1 Monday, 7 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2:27 p.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we're having problems with my laptop. I am

6 not receiving -- the text is not scrolling on my -- let me --

7 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Now it is.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but over here. But here it isn't in my

9 notebook. So in the meantime, we can start, and I'll ask one of the

10 technicians, if possible, to come over and try and solve this problem for

11 me. It's only mine.

12 Good afternoon, Madam Registrar. Could I ask you to call the

13 case, please.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number

15 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam, and good afternoon. Appearances.

17 Mr. Oric, good afternoon to you. Can you follow the proceedings in your

18 own language?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour; ladies

20 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings in my own language.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down.

22 Appearances for the Prosecution.

23 MR. WUBBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honour. My name is Jan Wubben,

24 lead counsel for the Prosecution, and good afternoon for the Defence team

25 as well. I'm here together with co-counsel, Gramsci Di Fazio, and

1 Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink, our case manager.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Good afternoon to, Mr. Wubben, and

3 your team, of course.

4 Appearances for the Defence.

5 MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Your Honour. My name is John Jones,

6 and I appear on behalf of Naser Oric, with Jasmina Cosic and Geoff

7 Roberts, our legal assistant and CaseMap manager respectively.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Good afternoon to you and your team.

9 I see you are not the full team today. Do I assume that we are in the

10 same position as we left it last time that, in other words, Madam Vidovic

11 is back here, or will be back here today?

12 MR. JONES: She won't be back today. She'll be back towards the

13 end of this week. In fact, I think probably on Sunday. But that doesn't

14 prevent us from continuing. We're in a position deal with witnesses this

15 week and --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the important thing. In the meantime, please

17 convey to Madam Vidovic our best wishes for a quick recovery.

18 MR. JONES: Yes, I will do. Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: So any preliminaries before we bring in the witness?

20 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, for this week, the Prosecution tried to

21 reschedule the witnesses, and we filed subsequently our projected

22 witnesses list as such. And another issue is that we hand over today a

23 courtesy copy of a videolink conference motion that's due after Easter,

24 meaning that the day after Easter, we request the Trial Chamber to have

25 the videolink conference with one of our projected witnesses.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: The day after Easter, that would be when?

2 MR. WUBBEN: The 29th and 30th of March.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we will be here. We will not be

4 here. We are going to have an Easter recess, starting from Thursday the

5 24th, resuming Monday, the 4th.

6 MR. WUBBEN: Oh, then --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: The 4th of April.

8 MR. WUBBEN: In that case, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Also because of certain needs that some of us have.

10 MR. WUBBEN: In that case, Your Honour, we will withdraw our

11 motion and refile it --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, you refile it with another day. But In

13 fact, I was coming back to you on this, that according to the list of

14 witnesses that I had, it seemed that you had intended to bring a

15 witness -- to have a witness here on the 24th, which is Thursday. Yes,

16 exactly. On the 24th, we won't be able to sit. We'll sit until the 23rd.

17 We'll sit until the 23rd.

18 MR. WUBBEN: We'll take that into account and reschedule, Your

19 Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

21 Is that all?

22 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour. Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio has another

23 application to do.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, delegated problems. Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, can I just address you in

1 private session about this matter?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course, Mr. Di Fazio. Let's go into private

3 session, please.

4 [Private session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 5512-5523 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Witness, the proceedings will proceed -- will

7 continue with your testimony being given in open session.

8 One moment. I want to make sure that you are receiving

9 interpretation. Just give me a sign with your head. Yes, okay, don't

10 speak for the time being, please.

11 So the -- your testimony will proceed now in private session.

12 However -- in public session. However, after hearing your request for

13 protective measures, and after having heard also the Prosecution and the

14 Defence in this regard, we have come to the conclusion to grant you the

15 following protective measures; namely, that you will testify with voice

16 and facial distortion, and of course under a pseudonym, because otherwise

17 the rest wouldn't make sense. So you are going to be referred to as

18 Witness C008. And I enjoin both parties to please remember that when

19 addressing the witness, not to address her by her own name. That's number

20 1.

21 Number 2 is the following: We will be, as I said, having voice

22 distortion in place. That entails some caution on each and every one

23 present here in this courtroom, in the sense that when the witness is

24 speaking, then all other microphones must be switched off, so I take it

25 that if, for example, you, Mr. Di Fazio, have just put a question to the

1 witness, before she starts answering your question, please switch off your

2 microphone. It's impossible for me to keep track and watch each and every

3 one of you continuously while I also have to watch the witness, her

4 demeanour, monitor the transcript, and everything. So please try to

5 cooperate with us as much as you can. We will, at the same time, try to

6 pay as much attention to these matters as much as we can, but please try

7 to do the same yourselves.

8 So, Witness C008, we are now going to proceed with your testimony,

9 start, actually, with your testimony. I hope you have understood what I

10 said before, and that you are happy with the protective measures that we

11 have granted you.

12 Mr. Di Fazio will be the first one to go. After all, you have

13 been summoned to give testimony here by the Office of the Prosecutor. The

14 procedure is, as it is in any other court of law, where you will be asked

15 a question, you are required to answer that question. I suggest to you

16 that not only you're bound by the solemn declaration that you entered

17 earlier, but I suggest to you also that you try to answer the question,

18 the whole question, and nothing but the question; otherwise, you will be

19 here for ages. The same applies later on. After Mr. Di Fazio has

20 concluded his examination-in-chief, then it will be Mr. Jones, who is

21 appearing for Mr. Oric, who will cross-examine you. You owe him the same

22 honesty and truthfulness in your own answers as you do when asked

23 questions by the Prosecution. You have no right to distinguish between

24 Prosecution and Defence. Your duty is to answer all questions truthfully

25 and fully, to the best of your ability, irrespective of who is putting

1 them to you.

2 Again, when you are answering the questions put to you by Mr.

3 Jones, please try to be brief and answer the question, the whole question,

4 and nothing but the question.

5 I leave you now in the hands of Mr. Di Fazio.

6 Mr. Di Fazio, please.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 5527 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 5528 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Open session]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps you can ask the witness now, in the period

2 relevant to the indictment, what was her occupation, whether, in

3 particular, she was employed in any particular office that you intend to

4 ask her questions about.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I will.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that is important for the purposes of --

7 yes, go ahead.

8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, yes.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

11 Q. Now, you've given a description of the various acronyms used as a

12 result of name changes of this organisation that you worked for. In 1992

13 and 1993, were you working in just such an organisation?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What name did it bear in 1992 and 1993?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness seems to have trouble with her

17 headphones, if Your Honours please.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please switch off your microphone, please.

19 Are you receiving interpretation? At the moment there are

20 problems with the interpretations, please raise your hand and draw our

21 attention straight away, please. Thank you.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you answer Mr. Di Fazio's question now?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll repeat it, if I may, Your Honour.

25 Q. You told us that you were working in 1992 and 1993. What I want

1 you to tell the Trial Chamber is this: What was the name of the

2 organisation that you were working for in 1992 and 1993? Which of those

3 various acronyms did it bear?

4 A. In 1992, it was called the Office of State Security, and in 1993,

5 it was the Agency for Investigation and Documentation.

6 Q. Other than the name changes, was there any significant difference

7 in your job and the responsibilities that you had?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Thank you. It's not in dispute that you were responsible for the

10 intercepts of telephone conversations in the sense that you would

11 transcribe intercepted telephone calls. And I want to ask you now to --

12 about that.

13 Firstly, can you tell the Trial Chamber what the method of

14 recording intercepted telephone calls was in your section in 1992 and

15 1993?

16 A. Could you please explain in more detail what actually you have in

17 mind?

18 Q. Okay. Was there a method of recording telephone conversations

19 that you adopted in 1992 and 1993, using cassette tapes?

