem, when we have two intercepts. One is the actual transcript, this

9 the one which we see on the screen, and the other one is a summary. So

10 and this can happen, which I testified before, when you're summarising

11 something, that you put it down, something which is differently where

12 what was actually said. So and here is one example. So we don't know,

13 actually, which is -- which is correct now, because in both we have

14 information that -- that was discussed, the problem with the fuel in

15 Sarajevo Sector, but in one intercept we have that General Tolimir said

16 that; in another one, that General Brinkman. So but this is the

17 intercept. I'm referring now the Croatian one, the other one which is

18 not on the screen now, where it is noted that the sound quality was poor,

19 so and this might be part of the reason why someone didn't understand

20 correctly what was being said during the conversation.

21 Q. Thank you. And would you agree with me that for whatever reason,

22 because of whatever mistake, a summary may ascribe certain words to one

23 interlocutor rather than the person who really said it?

24 A. Yes, everything is possible. We have also instances where actual

25 transcripts of the intercepts were transcribed wrongly, so that

Page 16212

1 interlocutors were wrong, actually, once this was assigned to another

2 interlocutor involved. So there are such problems in these intercepts,

3 but I would say not in all cases. You would find such problems in some

4 of them, but not in all of them. It is normal, with this kind of work,

5 that you also made a mistake.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we need our second break now.

7 We adjourn, and resume quarter past 6.00.

8 --- Recess taken at 5.47 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 6.20 p.m.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Q. While we are looking at this exhibit, look at where it says:

13 "Translated from English." Can you explain why this is a translation

14 into English from a Serbian text by a certain woman called Svetlana, who

15 served as an interpreter for UNPROFOR?

16 A. It says here that it is translated from English in intercept,

17 itself, into Serbian, I would assume, or into B/C/S, and we've been

18 discussing this issue yesterday. We have three of such intercepts where

19 it says: "Translation from English," and they were all provided to the

20 OTP by the SDB Sarajevo back in 2002. One of the reasons would be that

21 conversation was going on partially in English and translated into B/C/S,

22 and that's why, perhaps, this conversation was noted down initially in

23 English, because we can see here, under number 1, that the conversation

24 is going on with help of interpreter.

25 Q. This is a Croatian intercept, or, rather, summary, and we see

Page 16213

1 that this conversation was assisted by an interpreter. Was this

2 interpreter with one interlocutor, since this was a telephone

3 conversation, or was the interpreter present with both speakers?

4 A. First of all, what we have on our screen is the BiH MUP SDB

5 intercept, and not Croatian intercept. And as I understand, only one

6 interpreter was involved, with the name Svetlana, which is not on this

7 intercept which we have on our screen, but her name appears on the

8 Croatian intercept.

9 Q. Thank you. Since you proved this transcript on the screen using

10 this Croatian text that indicates that the conversation took place with

11 the assistance of Svetlana, the interpreter, can you tell us whether

12 these two conversation were identical or is there a possibility that the

13 interpreter was interpreting from English? Could it have gone into air

14 in Serbian if it was a conversation that took place with the help of an

15 interpreter who was speaking Serbian? Could it have gone into air -- on

16 air in English?

17 A. Logically, it would go into the air in Serbian language, because

18 she is actually conducting conversation with the VRS side and she's

19 communicating what is -- or translating what is said to her by

20 General Brinkman in Serbian language to the VRS side. So it would be

21 going through the air in Serbian language, of course.

22 Q. Thank you. Is this, then, an intercept or something else, seeing

23 that it took place with the assistance of an interpreter who was able to

24 hear what the general was saying and was not going on air; I mean, what

25 General Brinkman was saying?

Page 16214

1 A. You know, when you are talking over the phone and you have a

2 conversation with interpreter present, you are discussing or you're

3 having conversation in front of the telephone as well, so whatever you

4 say perhaps in English is most probably also going through the air

5 somehow, and what else the interpreter is interpreting back into English

6 to you is also probably heard and going through the air somehow. So I

7 can't say exactly what kind of intercept this is, but it's possible,

8 because it was heard by both sides, Croatian side and BiH side, that it

9 is a conversation going through the air.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, I need a clarification.

11 Do you know anything about a person with the name Svetlana? Do

12 you know the second name, do you know whether she was engaged to one of

13 the sides of UNPROFOR, or do you know anything more?

