110705IT

Page 16070

1 May God's peace reign in this house, and may God's will be done

2 in these proceedings.

3 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

5 Q. I wish the witness good health, a speedy recovery, and fast

6 return home.

7 Yesterday, we left it off with the rules, and we're going to look

8 at another provision from the Rules of Service of the Security Services.

9 Can we look at D02 -- D203, because I have some more questions to

10 ask you before I round the topic off. I would kindly ask the electronic

11 courtroom to display D203.

12 We can see it now. This is Rules of Service of Security Organs

13 in the Armed Forces.

14 Can we have pages 10 and 9 in English and Serbian respectively.

15 Now we have the English version. I'm interested in Article 16,

16 and we have it in the Serbian as well.

17 It says here:

18 "The security organ is directly subordinate to the commanding

19 officer of the command, unit, institution, or staff of the armed forces

20 in whose strength it is placed in the establishment, and it is

21 responsible to that officer for its work ..."

22 My question: When it comes to the Rules of Service, do they

23 regulate who the security organs are subordinated in a unit, and what was

24 the situation like in your unit? Who was the security organ in your unit

25 subordinated to? Thank you.

Page 16071

1 A. Yesterday, I said that I had not studied the rules and that I'm

2 not familiar with the text of the rules. It is very difficult for me to

3 say anything or to share with you my opinions about the rules. Since I

4 am not familiar with these provisions, since I'm not familiar with the

5 rules governing the work of the security organs, I don't know what to

6 say. I can only read the text, but I'm not familiar with it. I was

7 never aware of its existence.

8 Q. The fact that you were not familiar with the rules, which is only

9 normal - I'm not familiar with your rules - was that the reason why you

10 provided answers which differ from what is provided for by the rules?

11 Thank you.

12 A. I was asked to answer questions to the best of my recollection

13 and to the best of my knowledge, and that's what I did. I said what I

14 had known at the time. That's what I was asked to do, and that's how I

15 answered. That was the only way I could answer.

16 Q. Thank you. In that case, could you please tell us who the

17 security organ in your unit was subordinated to? I'm asking for your

18 answer based on what you know from practice.

19 A. According to what it says here, the security organ should be

20 subordinated to the officer in a command. I'm reading this in

21 Article 16. It says here that it is subordinated to the commander of the

22 unit in whose strength it is placed. That's what I'm reading.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please. Judge Mindua would like to

25 put a question to the witness.

Page 16072

1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

2 I would like to complement the question that was asked by

3 General Tolimir, because Mr. Witness, you often say that you don't know,

4 in answering a question. You say you have no idea about what is asked

5 from you. But here I think that the question should be interesting for

6 you, since I note that in 1995, you were a major in the Zvornik Brigade

7 and that your position was that of assistant to the chief of staff. So

8 in this position, I think that you should have known at least what was

9 the work of the assistant in charge of security. Is that too complicated

10 for you? I really don't know how to ask my question differently.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was involved with personnel, and

12 I didn't have to study any documents that referred to the work of other

13 organs in the brigade, and that's why my answers are mostly, I don't

14 know, I didn't study, I didn't read. For me, it is an unknown ground.

15 And despite of the fact that I was involved in the Personnel Affairs, you

16 have to understand that I did not know what other officers did during

17 that period of time, and you also have to bear in mind that before that

18 time and after that time, I never worked in the army.

19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Okay. So if I understand what you

20 just said, as an assistant to the chief of staff within your brigade, you

21 didn't know to whom your other colleagues, the other assistants, were to

22 report. I'm not putting this question based on a theoretical document.

23 I'm asking you based on your experience. Is that too difficult for you?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can tell you what I

25 know. I did draft reports, as did other organs for their respective

Page 16073

1 levels, operative reports, logistics reports, security reports, personnel

2 reports, a report on morale. I was not in a position to learn how other

3 people wrote their report. I did not have the authority to inspect a

4 report sent by any other organ on any other matter.