20 A. For me as an employee, the method was not known, so I would get a

21 cassette, I would take it off, put it into the player, and then I would

22 transcribe the conversation recorded on that tape.

23 Q. Thank you. We'll get to that part of the process in due course,

24 but I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber of the methodology used

25 before that. How was the actual recording first made?

1 A. The recording was made at the switchboard, so there was a

2 switchboard which was -- which was recording. This method was not

3 available to me as an employee. My part of work was to transcribe this

4 tape, as I already said.

5 Q. I understand that fully. I understand that fully. But what I'm

6 asking you about is the creation of the tape in the first place. First of

7 all, were cassette tapes used? Just answer me yes or no.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Would -- how would the cassette tape be used in order to record a

10 conversation on a telephone?

11 A. A tape, a cassette, was put into the switchboard.

12 Q. If the targeted telephone was being used, what would this

13 switchboard machine do?

14 A. At the moment when somebody started to talk, if this was the

15 person that -- whose telephone calls we were intercepting, then at the

16 time when that person phoned somebody, or when somebody would phone him,

17 immediately the switchboard would switch on.

18 Q. Is that when the recording would be made on the cassette tape?

19 A. No. That recording would automatically be left on the tape, so

20 the recording was on the tape.

21 Q. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. So at the end of the

22 conversation, when the phone is no longer being used, would the cassette

23 keep recording or would it terminate the recording process?

24 A. The cassette could be of 60 or 90 minutes of length, depending on

25 the need. If we wanted to make the job as quick as possible, we would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 immediately take the tape off and transcribe the tape, or we would leave

2 it there to record several phone conversations on the same tape. So you

3 could keep it running for the full length of 90 minutes or 60 minutes,

4 depending on the kind of tape used.

5 Q. Do I understand your answer to be, therefore, that one cassette

6 tape might contain several intercepted -- sorry, might contain recordings

7 of several intercepted telephone conversations on the same phone?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was the process of initiating the recording and termination of the

10 recording on the cassette automatic? In other words, was it performed by

11 the machine?

12 A. It was.

13 Q. Was there a system of lights on this machine that conducted the

14 recording of the telephone conversations?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What did lights on the machine indicate?

17 A. If the light was turned on, it meant that the conversation

18 started, and if the light was turned off, it meant that the conversation

19 was over.

20 Q. And before we leave this topic, one more matter. Well, I'll

21 withdraw that.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, about now is time for our

23 break, if this is an opportune moment.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's have a break. Try to keep it as short

25 as possible.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: As you can see, I'm going to be very fast this

2 afternoon.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then we'll have a 25-minute break. Thank

4 you.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, let's proceed.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 A. I can hardly answer that question. What I receive is a proposal

23 saying that a measure has been taken against a certain telephone. It is

24 not up to me to decide who will be tapped, or why. What I do is I receive

25 a proposal and I take the conversation down from the phone that has been

1 requested. That's when my job stops.

2 Q. Thank you. During the time that you were working there in 1992

3 and 1993, did you hear the same person -- often hear the same person using

4 a particular intercepted telephone?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Would you be able to identify that person, as time went by, as a

7 result of the person saying who he or she was over the phone?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thinking back to 1992 and 1993, did you also come to recognise

10 particular voices used on particular telephones?

11 A. If, for example, I were given a transcript to listen to again, I'm

12 sure I would very soon identify the speaker.

13 Q. Thank you. Does that mean, do I understand you to say, therefore,

14 that back in 1992 and 1993, after having heard telephone conversations

15 involving a particular speaker, you were able to recognise that person's

16 voice?

17 A. Yes. After, perhaps, 10 or 15 days, I would be certain about

18 who's speaking.

19 Q. So you would be in a position to identify a speaker during a

20 telephone conversation not only as a result of the person saying who he or

21 she was but also because you recognised voices?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. The system of transcription now. You've told us about

24 the system of recording. I'd like you now to explain to the Trial Chamber

25 the system of transcription that you've referred to. What did you do once

1 an intercepted call had been recorded on these cassettes that you have

2 mentioned?

3 MR. DI FAZIO: I saw the witness gesticulating.

4 Q. Did you hear my last question?

5 A. Yes. Once a cassette was taken off the switchboard's reel, you

6 would put it on a different reel-to-reel recorder. You'd switch it on and

7 you'd go from conversation to conversation. Everything that has been

8 recorded is faithfully transcribed by your own hand. This wasn't

9 something that was typewritten.

10 Q. And was that your job in 1993 and 1992, to listen to these tapes

11 and transcribe the contents in your own handwriting onto paper?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown P35 --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we proceed, because, I mean, these things

16 have been circulating in my mind for quite some time, actually, because of

17 course I cannot anticipate what your questions are. Has the witness been

18 given clearance by the organisation she works for to come and testify

19 here? That's question number 1. The reason, Mr. Di Fazio, I think I know

20 a little bit about these things, as much as you and Mr. Jones do, I mean,

21 members of the security agencies of countries do not just fall down from

22 heaven and turn into prosecution witnesses in court cases just like that.

23 I mean, they obtain clearance first, security clearance.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Do Your Honours have the witness' statement?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, I'm suggesting this: It's because I

1 would like you to put the question.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

3 Q. Do you know a gentleman named Amir Ahmic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is his position Minister Councillor, Liaison Officer, with the

6 embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In June of 2004, did he grant permission to you to discuss the

9 sorts of matters that I've been asking you about, to provide that

10 information to the Office of the Prosecutor?

11 A. Yes, through my service.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, that's as far as I can go.

13 Does that satisfy you?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: It is necessary, because whoever is following the

15 proceedings outside -- outside this Tribunal, particularly in Yugoslavia,

16 ought to know that this witness particularly did not knock at the door of

17 the Office of the Prosecutor and say, Can I please give you information on

18 intercepts, et cetera.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, right.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: That's number 1.

21 The second thing that I would like the witness to inform the Trial

22 Chamber about is who decided on who would be -- would have his telephone

23 line bugged, and what would someone in the position of the witness, in the

24 chain of -- know at that point in time.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I'll ask the witness that, if Your Honours

1 please. I don't know how much information we'll get, but I'll ask her.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know.

3 MR. DI FAZIO:

4 Q. The question of targeting of individuals, and the recording of

5 their telephone conversations and the subsequent transcription, were you

6 in any way concerned with that process; namely, the selection of persons

7 whose phone calls were going to be recorded?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Of the persons whose conversations you transcribed, did you know

10 why they were being -- their conversations were being recorded?

11 A. No. We would simply receive a request, a proposal, saying that

12 such and such phone lines should be tapped for security reasons, and that

13 would be all.

14 Q. Thank you. I'll move on.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Would the information be -- or the

16 instructions refer only to a particular telephone, or would you also have

17 an indication as to who owns that telephone line, or to whom that

18 telephone line belongs? And in that case, would you be told the name of

19 that person or would that person be referred to by a pseudonym or a code

20 name?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sometimes I would get the name and

22 sometimes I would get a pseudonym.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

24 Can the witness be shown P354. Your Honours, the English version

25 of this document is on Sanction. And, of course, if the witness could be

1 shown the B/C/S version of this exhibit.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I would like to see the B/C/S version of this

3 transcript as well, at least for a while, just to have a glance at it.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps it can be put on the ELMO, then.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, it's all right. I don't need to

6 see it anymore. It's important that the witness sees it now. Thank you.

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 Until you finish this initial part, I don't think it's in the

24 public interest to know which department she was in.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: That is so.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: And the operative numbers and whatever. I think we

2 can keep that in private session, and we'll take it up from there, after

3 you've finished with that part.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. I can return to it later in my

5 examination-in-chief. I think that's probably the way to deal with it, if

6 that's okay with you.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. I'm just trying to be helpful and

8 also not to go beyond what is acceptable practice in certain areas.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Can I take you down to the last notation that occurs in P354, at

11 the top left-hand corner. There's a number there. Do you see that

12 number, 7335/256? My question is this: What does the number 7335

13 represent?