14 THE WITNESS: I don't recall her last name right now, but I'm

15 quite sure that she worked for the UNPROFOR side.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What conclusion would you draw from this

17 information with respect to her position during this conversation? Was

18 she present with General Brinkman or with General Mladic?

19 THE WITNESS: I would say she was present with General Brinkman.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, what could be heard by the

21 interlocutors -- no, by those who made the intercept? Which language

22 could be heard?

23 THE WITNESS: Most logically would be that, of course, the

24 Serbian language would be heard going through the air. But if someone is

25 conducting conversation and the other one is interpreting to him, also

Page 16215

1 this part of conversation can be heard, what is going on. So I wouldn't

2 exclude the possibility that what was said in English language by

3 General Brinkman was also heard over the air.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

5 Mr. Tolimir.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Have you just expressed your assumptions or

8 something you know?

9 A. No, this is something I know, because we have, I think, audio --

10 let me explain just because why -- because I think we have audio records

11 of the conversations between Gvero and General Nicolai, and I think we

12 can hear both, and the station is the same. Svetlana is interpreting.

13 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that some transcripts were introduced

14 here of conversations where you hear only the Serbian speaker, never

15 anyone from the UNPROFOR Command? Could you explain why this is so?

16 A. Yes, we also have such situations when we also hear the Serbian

17 speakers, and I don't know -- you know, it's more technical issues,

18 I think, why at some point both sides can be heard and other situations

19 only one side can be -- or only one interlocutor can be heard.

20 Q. Thank you. Here is a conversation when you can hear both

21 speakers, and what Brinkman is saying is related in Serbian, as is what

22 General Mladic says. Would it be logical that any intercept operator

23 would hear the English language and make a note that something is said

24 and heard in English? Would it be proper to reflect that?

25 A. Yes, of course it would be proper. And, you know, we don't know

Page 16216

1 much -- enough about this particular conversation, why it was noted like

2 that or why it says: "Translation from English." So there are several

3 options, and I don't exclude the possibility that the original intercept

4 has been transcribed in English just because, perhaps, only one side of

5 the conversation can be heard.

6 Q. Thank you. If the two interlocutors are speaking in a room, and

7 Svetlana is talking on the phone and relating only what Brinkman says,

8 would it be logical to hear only Svetlana and her interlocutor, and if

9 you are eavesdropping on the room, you would hear both ends of the

10 conversation?

11 A. You know, sometimes -- and we have those notes in intercepts that

12 only one side can be heard. But in this specific situation, even if only

13 one side was heard, and in this case I would say the UNPROFOR side,

14 because you have interpreter involved in it, he would interpret

15 everything what was said on the other side. And in this case, if you can

16 hear what one side is saying, you would actually hear the whole

17 conversation from both sides, because this would be interpreted back to

18 the person who is involved in the conversation. And that's one of the

19 reasons why, perhaps, this was transcribed in English and then translated

20 into B/C/S.

21 Q. Thank you. And do you see that in this intercept, as you call

22 it, General Mladic says, in line 3:

23 "I'm listening."

24 And then "M" says:

25 "The convoy will be approved."

Page 16217

1 And then in the third line from the bottom, he says:

2 "You'll have it tomorrow."

3 And in the last line, he says:

4 "Good night."

5 Were both interlocutors heard over the wire on the air? Thank

6 you.

7 A. Yes, most probably, but not necessarily, because what I just

8 explained is that this, for example, "Good night" word might be

9 translated in this intercept from the English translation of

10 Interpreter Svetlana, so it is not necessary that the intercept operator

11 heard General Mladic, itself. It's possible that he just heard the

12 translation of what General Mladic said.

13 Q. Thank you. As you are excluding the possibility that

14 General Mladic was heard, you say that he heard only Svetlana and

15 translated her, is it possible that the intercepting devices were in the

16 room where Svetlana was having a conversation with the general in

17 English, and that this is what was recorded and transcribed? Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the beginning of your question was a

19 misstatement. Mr. Janc said - that was the last part of his

20 answer - it's possible that he just heard the translation of what

21 General Mladic said. Your representation was, I quote:

22 "As you are excluding the possibility that General Mladic was

23 heard ..."

24 I don't see a foundation for this statement. Please phrase your

25 questions carefully.