5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, all right. This is

6 sufficient for me for the time being. Thank you.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a follow-up question to you, sir.

8 Mr. Tolimir asked you, in his last question:

9 "Could you please tell us who the security organ in your unit was

10 subordinated to? I'm asking you for your answer based on what you know

11 from practice."

12 Are you able to provide us with your knowledge and your

13 recollection about this question?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The security organ was subordinated

15 to the brigade commander.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

17 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

18 One moment, please. Judge Nyambe has a question.

19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

20 Just in follow-up to Judge Mindua's questions and position, which

21 I share, may I ask you the following question which flows immediately

22 from what you said in lines -- page 6, lines, I think, 24 to 25, through

23 to 7 and 2. You said:

24 "I can tell you what I know. I did draft reports, as did other

25 organs for their respective levels, operative reports, logistical

Page 16074

1 reports, security reports."

2 And the accused is asking you questions regarding management of

3 security organs. What was your practice specifically with regard to the

4 security reports that you drafted, as it's stated here by yourself?

5 There must have been some rules under which you operated or co-operated

6 with the security organs.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of security wrote reports

8 on security, and he was the one who sent them to the corps command. As

9 far as I can remember, he also participated in the drafting of operative

10 reports which were daily sent to the corps command by the duty operations

11 officers. That's as much as I can remember at this point.

12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another follow-up question to the last

14 one by Judge Nyambe.

15 In your previous answer, you said:

16 "I did draft reports, as did other organs for their respective

17 levels ..."

18 And then you mentioned a list of different reports, operative

19 reports, logistic reports, security reports, personnel reports, report on

20 morale. Can you tell us who drafted these reports to the superior units

21 or persons?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Duty operations officers drafted

23 those reports. They followed a certain guide-line, and other people

24 wrote reports. The assistant for morale wrote about morale, the

25 assistant for personnel wrote about personnel, the assistant for security

Page 16075

1 wrote about security. Each assistant wrote their part. In other words,

2 we all participated in the drafting of daily operative reports that were

3 sent on a daily basis to the superior command.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do I understand you correctly that you drafted,

5 as the assistant for personnel, the reports on personnel matters? Is

6 that correct?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. That was

8 just one segment in the overall report. My contribution consisted of a

9 couple of sentences, and so did the contributions of all the other

10 participants in the drafting of those reports. I was one of the drafters

11 who was in charge of covering the personnel matters. I contributed one

12 to three sentences. If there was something interesting or if I had

13 received an order to cover a certain area, then I would cover that area

14 for the daily reports that were sent to the corps command. My

15 contribution to the operative report were a couple of sentences on the

16 personnel.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To fully understand your answer: All these

18 assistant commanders contributed to a common report; is that correct?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, [as interpreted] all

20 assistants of the chief of staff did that.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who compiled the final report?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The final report was compiled by

23 the duty operations officer in the brigade command.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And who signed the final report which was

25 compiled by the duty officer?

Page 16076

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Either the brigade commander or the

2 chief of staff.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this final report was sent to which unit?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sent daily to the corps

5 command.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

7 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

8 Mr. Gajic.

9 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 9, line 19, I

10 believe that there should be an "and" following a "Yes." So the sentence

11 should read: "Yes, and all assistants of the chief of staff." So there

12 is an "and" missing from this sentence.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This may be your position. I really don't see

14 the difference, but that is perhaps a question of interpretation.

15 Mr. Gajic.

16 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, your question referred

17 to the assistant -- assistants to the commander, and the witness answered

18 "and also the assistants chief of staff," which means that he was

19 referring both to the assistants to the commander as well as to the

20 assistants to the chief of staff. At least that is what I heard in the

21 original Serbian.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'll try to clarify the matter with the witness.

23 Sir, once again, my question:

24 "All these assistant commanders contributed to a common report;

25 is that correct?"