14 A. This is the number of the cassette that was taken off the

15 switchboard.

16 Q. There's another number there that appears, the number 256,

17 following that number. Did you write that number? If you didn't, do you

18 know what it means? And if you don't know, just say so.

19 A. No.

20 Q. So the answer is no, you did not write it?

21 A. No.

22 Q. And not having written it, can you tell us what it means? If you

23 don't know, that's fine.

24 A. It could be some sort of a file number, once it was written down.

25 And it probably was sent to be part of some file or other, but I really

1 can't say.

2 Q. Thank you. Just continue down the page to the next line. There's

3 a reference to Zolja and Z2. Please explain to Their Honours what that

4 means.

5 A. Zolja is a code name for a phone line. Zolja simply means phone,

6 and the word used here is Zolja.

7 Q. And the Z2, is that a reference to a particular telephone?

8 A. This means that this phone was at switchboard 2.

9 Q. Next line says that the Zolja, the telephone, was being used by an

10 entity or someone or something referred to as Skup. What does that mean?

11 A. It's a pseudonym for a facility, a feature, under inspection.

12 Q. In simple terms, is that a reference to a telephone, or a

13 particular telephone?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you know where that particular telephone was located back in

16 1992 and 1993?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Where was it located?

19 A. Somewhere at the command. It was a telephone at the

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina army headquarters.

21 Q. Thinking back to 1992 and 1993, did a number of different

22 individuals have access to that particular telephone?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. The next notation is self-explanatory, I suppose. I

25 assume it means that the telephone conversation itself that is then

1 recorded occurred on the 11th of February, 1993.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The next notation, "reported on the 11th of February, 1993," what

4 does that mean, "reported"? What precisely does it mean?

5 A. This means that the conversation was written up on the same day it

6 was heard on the phone.

7 Q. Thank you. The next line, again, says "Zeljko called Sefer" and

8 they had the following conversation. Do you know who the Sefer is that

9 you referred to?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Who was that?

12 A. Sefer Halilovic.

13 Q. And what about the Zeljko? Thank you --

14 THE INTERPRETER: I didn't get the witness' answer.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I heard no.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: So did I. I heard the witness say no.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for a moment,

18 please.

19 [Prosecution counsel confer]

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, I'm grateful to you for that indulgence.

21 Q. Now, there then appears a further notation, "Counter number:

22 037." What does that mean?

23 A. This means that the number on the counter of the reel-to-reel

24 recorder was 037. This may be preceded by a blank tape or a conversation

25 that didn't matter. This is just for those who were transcribing the

1 various conversations, to be able to locate them on a given tape more

2 efficiently.

3 Q. Thank you. And the "S," does it refer to the words of Sefer

4 Halilovic?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the "Z," does it does it refer to the words of the man called

7 Zeljko?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you. I've finished with that exhibit.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown P355.

11 Q. Now, I'd like to go through this document a little faster. We've

12 seen various notations in the previous document, P354. Again, in this

13 document, P355, there is a number, 7644, followed by the number 385.

14 Again, is that the number of the tape and the number of -- sorry, is that

15 the number of the tape?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And, again, is the number 385 a number that was written there by

18 someone other than you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Again, there is a reference in that document to a man called

21 Sefer. In that transcription, is the "S" a reference to Sefer, Sefer

22 Halilovic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And, again, there's reference to counter numbers. Does your

25 previous explanation also apply to this document?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And, most importantly, whose handwriting is it?

3 A. Mine.

4 Q. Good. Thank you.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. This time we also find on the first

7 page another name now, Hazim. Is that a name or a code name?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a name.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: And do you know who that Hazim is or was?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Can the witness be shown Exhibit P356.

13 Q. I think, Witness, that I can save some time. Does all of the

14 evidence that you've given thus far regarding P354 and P355 apply to this

15 document in the sense that the numbers of the cassettes are seen, the date

16 of transcription is seen, the date of conversation is seen --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And there's a reference to Sefer. Is that a reference to Sefer

19 Halilovic again?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And there's a reference to the other speaker, Rasim. Do you know

22 who that person was?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And is the "S" in the transcription a reference to the recording

25 of Sefer Halilovic?

1 A. Yes. Yes.

2 Q. And is it your handwriting in that document?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And, again, we see the reference to counter numbers. Does the

5 explanation that you provided previously also apply to this document?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown P360.

9 Q. Witness, would you just cast your eye --

10 THE USHER: Just a moment.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

12 Q. Just cast your eye, Witness, over the features of this document,

13 P360, which has many features in common with the preceding documents I've

14 shown you. Again, you see a number, 7299. Is that the cassette number --

15 cassette number?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In this particular document, there is a reference to someone

18 called Sadic, calling Zicro Suljevic. Do you know who Sadic was?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Do you know who Zicro Suljevic was?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Counter numbers appear here. Again, does the same explanation

23 that you previously gave apply?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we go into private session briefly -- closed

2 session briefly, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Closed session?

4 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, microphone, please.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I'm sorry. Before we go into closed or private

6 session for a while, Judge Eser would like to put a question. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ESER: Just for clarification, Witness, if you take the last

8 document, your own transcription, am I right, is -- where you start "How

9 are you," from there on, that's your transcription of this. Now, the line

10 before, "Sadic calling Zicro Suljevic and they had the following

11 conversation," that was something which -- a statement made by you in

12 writing.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the terminology that we used

14 to apply, so it -- before the beginning of the conversation, we would

15 always write that person called that person, and from there on it was

16 their conversation. This was the terminology of our department.

17 JUDGE ESER: Now, when you say "Sadic calling Zicro Suljevic," how

18 did you know that the conversation was conducted between these two

19 persons?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they introduced one another.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

22 I heard you say in the same sentence that you wanted private

23 session and closed session, so could I ask you what your preference is,

24 Mr. Di Fazio?

25 MR. DI FAZIO: I think private session will suffice.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I'm prepared to go into closed session for a

2 while, if it's something which --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honours. It's just a few minor matters

4 about the --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's go into private session for a while

6 then, please.

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Open session]

15 THE REGISTRAR: Open session.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

18 Q. Just one thing, following on from Judge Eser's question, you told

19 us that you knew who the persons were participating in conversations from

20 other information. If there was ever any doubt in your mind, as the

21 transcriber, as to the identity of a caller or a speaker during a

22 telephone conversation, would you reflect that doubt in the transcript?

23 A. In case that I did not know who that was, I would write down,

24 "Person X." If there were two persons whose identity I was not aware of,

25 then I would say that it was an X person talking to an XY person.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further questions.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

4 Mr. Jones, I suppose -- I take it that you are prepared already?

5 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. If Your Honour would

6 give me one moment just to move over.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.

9 MR. JONES: There's always a slight technical hitch, but I'm told

10 it's better if it's raised.

11 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:

12 Q. Now, Witness, I have a few questions for you, and I want to start

13 by asking you some questions to set the scene in the state of

14 communications as they were in Sarajevo during the siege. And I'm asking

15 you that as someone who lived through the siege of Sarajevo and as someone

16 whose work involved telephones. Just so that's clear.

17 A. Could you maybe clarify your question?

18 Q. Yes, that wasn't a question, that was just a preface. Now, a very

19 obvious question, firstly: Sarajevo was encircled and under siege from

20 1992 to 1995, wasn't it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, within Sarajevo, there were phone lines, weren't there?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And is it right that those phone lines would go to what you've

25 called a central, a telephone exchange, which would be located in the post

1 office?

2 A. I really can't answer that question. I can only answer the

3 questions related to my own work, my own profession.