Page 16218

1 Continue, please.

2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Q. Mr. Janc, for the sake of clarity: In this conversation, were

4 both Svetlana and General Mladic heard? Can they both be heard? Thank

5 you.

6 A. From this piece of information we have in front of us, meaning

7 from this intercept, I can't conclude either way. So it can be that both

8 were heard or only one was -- one side was heard involved in this

9 conversation. So they are both options possible.

10 Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, if both interlocutors were not heard, was

11 this an intercept of a conversation or was it a monologue? Thank you.

12 A. No, it is intercepted communications still, and it's not a

13 monologue. It's just that only one side of -- involved in conversation

14 can be heard, which is due to technical reasons, because the other side

15 cannot be intercepted for some reason. I think that in front of this

16 Trial Chamber, there were evidence and witnesses explaining why that

17 happened, that only one side can be heard. And because of the

18 involvement of the interpreter, I explained why is that -- is then also

19 possible that you can hear actually what the other side was saying,

20 because everything is interpreted.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, may I jump in and put a question.

22 How is it possible to have such a record of a conversation,

23 suggesting that two people, Mr. Mladic and Mr. Brinkman, are discussing,

24 and at the end say, Good night, to each other, if only one side could be

25 heard? Could you explain that?

Page 16219

1 THE WITNESS: Yes. My understanding would be that if initially

2 this was transcribed in English, because it says: "Translation from

3 English," everything what was said in English was transcribed, and most

4 probably the translator/interpreter translated the word "good night" back

5 to Mr. Brinkman, and that was what was heard, and it was noted as Mladic

6 said that. That's my understanding, that this is possible, because

7 sometimes you would put it like the other side was talking, regardless

8 that that was interpreted to Mr. Brinkman.

9 So from my point of view, a better transcript would be, actually,

10 what was said by each person involved in a communication. If interpreter

11 said something, I would put that interpreter said this and that or

12 interpreted back what other person said during the conversation. But in

13 a wartime period, when you have many of those conversations, perhaps this

14 was not the important issue and they haven't put much -- much effort to

15 do it in a proper way. So it's difficult -- it's difficult, actually,

16 just based on this intercept, to decide whether both sides were heard

17 during a conversation or only one. It's difficult for me to explain.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, if - and I assume that was the

19 case - Svetlana was together with General Brinkman during this

20 conversation, and he helped to understand the words of Mladic and

21 interpreted back to Mr. Mladic, assuming that either Mr. Brinkman or

22 Svetlana was talking, can you exclude the possibility that both sides

23 were to be heard, as written down here in this document, both sides? I'm

24 referring to Mr. Mladic and Mr. Brinkman, or Svetlana interpreting for

25 him.

Page 16220

1 THE WITNESS: No, this cannot be excluded, so it's totally

2 possible that both sides were heard during this conversation.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you exclude the possibility that only one

4 side was heard by the intercept operator, only Mr. Mladic or the UNPROFOR

5 side?

6 THE WITNESS: It's totally possible that only one side was heard

7 during the conversation, I would say.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How is that possible, if you look at this

9 document, where it is said that Mr. Brinkman, himself, or by the

10 interpreter, Svetlana, said something, and then there is an answer by

11 Mr. Mladic, and then again something which is supposed to have been said

12 by Mr. Brinkman or Svetlana?

13 THE WITNESS: We have to know that this is the translation from

14 English, as it says. At the beginning, as part of this document, we have

15 this notation, this is translation from English. And we know that

16 General Mladic hasn't been responding in English, and in that case this

17 is impossible that this conversation would take place in English between

18 these two individuals.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not suggesting that the communication was in

20 English. Looking at this document, I see that there are two sides

21 communicating with requests and an answer, and another answer, and so on.

22 If Svetlana was on the UNPROFOR side with Mr. Brinkman, I would assume it

23 was in Serbian, the whole communication between Svetlana and Mr. Mladic.

24 I just want to understand how it could be that you have a reference to

25 both sides in this document if only one side was heard by the intercept

Page 16221

1 operator.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think that -- I am trying to explain this,

3 because when she has been -- if only the UNPROFOR side was heard during

4 the conversation, whatever was said by Mr. Mladic in B/C/S, this had been

5 translated by Interpreter Svetlana in English into [sic] Brinkman, and

6 on that occasion the intercept operator heard what was translated, and

7 that's what he put down as being said by Mladic. That's my

8 understanding, that this might be the case.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now I understand.