Page 16077

1 That was my question. Could you please repeat your answer?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Assistants to the commander

3 contributed in the writing of that report, and I added to that that the

4 assistants chief of staff also wrote their parts for that common joint

5 report.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

7 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, and I

9 would like to thank the Judges for their questions.

10 I will no longer need the document that is now on the screen, but

11 I would rather call up P1112. This is an instruction on control and

12 command in the security organs. The witness mentioned that document

13 early on yesterday, and he was also asked about that instruction by the

14 investigators.

15 Let's look at the instruction now.

16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Please, is this the set of instructions that you meant when you

18 said that a set of instructions had arrived at the brigade command?

19 A. General, sir, I said that some instructions arrived. I didn't

20 see them, and I was not familiar with the contents of those instructions.

21 I only heard that they had arrived, and I believed that it may be this

22 one. I never read it myself. I never learned about its contents.

23 Q. Thank you. Did the Prosecutor ever show you these instructions

24 in the proofing sessions?

25 A. No, I don't remember. I don't think that this was ever shown to

Page 16078

1 me. I don't remember, I don't know.

2 Q. In that case, I'm going to ask you only this: Can you look at

3 bullet point 2, from which I'm going to quote:

4 "The security and intelligence organs are directly commanded by

5 the commander of the unit or institution of which they form part, but

6 with regard to professional activities, they are controlled centrally by

7 the security and intelligence organs of the superior command."

8 My question is this: Does this also envisage that security

9 organs in the units are subordinated to the commanders of the units they

10 form a part of and that they are professionally controlled by other

11 organs?

12 A. General, sir, I really don't see how this relates to me. How do

13 these instructions relate to me? I have already told you, and I repeat,

14 I'm not familiar with the contents of these instructions. The only thing

15 I knew at the time is what I already told the investigators, and what I

16 told them was that I had heard on the grape-vine that a set of

17 instructions had arrived at the command. I never saw the text. I never

18 saw how it was worded. I don't know what it regulated. The only thing

19 that was mentioned here and the only thing that I knew was that in

20 addition to the operative reports, the security organs sent either

21 regular or interim reports to the superior command. I don't know whether

22 they did it based on this instruction or some other document, and this is

23 the long and the short of it. This is the only thing that I discussed

24 about this topic with the investigators, that's all.

25 Q. Thank you. The investigators asked you quite a lot of questions,

Page 16079

1 as did lawyers, about these instructions, and you were asked whether

2 those instructions were a sticking point between the commander and the

3 security organ. If you want me to, I can read you back your answers, if

4 you don't remember. Thank you. However, I just want to ask you, and

5 then you can answer without any further adieu. You don't have to explain

6 at great length. You just tell us how things were, and we will avoid all

7 misunderstandings.

8 Since you said that you don't know, that you didn't read

9 instructions, I quoted from the second bullet point of the set of

10 instructions, where it says that the security and intelligence organs are

11 directly commanded by the commander of the unit or institutions of which

12 they form a part. And my question is this: Did these instructions

13 envisage the same thing as the rules envisaged, and that is that the

14 commander is in charge and responsible for the security organ in his

15 unit? Thank you.

16 A. Looking at the instructions and looking at the rules, I would say

17 yes.

18 Q. In the second part of the sentence, does it say that:

19 "With regard to professional activities, they are controlled

20 centrally by the security and intelligence organs of the superior

21 command"?

22 Is this centralised control, and does it apply to all security

23 organs in the subordinated lower-ranking units? Thank you.

24 A. General, I don't understand your question. I cannot answer.

25 This is double Dutch to me. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm

Page 16080

1 not familiar with the material. I can't say anything about this.

2 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether you controlled the organs in

3 the lower-ranking units when it came to filling in some forms or

4 delivering data to be filled in two forms, so did you give them

5 instructions as to how they should do this? Thank you.

6 A. I had people dealing with general affairs in the lower-ranking

7 units who delivered reports to the organ I was a part of.