4 Q. That's fine. It's to understand, in fact, how it came about that

5 your department had access to these telephone conversations. So isn't it

6 correct that, in fact, there was a line, or there were lines, cable, going

7 from the main telephone exchange to the SDB office, and that's where you

8 would pick up the telephone communications.

9 A. We were receiving telephone calls in our building. In which way,

10 I really cannot say. There were people whose task it was to provide that.

11 I don't know how they did it.

12 Q. That's fine. I want to just explore just a couple of

13 hypotheticals for telephone conversations during the war, and I want to

14 take the example, firstly, of someone in Sarajevo trying to phone someone

15 in Tuzla. Now, there are no telephone -- there were no telephone lines

16 going from Sarajevo to Tuzla, were there?

17 A. In a certain period of time, there were; in a certain period of

18 time, there weren't.

19 Q. Right. I'm referring to physical telephone lines as opposed to

20 some other connection. Isn't it correct that, certainly in 1992 and 1993,

21 there weren't physical telephone lines, telephone poles, going from

22 Sarajevo to Tuzla.

23 A. There were phone lines, because we had these phone conversations.

24 In which way they were established, I really can't explain.

25 Q. Right. Well, if you're aware, isn't it -- isn't it right that,

1 for a phone call to be relayed at that time from Sarajevo to Tuzla, it

2 would actually have to be sent via radio transmitter?

3 A. In certain cases, that was true. But we also had examples of

4 phone calls from Sarajevo to Tuzla.

5 Q. Right.

6 A. Or from Sarajevo to some other places.

7 Q. Okay. And now, if you're aware, either from personal experience

8 or from your work, are you aware that the Serbs had receivers with which

9 they could listen into different frequencies and intercept phone calls

10 between Sarajevo and Tuzla?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Do you know whether at that time - and when I don't specify a

13 time, I'm speaking about 1992/1993 - there were concerns on the Bosnian

14 side that communications, telephone communications, were open; they could

15 be listened into by the enemy?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Are you also aware that Serbs could intercept faxes sent to

18 Sarajevo using a system called System 2700? Are you aware of that?

19 A. No.

20 Q. In fact, I asked two questions, in a sense. Firstly, are you

21 aware of Serbs intercepting faxes during the war, faxes sent to Sarajevo?

22 A. People were talking about it, but I'm not sure whether they were

23 able to do that and whether they were doing that.

24 Q. The second part of the question was System 2700. Are you aware of

25 that system or not?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Okay. Now turning to Srebrenica, as far as communications with

3 Srebrenica were concerned, were you aware that for this whole period that

4 we're discussing, Srebrenica was also under siege and completely cut off

5 from the rest of the world?

6 A. [No interpretation]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness did answer "Yes". I heard her say so

8 quite clearly.

9 MR. JONES:

10 Q. Yes, if you could repeat your answer. You're aware that

11 Srebrenica was under siege and cut off from the rest of the world.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you're aware that the conditions there were pretty primitive,

14 to use a word which you used earlier?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And were you also aware at the time that Srebrenica communicated

17 with the rest of the world, with Sarajevo, with Tuzla, through ham radio,

18 for the most part?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, you personally didn't intercept any communications, did you,

21 between Sefer Halilovic and anyone in Srebrenica?

22 A. No.

23 Q. And if there were to be a conversation between someone in Sarajevo

24 and Srebrenica, would it have to go through the following route, and I'll

25 explain -- I'll explain the route: A phone line in Sarajevo would go to

1 the exchange; it would then be transmitted to Tuzla; and then in Tuzla,

2 someone would have to put a phone against a ham radio -- against a radio

3 and pick up the ham radio from Srebrenica. Do you agree that that's how a

4 communication would be affected between Srebrenica and Sarajevo?

5 A. That is the technical parts which I really cannot answer to.

6 Q. Okay. But do you agree, based on your experience working at the

7 SDB, that that sort of a conversation would be easily intercepted by the

8 Serbs?

9 A. Probably.

10 Q. And is it also right, and just taking conversations between

11 Sarajevo and Tuzla, that the quality of the conversations was very poor,

12 indeed, and very difficult to actually listen to sometimes?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the connection could be lost sometimes in the middle of the

15 conversation; would that be right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, just on Sefer Halilovic for a moment, he, in fact, knew,

18 didn't he, that his line was under surveillance. To your knowledge,

19 you're aware that he knew that he was being intercepted.

20 A. Yes. Can I clarify this?

21 Q. Yes, please do.

22 A. During the period during which the phone conversations were

23 intercepted - I can't really remember what year it was because it was a

24 long time ago - Mr. Sefer Halilovic was brought to our offices for

25 interviews and he was aware of all the measures taken against him by our

1 services.

2 Q. Okay, thank you.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I understood your question, your

4 previous -- your last question, Mr. Jones, to mean whether Mr. Halilovic

5 knew that his telephone conversations were being monitored and intercepted

6 at the time they were being intercepted? Because, if I read the witness

7 well, he may have come to know that at some later point in time. But does

8 she mean to tell us that at the time this interception process was taking

9 place, Mr. Halilovic knew that his phone was bugged, in other words?

10 MR. JONES: I think she just answered in the meantime.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, could we have your answer, please.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

13 MR. JONES:

14 Q. I heard you say "poslije," by which I understood you to mean that

15 Mr. Sefer Halilovic learned later his telephone calls were being

16 intercepted?

17 A. Yes. At the time when he came to our office for an interview.

18 MR. JONES: If I wonder if the witness could be shown -- it's

19 Prosecution Exhibit P355. I wasn't intending to use it, but it seems

20 appropriate at this juncture.

21 Q. And you'll see in that exhibit, there's an extract -- I'm sorry, I

22 don't have the exact reference in front of me, but it's an interception,

23 and "Z" there says: "Telephone is being listened in by the corps." "S"

24 for Sefer - I don't know if you can find this part of the intercept - "No

25 it is being listened in by the MUP." Z: "By the MUP, actually?" S: "By

1 the MUP, by the MUP. Let them listen."

2 I have to, for myself, find the date of that intercept. But do

3 you have that? Do you see that in the exhibit you have in front of you?

4 A. Which page is it on?

5 Q. One moment. Yes, sorry, in the English, it's page 5 of 6, and

6 it's -- yes, P355. I apologise, P355 is, of course, one that's been used.

7 In the B/C/S, I'm just going to find it.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 9.

9 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 9. Seven or eight lines from the bottom.

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. Do you see there where it says "iz MUP-a," and then "neki slusju"

13 or something to that effect. Do you see that, Witness?

14 A. Yes, I can.

15 Q. So do you agree that from that it appears that, at any rate, on

16 the 2nd of March, I believe it is, on the 2nd of March, 1993, Sefer

17 Halilovic knew that he was being listened into by the MUP?

18 A. You need to know, when you read something like this, all persons

19 whose phone calls were intercepted, over all the years that I was doing

20 this, most people, when they spoke over the phone, especially when they

21 spoke about the things they were not supposed to talk about, they would

22 say, Don't say too much because they're listening to, and then they would

23 continue. So this may mean something. It may also mean nothing at all.

24 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, I want to ask you a little bit more about

25 the equipment which you were using in your department. It's correct,

1 isn't it, that it wasn't particularly sophisticated equipment which you

2 were using to listen in on these conversations?

3 A. I'm not sure what to say. It was the equipment we had before the

4 war. I think it was of relatively high quality.

5 Q. I understand that there were two systems, one was called 12 and

6 another system was called 64. Are either of those two systems familiar to

7 you?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Now, am I right that there were only four permanent operatives for

10 all the intercept work which was going on in 1992 or 1993, or was it that

11 there were only four operatives that were working on the Halilovic

12 intercept work?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Let me rephrase that. There were four of you working in your

15 section, weren't there, four permanent staff?