10 Thank you very much.

11 If you look at line 3 of this conversation, for the first time

12 the line starts with "M," and then it is written there, I quote:

13 "I am listening (X ...," who should be the interpreter, if you

14 look three lines up, "... assumes that this is General Mladic)."

15 Does this line support your last explanation of a possible way

16 the intercept operators could catch the conversation, or what is your

17 interpretation of this line?

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, the same, it might be, you know, translated,

19 and what -- translated back to Mr. Brinkman by Interpreter Svetlana, what

20 General Mladic said, and also she might add to that what she translated,

21 that she assumes that this is General Mladic. So this, what is in

22 brackets, I would say, is not what was said by General Mladic, but what

23 was added by Interpreter Svetlana.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

25 Mr. Tolimir, my apologies for the interruption, but I wanted to

Page 16222

1 understand the understanding of Mr. Janc of this document.

2 Please carry on.

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

4 Thank you, Mr. President. I was having some minor problems with

5 my screen, but I have been assisted and now it's working.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

7 Q. It says up here: "The MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina SDB." Can you

8 explain to the Chamber what this means?

9 A. Yes. "MUP" is Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina. "SDB" is State Security Service, which is part of MUP.

11 Q. Thank you. Please tell us, from your experience, did the

12 State Security Service engage in eavesdropping? Thank you.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Did its Department 6 engage in bugging rooms or

15 premises or intercepting radio waves? Are you aware of that?

16 A. No, I'm not aware of what exactly Department 6 is engaged with.

17 Q. Thank you. Please, did you ever wonder who this person, "NI277"

18 was, whether that person could be identified, and whether it was this

19 person who translated this from English?

20 A. It's possible that we talked to individual from that service who

21 might identify this individual with number 277, but I'm not exactly sure

22 if he asked this individual about this particular intercept.

23 Q. Thank you. As it can be seen in the document tendered here that

24 it is a translation from English, can you tell us whether you are in the

25 possession of the original from which this translation was made?

Page 16223

1 A. No. Unfortunately, this is all we have.

2 Q. Thank you. Is it possible that the American intelligence service

3 delivered the text in English and that it was then translated into B/C/S

4 by the translator?

5 A. I don't know. That would be speculation from my side. I don't

6 have enough information to say either way.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Let's look at P245 [as interpreted] admitted into evidence

9 through your testimony and which you explained here. Thank you.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please give us the correct reference. It can't

11 be P245.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I may have made an error when

13 noting it down. It's 65 ter 05547. It's P2454. Thank you.

14 Thank you, Aleksandar.

15 Now we see the document. It's the document where:

16 "Aleksandar Radovic of the US informed General Tolimir that they

17 had reliable information that the BH Army was receiving information from

18 satellite images which the Americans have been sending them."

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. My question is the following: Do you know whether the Americans

21 delivered to UNPROFOR information arising from eavesdropping the warring

22 parties? Did the Americans do this for UNPROFOR as well?

23 A. I don't know. I don't have such information.

24 Q. Thank you. Are you aware that pilotless aircraft were also

25 responsible for gathering intelligence for electronic reconnaissance?

Page 16224

1 A. Yes, I would assume so, yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Did you find any information to the effect that

3 pilotless aircraft were conducting a reconnaissance of the territory?

4 Thank you.

5 A. Not directly. I know that you have been reporting about those

6 pilotless aircrafts within your reports very often.

7 Q. Thank you. Are you aware that all UNPROFOR premises were under

8 the surveillance of American intelligence services?

9 A. No, I'm not.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Can we look at D48, please, page 28, and page 3 in Serbian. I do

12 apologise. It's page 28, paragraph 3.

13 Please look at the part underlined in red. Page 28, thank you.

14 Thank you. It's on this first page that we see on the screen the

15 part underlined in red ink. I quote:

16 "The former UNPROFOR commander, Rose, claims in his memoirs that

17 his former headquarters in Sarajevo was monitored by US services in 1994

18 and 1995."

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. My question is as follows: Is it possible that the English

21 recorded the conversation in a room and that it was somehow delivered to

22 the American security service, who translated the transcripts?

23 I'm sorry, I said "the English," but I should have said "the

24 Americans."

25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]