8 Q. Thank you. And these people, were they subordinated to you or

9 did you ask them to provide only the information you needed in order to

10 report to your superior command? I'm referring to general affairs

11 officers in the subordinate units.

12 A. At every point, I was able to ask for any information I needed

13 from these desk officers in charge of general affairs, regardless of what

14 unit was in question. They -- I had direct contact with them. I was

15 able to contact them and ask for the data I needed.

16 Q. Thank you. I know this. What I'm asking you is whether you

17 commanded these desk officers or whether somebody else commanded them.

18 A. In this period when I was assistant to the chief of staff, I was

19 not in command of any unit or anything. Quite simply, I had no command

20 responsibility, and nor was I able to command anyone.

21 Q. Please, yes, I understand you, but for the sake of the

22 transcript: When it comes to these desk officers, were you in command of

23 them or not?

24 A. No, I wasn't.

25 Q. When I finish my question, please answer only then so it enters

Page 16081

1 the transcript.

2 When it comes to these desk officers who had to submit data to

3 you, were you commanding these people or not?

4 A. I was not in command of individual desk officers. They were not

5 subordinate to me, except for the one who worked together with me in the

6 same department.

7 Q. Thank you. Now let's look at the last page of this instruction

8 so we can see who signed it and who issued it.

9 You see it was supposed to be signed by the commander, but it was

10 signed on his behalf by General Tolimir.

11 My question is the following: Are you aware whether the word

12 "instruction" - it's a Latin word which we used, unfortunately, instead

13 of using our own word - what does it mean, what does the word

14 "instruction" mean?

15 A. Instructions.

16 Q. Well, for example, a driving instructor, what does he do?

17 A. Well, I don't know what "instructions" contain. If you're asking

18 me about driving instructors, they teach people to do certain things.

19 Q. Thank you. Does it mean, then, something like teaching or

20 training someone, and when it comes to these commands to which this

21 instruction was delivered, is it an instructive document which is

22 supposed to teach people what to do, how to conduct themselves, and to

23 organise relations within the command? Thank you.

24 A. General, I don't recognise your signature, I don't know it, I'm

25 not familiar with it, but you told me now that you signed it. However,

Page 16082

1 when it comes to writing these instructions and -- I don't know anything

2 about it. I find it very difficult to answer your questions. What this

3 word means in Latin, I don't know. I believe that you are familiar with

4 these matters. You were the one who wrote this and signed it, so you are

5 familiar with it. I am not, and so I can't say whether it had an

6 instructive effect on the subordinates or not.

7 Q. Thank you. As you say that you are not familiar with any of

8 this, and I quite understand you, do you agree that I should read the

9 last sentence? It says, and I quote:

10 "Forward these instructions and inform of their contents all

11 commanders of units and institutions, down to battalion level."

12 My question is the following: Would all those, down to battalion

13 level, be made aware of the contents of these instructions? Was that the

14 case in your brigade?

15 A. I was not a battalion commander. Whether the battalion commander

16 was made aware of this, I don't know. And as I told you, I was never

17 aware of the contents of these instructions. I don't know whether they

18 were forwarded to all commanders of units.

19 Q. Thank you. I know that you don't know, but I'm asking you

20 whether, in line with this sentence, all commanders, down to battalion

21 level, were supposed to be made aware of these instructions.

22 A. Well, I suppose so, yes, as they were delivered to all units.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Can we now again look at document D294, page 13, the fourth

25 paragraph on that page. It's page 17 in English. Thank you, Aleksandar.

Page 16083

1 It's page 16 in English, last passage, and page 13 in Serbian.

2 Thank you, Aleksandar.

3 Well, we can see the fourth paragraph now. It's the second from

4 the bottom. The lawyer is asking:

5 "Did your commander express any concern because he had no control

6 over the military police?"

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Is that what it says?