16 A. No.

17 Q. How many were there, then?

18 A. In my department, there were up to 20 people, sometimes 25 or 30.

19 Depends on the circumstances.

20 Q. And all those people were doing the same work as you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you had I think what's referred to as objects, namely, the

23 persons whose conversations were being intercepted. Is that correct,

24 firstly, that that was the term being used, "object"?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And so Sefer Halilovic was an object for these purposes?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. But you had other objects as well, didn't you, whose conversations

4 you were listening to at the same time?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Could you --

7 A. Not me personally, but all of us. So this was not done by one

8 single person but by all the employees of our department.

9 Q. Are you able to estimate, roughly, how many objects were being

10 intercepted, let's say, in February 1993, by your department?

11 A. I can't say that. There were quite a few.

12 Q. Would you say a hundred, more than a hundred, hundreds?

13 A. No. Maybe some 30 or 40.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Wouldn't it be more pertinent to know exactly the

15 system that they had in place, how much or how many intercepts it could

16 handle at any one time? Because, like in every other, there is a limit.

17 MR. JONES: Exactly. That's what I'm seeking to establish, Your

18 Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: You may wish to monitor the telephone conversations

20 of a thousand persons, but it depends on the system that you have.

21 MR. JONES: Yes.

22 Q. Well, isn't it correct, Witness, that if you have 30 or 40

23 objects, each of whom is making telephone calls, possibly many telephone

24 calls every day, that there are literally thousands of phone calls which

25 you would be having to intercept, and that it wasn't actually possible for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 you to listen to each one?

2 A. I didn't say that I was doing that. You asked how many phone

3 lines there were that were intercepted. There was a war on. So you are

4 now asking a question that I simply cannot answer. The war was on. We

5 had enemies around us. And there were many phone lines and phone calls

6 that were the result -- and the result of them is everything that is

7 happening here at the moment, from the Milosevic trial on. So there were

8 many people who were working on this. We took shifts, we worked night and

9 days. We did not go home in order to achieve the result that we did

10 achieve eventually.

11 Q. Yes. I want to get clear that there's no criticism whatsoever

12 when I talk about the system. It's really to establish that there was a

13 huge amount of work, a huge amount of phone calls, and that by necessity,

14 your work was selective, if not somewhat random. Would you agree with

15 that?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I think I object to that

17 question. The witness earlier testified that she didn't know the process

18 by which persons were targeted or, rather, selected for -- to be -- for

19 their telephone conversations to be intercepted, or how those decisions

20 were arrived at, and that is essentially what Mr. Jones is asking.

21 MR. JONES: I'm not, in fact, asking about the system of choosing

22 objects. It's once objects are chosen, the impossibility of listening to

23 all their telephone conversations, that's the gist of my question.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Then let's keep it --

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Then I'll withdraw my objection.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and, in fact, I mean, because I had understood

2 that the -- the same as you had, Mr. Di Fazio. But now the question is

3 being limited to what has been stated by Mr. Jones, so basically let me

4 put the question myself to you, Witness.

5 It's being put to you that, given the large number of telephone

6 conversations or telephone lines that needed to be tapped or monitored,

7 there was a practical impossibility of listening, or to listen to all

8 these telephone conversations. Would you agree with that statement?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think -- because had Mr. Di Fazio not stood up, I

11 was going to intervene a little bit myself. I think we need to have

12 clarified here by the witness, in as far as how the system worked, that

13 she, as an operative, whether she was detailed only to cover this

14 particular person over a specified period of time, or whether she was

15 dealing with more than, let's say, Sefer Halilovic or that particular

16 telephone -- telephone line. Because if she was dealing with one person,

17 obviously, the picture emerges one way; if she was dealing with more than

18 one object, and more than one telephone line, obviously, I mean, it's the

19 case of putting some of the questions that you had in mind.

20 MR. JONES: Yes, precisely. That does need clarification, Your

21 Honour. I'm grateful.

22 Q. Witness, did you have more than one -- did you have only one

23 object, Sefer Halilovic, or did you have more than one object in this

24 period that we're looking at, 1992, 1993?

25 A. More than one.

1 Q. And just to try to get some more detail of actually how you

2 worked, isn't it right that you were seated at a desk, or something of

3 that nature, and you had a sort of switchboard in front of you and lights

4 would go on when any of the interesting numbers were activated. Is that

5 right, firstly?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So isn't it right, then, that sometimes more than one light would

8 go up and you would have to be selective in deciding which one you were

9 going to listen to?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: But I thought that the tape, the monitoring, the

11 recording itself, was something which was automatic.

12 MR. JONES: I understand the recording was automatic but the

13 listening is something which the operative would do --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: No, but let's take a system which is capable of

15 handling 30 phones -- telephone lines at the same time. I take it that

16 we're talking of 30 and not more than 30, and that if they all switch on

17 together at the same time, they will all be monitored at the same time.

18 And then it's the question of transcribing what's on tape on to paper.

19 MR. JONES: Yes. That's a matter which requires further

20 clarification, because monitoring is -- recording is one thing; monitoring

21 is something else.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: But the recorder, you have to start with that.

23 MR. JONES: Yes.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Then obviously, if she's in charge of, say, three or

25 four objects within the same -- in the same time frame, the question that

1 arises is whether, on any particular day, there has been recordings taken

2 from each of these four telephone lines, whether she would transcribe the

3 four of them or whether she would choose which ones to transcribe. I

4 mean, that's -- and in case she had this right to choose, whether she

5 would then transcribe the rest the following day, or how she would

6 operate.

7 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I think there's a matter

8 even before that which needs to be clarified.

9 Q. Witness, isn't it right that you were not only transcribing, but

10 you were actually also listening to conversations as they occurred; and if

11 they were of interest, notifying your supervisor of the conversation and

12 suggesting that that conversation might be transcribed.

13 A. I would inform my superiors, but I wouldn't make any suggestions

14 whatsoever. It was up to my superiors to decide what would be transcribed

15 and what would not.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because this is very important. In

17 other words, the moment the switching-on mechanism in this system would go

18 on, in other words, the moment that you know that there is a telephone --

19 I think there is a problem with the interpretation. Can you ...

20 The moment that the light switches on and you, therefore, know

21 that there is a telephone conversation which has just started on that

22 particular telephone line that is being monitored, would you be listening

23 in as the telephone conversation progresses, goes on, or would you listen

24 to the conversation afterwards from the tape? This is an important

25 question.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once a conversation has ended, I

2 take the tape off, I insert the tape into the recorder, and then I write

3 it down. If there is something I'm not clear about, or if there's

4 something that's in dispute, I consult with my superior and then they tell

5 me exactly what to write.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So may I take over for a while?

7 MR. JONES: Yes.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I can assure you it's with all good intentions to

9 try and get the right information here.

10 So basically, you did not involve yourself in the process from the

11 very moment that the light switched on, showing that the conversation had

12 just started. You would come into the picture when the conversation is

13 over. Is that right?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Now, experience teaches that people who are

16 using a telephone line do not discuss business all the time, every day,

17 and on every single occasion that they are conversing. Sometimes they

18 could be talking about cabbages, and other times they could be talking

19 about kings. Who would make the decision or the selection of what should

20 be left out and not transcribed, you or any one of your superiors?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My superiors.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So if it's your superiors, do I take it that, before

23 the tape reaches you, it would have been listened to by some one else

24 before you?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I would listen to the tape and

1 brief my superior on the substance of the conversation just briefly, who's

2 taking part and what the subject matter is, based on which my superior

3 would tell me to write the whole thing up, or just write up an abbreviated

4 report or official note, whatever they saw fit.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So I put it to you that what we have here in the

6 documents that contain your handwriting and that you saw earlier on, those

7 three documents, that basically you wrote that because that was the part

8 that was indicated to you by your superior for transcription.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I will not ask any further questions, more than

11 that, I mean, because this is something that occurs in all trials,

12 obviously, the editing. So I leave it up to you now.

13 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Now, you've told us how busy you were, working 24 hours. We've

15 seen on exhibits tendered today that the conversations have been reported

16 on the same day that they were held. Now, my question is: Reporting is

17 not the same thing as writing up the transcript, is it, firstly?

18 A. Yes. But you must take into account the fact that we were

19 professional employees and qualified to do our job. We were perfectly

20 able to summarise conversations, take them to our superiors, and then it

21 was up to them to decide -- to decide what we would be doing next or not.

22 That was their decision, their call, not ours.

23 Q. Right. It's just to establish this, really: That when it says

24 that these transcripts were reported on the same day that the conversation

25 was held, that doesn't mean you actually wrote it up that day, does it?

1 You might have written up the conversation some time later.

2 A. No. If a transcript states, like this one does, that the

3 conversation took place on the 2nd of March, 1993, and that the report was

4 submitted on the same day, then it means that both took place on the same

5 day. It may be two or three hours later, but it was all within one day.

6 Q. And does the fact that it was written up the same day for these

7 Halilovic intercepts reflect the fact that he was considered a very high

8 priority object, and that there was a special priority placed on those

9 intercepts?

10 A. No. In wartime, this applied to all objects. They needed to be

11 dealt with as soon as possible. Once a conversation was over, if you

12 could, you sat down to it and you wrote it up. And this applied equally,

13 across the board, to all objects.

14 Q. But among the objects, weren't some considered more important than

15 others?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Well, at the time you were intercepting -- your office was

18 intercepting Sefer Halilovic's conversations, he was the chief of the army

19 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, wasn't he? In other words, he held

20 the highest post in the army.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And as such, wasn't he one of the most important figures in Bosnia

23 and Herzegovina at the time?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And didn't the SDB chief give particular priority to intercepting

1 his conversations, to the treatment of those intercepts?

2 A. In wartime conditions, nothing was a priority. Nothing was

3 prioritised. The important thing was to deal with things as quickly as

4 possible. No names were used. You say, Person number 1. That was a mere

5 proposal. It would usually say, Command person of security interest.

6 That's as much as we usually received, that's myself and my colleagues,

7 people involved in that type of work. It was only in the further course

8 of this work that you actually got as far as the names of the people

9 taking part.

10 Q. Well, are you aware that the SDB chief actually had a feed of

11 certain telephone lines into his own office so that he could actually

12 personally monitor certain conversations?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Well, did it sometimes happen that your chief would come to you

15 with a tape and say, This is of interest, transcribe it, that is, a tape

16 which you hadn't taken from the machine but was actually brought to you by

17 your chief?

18 A. That never happened to me.

19 Q. Do you recall ever seeing that the transcribed -- the transcripts

20 of Sefer Halilovic's conversations were kept in a safe in the SDB chief's

21 office?

22 A. The moment I finish a transcript and hand it over to the chief of

23 my department, that's as far as my commitment goes. This is the first

24 time I've laid eyes on this particular document, ever since I originally

25 wrote it.

1 Q. Right. So you're saying you didn't see the placement of

2 transcripts into archives, or anything like that, after you'd drawn them

3 up.

4 A. Once I've drawn it up, I copy it into a notebook, put it into a

5 file, and hand it over to the head of my department. Anything that

6 happens to it from that moment on is not something that I'm familiar with.

7 Q. Okay. Now, is this something you're aware of: That interception

8 of telephone conversations by the SDB was regulated by law in 1992 and

9 1993?

10 A. I'm not familiar with that. It was wartime, and I really can't

11 say.

12 Q. But, in your work, surely you've become aware of the fact that,

13 for interception to be lawful, the SDB chief has to actually sign the

14 appropriate authorisation?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, Your Lordship, the witness has made her

16 position clear. She says: "I'm not familiar with that." Now, that's the

17 same question, asking her to speak about something which she says she's

18 not familiar with.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: But it doesn't exclude her knowing whether the

20 practice was that there would be an authorisation in writing from the SDB

21 chief. If she knows, she knows; if she doesn't, she doesn't.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. I don't have a problem with actual practices

23 she saw and heard with her own senses, so to speak. But to go into -- if

24 Mr. Jones intends to go into the issue of -- the legality --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: But that's why I made myself very clear in the

1 beginning, before the witness entered the room, whether there were any

2 preliminary problems that arose.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's not get into that, Mr. Di Fazio.

5 Mr. Jones, I will not put the question myself. You can put it

6 again. But it's a perfectly legitimate one.

7 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Yes, the question is simply that: Are you aware that the practice

9 was that there would be an authorisation in writing from the SDB chief in

10 order for there to be interception of telephone conversations?

11 A. As I've told you, what we received is a proposal. Then it would

12 seem logical that this proposal has been approved. Whether there was an

13 actual authorisation or not is far above my head. This is all I do.

14 Everything that is above that station is not something that I used to deal

15 with. I did receive a proposal every single time, I did and so did my

16 colleagues. A measure has been exposed -- has been imposed for security

17 reasons against such and such a person, that was usually stated.

18 Q. Okay.

19 MR. JONES: Sorry, one moment, please, Your Honour.

20 Q. And so you're saying that, in relation to Sefer Halilovic, you saw

21 such a proposal?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: She didn't say that the proposal was in writing, so

23 I suppose you'll ask that question first.

24 MR. JONES: Yes.

25 Q. Would the proposal usually be in writing?

1 A. Yes, typewritten.

2 Q. And did you ever see a typewritten proposal in relation to Sefer

3 Halilovic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you remember when you saw that, approximately?

6 A. I saw it the moment the phone line was about to be established, or

7 rather, the tapping of a certain phone line. So just before that occurs,

8 a proposal comes along.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's clear this up, Mr. Jones.

10 The proposal would not mention the name of the person, it would

11 mention his -- it would just mention an object and a pseudonym referring

12 to that object and not his name, would it?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depending. Sometimes it was a

14 pseudonym; sometimes it was with the full name -- first name and last name

15 stated.

16 MR. JONES:

17 Q. So in the case of Sefer Halilovic, are you saying that you saw his

18 full name on a proposal, before the interception started?

19 A. No. It said "Command." That's all it said. "Measure imposed

20 against" such and such a phone number, headquarters, and then the code

21 name given later was Skup, S-k-u-p. And then once you start processing

22 this, you get to hear who the actual persons are, and then you realise

23 it's Sefer Halilovic, once you've heard it 10 or 15 times.

24 Q. Right. But did Skup refer to the command -- the phone -- the

25 command of the Bosnian army or refer to Sefer Halilovic personally?

1 A. This is a question that I can't answer. My job was to write it

2 down, which I did. Now, what that was in reference to, I really can't

3 say. One thing you must understand is that this is my job, and what I do,

4 I take the tape off, I write down the conversation, I consult my superior

5 on what should be done next. Everything that comes before or after is

6 something that I simply don't do and something that I'm simply not aware

7 of.

8 Q. All right. That's fine, and that's clear. But just to clarify

9 this, then: Before -- the first intercept we've seen dates from the 11th

10 of February, 1993. So is it your evidence that before that date, you saw

11 a typewritten proposal referring to Skup and the command, monitoring

12 telephone conversations on that line?

13 A. Yes. But when you receive a proposal, you have no idea what it's

14 about. It's none of your business. You receive a proposal. You see that

15 it's something that is of security interest. This is just for you, for

16 your intuition as an operative officer to know that this is about security

17 or about a military matter. It doesn't matter whether it's something

18 negative or something positive. You just write it down, because that's

19 what your superior wants you to do. And it's only through your actual

20 work that you find out the actual substance of what's going on on an

21 actual phone line.

22 Q. Right, thank you. But are you given - just to follow up on that -

23 given instructions as to what to look for in particular as the process of

24 intercepting goes on, from your superior?