9 A. Mr. General, could you please repeat your question? I --

10 Q. Well, you were asked whether your commander, because he did not

11 have command over the military police, was he dissatisfied with the

12 situation, did he express any dissatisfaction, and your answer was that,

13 no, you did not observe anything like that. You said, No, I didn't

14 observe that?

15 A. Well, I can repeat that now.

16 Q. Very well, thank you. Can you then tell us why the

17 misunderstanding arose that Mr. Manning asked you about? Do you know why

18 there was a misunderstanding between your commander and your security

19 organ, and you asked about this in your testimony and interviews? Just

20 tell us whether you know this or not.

21 A. The problem was in the sending of reports. Something is not

22 working properly. Oh, yes.

23 The problem was in the delivery of reports. That's what I

24 understood. And there was some sort of minor misunderstanding, and at

25 one of the meetings, as I told the investigator, it was said that two

Page 16084

1 reports were sent, and then after that there were no problems --

2 Q. Thank you. Did you report to the superior personnel organ in the

3 corps command?

4 A. Yes, when I received orders from the superior command. It was at

5 monthly intervals, or bimonthly, or every three months, but not every

6 day.

7 Q. Thank you. Did they oversee your work, or, rather, the superior

8 organs in the superior command of the Drina Corps, did they supervise

9 your work?

10 A. Yes.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Could we now have P1108 in e-court. Thank you.

13 This is the second part of your interview with Dean Manning,

14 dated the 27th of June, 2002, and I would now like to see page 53, after

15 we see the first page, in both languages. Thank you.

16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Do you see page 53? Thank you. Do you see page 53, the third

18 passage from the bottom and the sixteenth from the top?

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We all see pages, but without any page number.

20 Now there's 53. Thank you. I think we need only one. It's

21 exactly the same. We need only one of this page because it's in both

22 languages. The lower part of this page, please.

23 Mr. Tolimir.

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

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 16085

1 Q. Look at the third -- sixth passage from the bottom, where it

2 says:

3 "Mihajlo Galic: What do you say to this --"

4 There's something wrong here. It's the first passage on page 53.

5 Thank you.

6 You were asked:

7 "What do you say to the supposition that this operation was

8 planned and carried out exclusively by the Security Service, that is,

9 security officers?"

10 And you say:

11 "I don't know, and I cannot say anything about that, and I cannot

12 assume anything."

13 And then you go on to say in your next reply:

14 "I cannot claim something that I don't know. I cannot confirm

15 something that I'm not aware of."

16 My question is: Did you have the feeling that the investigators

17 and the lawyers wanted you to give opinions, conclusions, and so on about

18 your brigade, and that they were, in fact, trying to put leading

19 questions to you, trying to get you to say things that would be

20 convenient for them?

21 A. They asked me -- in the context of all other questions, they

22 asked me this question, and I gave this reply, and I would give the same

23 reply again. If I didn't participate in something or if I wasn't there,

24 I didn't know anything about it, and I would say the same today as I said

25 then.

Page 16086

1 Q. Yes, I know very well what you're saying, but can you say why you

2 were asked this question? Why did they ask you this when they were

3 interviewing you? You can say that you know or that you don't know.

4 Thank you.

5 A. I assume that all that was done because of the proceedings that

6 were conducted before this Tribunal. I suppose that they wanted to

7 obtain information through people who could provide information. I was

8 not one of them; not then, not in the past, not now, not in the future.

9 That's why I provided the type of answers that I did.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to call up

11 P1108 in e-court.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is on the screen. This is the

13 document we have before us.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I forgot to mention the

15 page number, which is 38.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen now.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 Q. Let's look at it. I can't read English, but I would like to

19 point your attention to paragraph 3, or perhaps the first paragraph, or

20 perhaps the second paragraph, actually. No, no, no, this document that I

21 have on the screen does not correspond to what I have before me.

22 Page 38, it says you were asked:

23 "Did Drago Nikolic have his own vehicle?"