25 A. That's what I've just told you, isn't it? It really depends on

1 who you're talking about specifically. He usually specifies everything

2 that's military. If they're talking about military operations, sometimes

3 if you're not certain, you have to go back and ask them. If there's a

4 conversation and you're not sure about what you should write down and what

5 you shouldn't, then you go back to your boss and you confer in order to

6 clarify matters. If you tell him, for example, there's a man on this line

7 talking about this and that, then he may as well tell you, Write down the

8 whole thing. It wasn't my job to decide what I would write down. The

9 actual writing was my job, but nothing else. I'm not going into the

10 terminology, who's calling or who specifically they're calling. My job is

11 to listen to the tape and write down whatever they say I should.

12 Q. Right, thank you. Now, isn't it correct that every audiotape

13 which is transcribed is generally preserved?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Isn't it correct, though, that for the audiotapes of the

16 intercepts that you've transcribed, which we've seen today, that they have

17 not been preserved? Is that something that you're aware of?

18 A. No.

19 MR. JONES: With the usher's assistance, we would like to pass up

20 an exhibit. The ERN number is 03618459 to 03618460. There's one minor

21 correction, in fact, to the English. On page 2, item 13, the number under

22 May 10, 1993 should be "797-7299".

23 Q. I'll ask you, Witness, to look at items 7 --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones. Before we proceed, this

25 document must not be put on the ELMO, please.

1 MR. JONES: No, indeed, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Jones.

3 MR. JONES: Yes.

4 Q. If you would look at items 7, 8, and 9 on page 1, and then 13,

5 those, I suggest, are the intercepts which we've looked at. And isn't it

6 right that for three of them, it's written there that there is no audio,

7 and for the fourth one, there's only an unusable stored audio recording?

8 A. First I've heard of it. I really can't say. I'm not aware of

9 this.

10 Q. Can I just ask you this before the break - I see the time: You

11 worked in the SDB, under different names, for more than 20 years. Based

12 on your experience, do you find it extraordinary that these tapes have not

13 been preserved?

14 A. It's extraordinary, especially the transcripts got this far and

15 suddenly there's no audio recording. Why? Who knows. I did my job, and

16 this was down to some other persons. Why this came about, I really can't

17 say. I can't answer a question that I'm not familiar with. All I can say

18 is that, during the war, we had difficulties with tapes, with stationery,

19 with pens and pencils. We had nothing at all. Everything was in short

20 supply, so sometimes tapes were erased to make space for something else to

21 be recorded. This is a just a thought occurring to me right now. But I

22 really can't say why there is no audio.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. JONES: I would just ask that this document be given a Defence

25 exhibit number, and then we can have the break.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I don't know the sequence. This would be

2 Defence Exhibit D?

3 THE REGISTRAR: D204.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: 204. And it will be entered and kept under seal,

5 please.

6 We'll have a break now. In the meantime, because this should be a

7 follow-up to your question and her answer, perhaps she could enlighten us

8 whether there was a system of copying these cassettes on to reels, big

9 reels, because that's usually how it's done.

10 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, 25 minutes.

12 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

15 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

16 During the break, I've reviewed my questions. I have literally

17 three remaining questions.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Take your time. We certainly do not have that

19 problem today.

20 MR. JONES: No, that's for sure. Thank you.

21 Q. Witness, firstly, just following up on a matter raised by His

22 Honour before the break concerning whether there was a system for copying

23 audiotapes onto reel-to-reel tapes, I propose to read a paragraph from a

24 prior statement which you appear to have given to the Office of the

25 Prosecutor on the 5th of July, 2004, and you can simply tell me if it's

1 correct or not. And it's paragraph 13 from that statement. It says

2 there: "Every audiotape which is transcribed will be preserved. It may

3 not be the same tape that was recorded, but it will be copied to big tapes

4 (reel-to-reel) if the recordings are in small portions. I do not know and

5 when this process took place. However, all the records which are

6 transcribed will be kept in safe custody."

7 Could can you confirm? Yes, if you could repeat that, please.

8 Could you confirm that that's the correct position?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. And now two final questions: The surveillance of

11 Sefer Halilovic's telephone was conducted over many months, wasn't it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you estimate approximately how many months?

14 A. I couldn't say exactly, but certainly two or three months. Maybe

15 even more, I'm not sure.

16 Q. And during that period, surveillance was 24 hours a day, wasn't

17 it, either by you or one of your colleagues?

18 A. That's correct. It was done by me and many others.

19 Q. And it was 24-hours-a-day surveillance?

20 A. Twenty-four hours a day, except for the times when we had no

21 electricity, no power, no generator.

22 Q. You told us earlier that you personally did not intercept any

23 conversation between Sefer Halilovic and anyone in Srebrenica during that

24 whole period; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. JONES: No further questions.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

4 Mr. Di Fazio, is there re-examination?

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one question arising out of that last one or

6 two questions that you were just asked now.

7 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

8 Q. When a telephone call came in to the phone that you were targeting

9 and recording, did you know where the incoming call originated?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Microphone, please.

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. DI FAZIO:

13 Q. How? How did you know that?

14 A. I knew that if the caller was known to me, or if, during the

15 conversation, the caller identified himself, otherwise, I could not know

16 unless identified during the conversation.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: No further questions.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser would like to -- Judge Eser is going to

22 put some questions to you, madam.

23 Questioned by the Court:

24 JUDGE ESER: I have just one question for clarification, for

25 translation. There have been some discussion on the documents where it is

1 said that a conversation was reported. That was today. Now, in the

2 English translation, sometimes that was translated as transcribed, drawn

3 up, and so on. And what I wanted to know, and also with the help of the

4 interpreters, what does it mean -- if I draw your attention to document

5 P354, do you have it in front of you?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I don't think she has. Don't answer. She

7 doesn't have it so let's give it to her.

8 JUDGE ESER: Now, my question is: If you go on the first page,

9 where you have these statements regarding the 11th of February, 1993, the

10 last line I'm not familiar with your language, now, what does that mean?

11 Would it be correct to translate it as "reported," or does it mean

12 something else? The question is also put to the interpreters.

13 A. The conversation held, this means that the conversation was held

14 on the 11th of February, 1993, and then reported on the same day. So this

15 is the report, the report or transcript. I consider that to be one and

16 the same thing.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: These recordings, these tapes, were they being kept,

18 stored, in the same building where the tapping was taking place, or were

19 they being stored in some other building?

20 A. They were kept in the same building. I'm not sure where exactly.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Was this the only building from which tapping,

22 telephone tapping, was taking place, or was there some other place where

23 it was taking place as well?

24 A. I'm aware only of this building in which I also worked.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Does this building still exist?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, it was never destroyed during the

3 war?

4 A. No.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: You're not aware of any other building that was

6 being used for tapping that was destroyed during the war?

7 A. No.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't have any further questions, which basically

9 means that your testimony comes to an end here, which also means that

10 Madam Usher will now escort you. We will -- I don't think we need to go

11 into private session in this room to -- while she is leaving the

12 courtroom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to go into

13 private session while she leaves the courtroom.

14 Madam, on behalf of the Tribunal, on behalf of the Trial Chamber,

15 also on behalf of Judge Brydensholt and Judge Eser, I should like to thank

16 you for coming over to give testimony in this case. You will be escorted,

17 and you're free to go back to your country. On behalf of everyone here, I

18 wish you a safe journey back home.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 MR. JONES: Your Honour, there's one matter which is just -- and

22 perhaps I should have mentioned it as a preliminary, but it's this: That

23 we haven't challenged the authenticity of these four exhibits, P354, P355,

24 P356, and P360, but there are questions of authorisation with regard to

25 the intercepts which I was asking about during the course of this witness'

1 testimony, and Your Honour devined the reason for that.

2 We would like to do is reserve our position on this for the time

3 being, because my understanding is that in the Halilovic trial, the

4 Defence will almost certainly raise challenges of that nature and we

5 wanted to preserve our position until the Trial Chamber has given its

6 ruling on that matter. It's -- obviously, they are different proceedings,

7 but at the same time, in the interests of -- in the interests of harmony,

8 if the Trial Chamber in Halilovic were to take a certain position with

9 regard to the legality or otherwise of the intercepts, and the

10 consequences of any ill legality, we of course would want to be able to

11 make submissions in that regard. So it's simply to say that.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Basically, I will not say

13 much, because I am neither the Prosecutor nor the Defence. But basically

14 this matter was, as you hinted earlier on, regulated by the law of Bosnia

15 and Herzegovina. Of course, the Trial Chamber will decide in accordance

16 to what is before it and not in accordance to what it may have learnt from

17 other experiences and other cases. But just to put you in the picture,

18 there was a law in place before the war broke out whereby authorisation

19 had -- there was a chain specified as to where authorisation to intercept

20 telephone conversations could originate from. And in the other cases that

21 I am aware of, the document authorising the intercept and describing also

22 the object, and giving him or her the nom de plume exists, I don't know

23 whether it exists in this case, obviously, it's beyond my knowledge, then

24 after -- before the war you know there was the Presidency composed of all

25 the ethnicities. The situation changed after the beginning of the war,

1 but the matter was regulated after the beginning of the war as well by an

2 ad hoc provision.

3 So the question of legality did arise. It arose in the Brdjanin

4 case, it arose also in the Milosevic case in relation to admissibility,

5 the same in Brdjanin, so there are similar sources you can have access to.

6 But in some other cases, we have had persons who were or are still in the

7 employ of the agency, AID, and what came after it and what was before it,

8 who were in a very good position to provide all the information. Also,

9 with regard to the chain of custody of these reels -- but anyway, I think

10 --

11 MR. JONES: Yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- I think I'm just trying to help both of you out

13 by giving you information that I know of. Of course, I will obliterate

14 all this information from my mind, as far as this case is concerned,

15 unless I have evidence which relates precisely to these points.

16 MR. JONES: Yes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: But I can tell you that, letters of authorisation

18 signed by the president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, president of the

19 Presidency, do exist, letters of authorisation signed by the minister for

20 home affairs or internal affairs do exist, and they have been exhibited in

21 other cases. But what exists in this particular case as regards

22 Halilovic, I don't know.

23 MR. JONES: No, indeed, Your Honour. I believe actually the

24 matter hasn't been fully litigated yet, but, of course, I'm aware that in

25 many cases Rule 95 arguments have been raised in relation to intercept

1 evidence, and human rights arguments based on Article 8 of the European

2 Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy, et cetera. So it's

3 really to anticipate possibly piggybacking, if I can put it that way, on

4 Halilovic Defence submissions in that regard.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Also, the question of legality was debated at the

6 Brdjanin case, but the period of time to which it related is somewhat

7 different, because it related to the period of time when -- this is the

8 early period, even preceding the war, even preceding the war, where

9 members of the Presidency were tapping telephones of other members of the

10 Presidency as well. But in any case, so there might not be a parallel on

11 which to argue that. But the question of legality did -- obviously was

12 argued, but I don't think those arguments would fit in this particular

13 case, because now we're talking of 1993, definitely, and the picture had

14 changed by then as far as the law, applicable law, is concerned, if I

15 remember well.

16 But again, until and unless these matters are brought to the

17 attention of this particular Trial Chamber, you can rest assured that this

18 is the beginning and the end.

19 MR. JONES: Yes. To use a phrase of Your Honours, those may be

20 pleasures that await us.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Pleasures yet to come.

22 MR. JONES: Pleasures yet to come.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Pleasures yet to come, yes.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I've heard everything, and there's

25 nothing much that I can add to it.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I don't think so.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one thing, if I may say this: I've got no

3 problem with the Defence reserving their position, but I don't know what

4 the schedule is for any decision-making on a similar issue in the

5 Halilovic case.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know either.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: No. And the scenario that I would not like to see

8 develop is this argument being launched at the end of the Prosecution

9 case, when we're not in a position to address it with further evidence or

10 to assist you on the topic. And so, whereas I say there's no problem, of

11 course, with Mr. Jones reserving his position, at some point or another, I

12 think he will have to inform us whether he's going to run this argument or

13 not, because at the moment the tapes are in evidence and they're before

14 you.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And, in fact, I mean, this is -- what I'm

16 coming to is a provision that -- you may like it or you may not like it,

17 but I usually try not to apply much. But it is there. I'll soon come to

18 it, please.

19 Leave it for the time being, because we're going to waste time on

20 this. I thought it was 80 -- anyway, leave it. I will tell you at some

21 future point in time, but it's a question of what should be raised during

22 cross-examination and what could not be raised at a future point in time

23 if it has not been contested to the witness during the cross-examination.

24 But I am -- I can't see it at the moment. So it's an important provision

25 which has been borrowed from the English current practice, which was

1 applied very strictly in some other instances which can cause problems.

2 But anyway, let's not waste time on it. I think I've said enough. Point

3 taken. Point taken, and that's it. And in any case, I don't think that

4 this was the witness which could be faced with the question of

5 authenticity in any case, because she was only familiar with some

6 information but not with all, as often happens in such organisations as

7 the one she works in, or used to work it.

8 MR. JONES: Yes. I did put the matter to her, though, for that

9 reason.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: But what's more important is this: That I was given

11 the impression, and when I say "I," I mean the three of us here, we were

12 given the impression that this witness would last here in the witness box

13 today and tomorrow. Now we've finished with her, and of course I'm going

14 to look at you straight in the eyes, Mr. Wubben, so that you tell me

15 what's going to happen tomorrow.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Has the next witness been proofed or not?

18 MR. WUBBEN: The next witness is in the stage of proofing, also

19 tomorrow morning, and looking at the developments of today, we

20 anticipated, indeed, that we should start tomorrow. But to what extent, I

21 also made a kind of assessment. We are -- we think and we project that we

22 might need the beginning of the afternoon, so if it's possible to

23 start at -- after the first break, we should be fine.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I suggest you do what we do in my

25 country with jurors when we come to the final stages: We don't let them

1 go and have a proper meal, lunch, we provide them with sandwiches, and

2 they continue working.

3 MR. WUBBEN: It's also a matter, Your Honour, of course, of the

4 proofing notes and the rest for the witness himself to start.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. I'm sure that, Mr. Wubben, knowing you

6 that, that you will do your level best. Who is proofing this witness,

7 yourself or someone else?

8 MR. WUBBEN: Someone else.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: But please do convey the message that it is our wish

10 that we try and do our best to start at 2:15 as scheduled. Of course, if

11 that is not possible, we will start later. But I do appreciate your

12 efforts to make sure that we can at least continue tomorrow and not miss

13 or waste a day.

14 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, we will start, indeed, with that full

15 intention, and we will update -- I will update further senior legal

16 officer, or legal officer, in that respect, whenever it becomes clear.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. Please, rest assured that the three of

18 us will be at your disposal here, ready to start at 2.15, if that's the

19 case. And we'll probably be here in the morning too. So any

20 communication that you need to place or effect will arrive and will be

21 tackled, dealt with, straight away, all right?

22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I think we can -- is there anything

24 else? Any further business?

25 MR. JONES: I think it might be Rule 90(H)(ii) which Your Honour

1 was --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I couldn't remember -- I was there but I was wasting

3 more time. Yes, that's it. So let's adjourn for today. We'll reconvene

4 tomorrow at 2.15, with the saving that we mentioned earlier. Thanks.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.40 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day of March,

7 2005, at 2.15 p.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25