24 And you say -- we can see it at the bottom, the last paragraph

25 that we can see, or half of it:

Page 16087

1 "Drago Nikolic did have his own vehicle, and that was the

2 security unit vehicle that nobody else used but him. I'm sure that I did

3 not use that vehicle at the time, that's for sure."

4 My question to you is: Did Drago Nikolic, who was the brigade

5 security organ, have a car at his disposal? If he did have a car, was it

6 a car that belonged to the brigade command? Thank you.

7 A. The security organ had his own car and used it. There was a

8 vehicle. He had that vehicle. And as I've already said to the

9 investigators, that's how things were.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us now look at

11 D147, page 16. Thank you.

12 But first let's look at page 1.

13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14 Q. This is a statement provided by the driver who drove that car.

15 Let's see what he says about all that.

16 D147, this is the statement. Let's look at the third line, where

17 it says "Milorad Bircakovic."

18 Do you know who Milorad Bircakovic is or was? Thank you.

19 A. The name does ring a bell, but I don't know the man personally.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 And now can we go to page 16 in that same statement, and now on

22 page 16, let us look at the fifth entry from the bottom of the page.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Milorad Bircakovic says here:

25 "That lasted for two or three months, and then it was decided

Page 16088

1 that the car could not be assigned exclusively to the chief of

2 security ..."

3 After that, "It was used to drive around operatives and those who

4 were in charge of going and checking the battalions ..."

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 17, the

6 second entry from the top of the page.

7 It says here:

8 "You say that the car was assigned for other people to use. Did

9 that include only the military police or was it used by other units as

10 well?"

11 And then Mr. Bircakovic says:

12 "For other units, I believe for the command or for that part of

13 the command."

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. My question is this: This driver from the military police who

16 used to drive that car and who used to drive other commanders from the

17 command, do you know anything about that?

18 A. General, sir, I don't have any doubts that this man did not drive

19 the security organ vehicle, and I am not questioning the fact that he

20 drove other officers to other units to accomplish certain missions. The

21 vehicles that were normally used by the commander or the chief of staff

22 could be used by other people if there were no other cars available.

23 So it was not a problem for anybody being taken from A to B, but

24 it was a well-known fact which car belongs to the commander, which car

25 belongs to the chief of staff, which belonged to the chief of security.

Page 16089

1 There was also a logistics vehicle. And that's how travel orders were

2 issued. That's as much as I know. Travel papers for the cars were

3 issued in respect of each and every different car in a different way.

4 Q. Thank you. Let us now look at what was said on transcript

5 page 9202 on the 9th [as interpreted] of February. Let's see what

6 Mr. Bircakovic stated during his testimony here before the Tribunal.

7 Thank you. That was on the 1st of February, 2011. Thank you.

8 Let's look at line 15. I don't know whether you have that in the

9 Serbian - I don't - where it says, lines 15, 16 and 17, and I

10 quote -- thank you.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we need a clear record. Are you now

12 quoting from the OTP statement or are you quoting from the transcript of

13 this trial?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm reading from

15 page 9202, lines 14 through 17. This is the transcript from this trial.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. There is no B/C/S

18 translation because the transcript is only in English, just to clarify.

19 Continue, please.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 Well, that's why I'm going to interpret or translate. I'm going

22 to read line 14:

23 "Later on, there was something that transpired between

24 Drago Nikolic and Pandurevic, who somewhat restricted his right to the

25 vehicle so the vehicle was placed at the disposal of the command. From

Page 16090

1 there on, I drove anybody who needed the vehicle, including

2 Drago Nikolic."

3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

4 Q. This was stated by the driver who used to drive that vehicle for

5 which you say that it belonged to Drago Nikolic. He testified here. He

6 said he was a member of the police and that he drove everybody in the

7 command.

8 My question is this: Did the driver ever drive you? Do you know

9 if he ever drove any of the other officers in the command? Thank you.

10 A. In one of my previous answers, I said that any vehicle

11 [as interpreted] could drive any of the officers. Whether he drove me or

12 not, I suppose he did, but I don't remember. It was such a long time

13 ago, I really can't remember any of the days, dates, or routes that I was

14 driven on. I really can't remember.

15 Q. Thank you. Since you don't remember, I will not insist. You

16 heard what the person said whose job that was.

17 I would kindly ask the e-court to display P1112. Thank you.

18 Thank you. I apologise, I misspoke. I need D41. Thank you. I

19 apologise to the e-court. D41.

20 Thank you. Now we have the document in front of us. It was

21 issued by the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska on the 9th of

22 July, 1995. It was signed by Assistant Commander Major

23 General Zdravko Tolimir.

24 In the first part of the document, it says that:

25 "The president of Republika Srpska has been informed of

Page 16091

1 successful combat operations around Srebrenica ..."

2 It says in the second paragraph that he is satisfied, and in the

3 third it says that he ordered that in the follow-up combat operations,

4 and so on and so forth.

5 In the fourth paragraph, we see an instruction, as it were, and

6 it reads:

7 "In accordance with the order of the president of

8 Republika Srpska, you must issue an order to all combat units

9 participating in combat operations around Srebrenica to offer maximum

10 protection and safety to all UNPROFOR members and the civilian Muslim

11 population. You must order subordinate units to refrain from destroying

12 civilian targets unless forced to do so because of strong enemy

13 resistance. Ban the torching of residential buildings, and treat the

14 civilian population and war prisoners in accordance with the Geneva

15 Conventions of 12 August 1949."

16 And then you can see the signature of

17 Major General Zdravko Tolimir.

18 My question to you is this: Since it says here that an order

19 should be issued to all subordinated units to behave according to this

20 instruction, do you know whether an order was, indeed, issued to

21 subordinated units to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? I'm

22 talking about those units that participated in combat around Srebrenica

23 together with your unit. Thank you.

24 A. General, sir, how am I supposed to know whether that order was

25 issued to the units participating in combat around Srebrenica, the order

Page 16092

1 based on this document? I don't know. I was not there. I don't know.

2 I see what you see. There is a document sent to somebody, and that

3 person was supposed to do something. Whether they did that or not, I

4 don't know.

5 Q. Thank you. I didn't ask you whether you knew. I asked you

6 whether you are familiar with this, and you answered the way you did.

7 This was sent to the forward command post of the Drina Corps, to

8 Gvero and Krstic, as you can see. And in the second line of the last

9 paragraph, it says:

10 "You must issue an order to all combat units participating in

11 combat operations."

12 And based on this, my question is as follows: Did all commanders

13 who participated in combat around Srebrenica receive an order or, rather,

14 an invitation to act in accordance with Geneva Conventions? What I'm

15 asking you is: Does this document mean this? I'm not asking you whether

16 you received -- they received it or not.

17 A. As far as I can see and read this document, I would say, yes,

18 that was what was asked of them.

19 Q. Thank you. Is this contrary to what they asked you before, and

20 that is whether security organs organised or that -- could they have

21 organised all that in view of the fact that they had issued a document to

22 the effect that all combat units around Srebrenica should be made

23 familiar with this order? Thank you.

24 A. I cannot talk about the mindset of the people who were involved

25 in this process. Something is contrary to something else, but I cannot

Page 16093

1 be the judge of that. I can't tell you what's contrary to what. This is

2 very -- a very complex issue for me. I can't tell you whether this was

3 conveyed or not, and so on and so forth. The investigators must have had

4 a concept that they followed, I'm sure. And here we have a document

5 ordering units to do this or that. What is the true [as interpreted] in

6 that, I really don't know. This is really a tall order for me. I really

7 can't tell how people behaved and based on what they based their conduct.

8 Q. Since you talked about contradictions, for the record, could you

9 tell us whether this document was authentic, whether it was certified by

10 the encoder who sent it from the Main Staff or the person who received it

11 at the other end? Thank you.

12 A. Well, we can see a stamp, which means that the encryptors sent

13 it, but we can't see whether it arrived at the address of the addressee.

14 I suppose it did. This is a photocopy. I really don't know how this was

15 sent. But I can see a stamp in the right-hand-side corner, so this is a

16 stamp indicating that encryptors received the document and dispatched it.

17 Q. Thank you. I was asking you whether you knew this from your

18 experience, as you received telegrams, whether this one was an authentic

19 telegram. Thank you.

20 Your Honours, I have no questions for this witness -- no further

21 questions.

22 Witness, thank you for coming to testify here. I apologise for

23 putting the questions I had to put for the requirements of these

24 proceedings. Thank you. God bless you. I wish you a speedy recovery

25 and a safe journey home.

Page 16100

1 Mr. Vanderpuye, you have the floor for your examination-in-chief.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon

3 everyone.

4 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

5 Q. Good afternoon to you, Mr. Janc, and welcome back yet again.

6 A. Good afternoon.

7 Q. I wanted to have you - and you know this - to testify concerning

8 certain intercepts that were obtained by Croatian authorities.

9 Let me begin by asking you whether you've had an opportunity to

10 review a number of these intercepts with a view towards establishing

11 whether or not they are reliable, in fact.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about when you became involved in

14 reviewing this material for these purposes?

15 A. I started with a detailed review of these intercepts and related

16 material sometimes at the beginning of February this year, but also

17 before I already came across most of these intercepts and material, which

18 I re-reviewed again in relation to my testimony today.

19 Q. In terms of assessing the reliability of this material, did

20 you -- can you just tell us, briefly, what sorts of things you did, in

21 terms of looking at the intercepts, either the content of the intercepts,

22 the dates, the circumstances that they speak about, those kinds of

23 things? Could you tell us, briefly, what kinds of material you looked at

24 in order to evaluate their reliability?

25 A. Yes. First of all, the intercept, itself, was important, and

Page 16101

1 everything what was on the -- what was written on that intercept,

2 beginning from the date and time when it was recorded. And the most

3 important part was, of course, the content of the intercept, itself,

4 because from the content, you could get an idea of what -- what perhaps

5 happened at a particular time and place, who was involved in it, what

6 kind of incident took place, and this kind of information you can get

7 from the content of the intercept, itself. Based on this information, we

8 can then compare or find supporting documents; for example, certain

9 reports from a particular date which would, for example -- describing a

10 certain event from the intercept, itself, and this would corroborate,

11 then, the intercept. In this way, we can then say that certain

12 intercepts are reliable.

13 Q. Were you able to find corroborating material or review

14 corroborating material with respect to these particular intercepts? And

15 when I say "these particular," I'm distinguishing them from intercepts

16 that originated with the 2nd Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

17 or intercepts that originated with the MUP, or other agencies that

18 engaged in that conduct. So in terms of this material, were you able to

19 find corroborating -- corroboration?

20 A. Yes, I can confirm that. And today we are talking about the

21 intercepts which were intercepted by the authorities of the Republic of

22 Croatia, and I could find and review the corroborative material in

23 relation to these intercepts.

24 Q. And before we go into that, let me just ask you: In terms of the

25 material that you compared these intercepts against, did you consider

Page 16102

1 material that was independent of those intercepts or related to those

2 intercepts, as it were? If you could just briefly describe the

3 relationship of the material that you used to corroborate the intercepts

4 with the intercepts themselves, so the Trial Chamber has an idea of what

5 kind of project you undertook.

6 A. Yes. I reviewed the material which is independent of these

7 intercepts, and such documents would be, for example, documents drafted

8 by different international organisations at the time; for example,

9 UNPROFOR reports or daily sitreps. Then there would be different reports

10 or documents from the VRS, itself. Then also diaries of individuals

11 involved in these meetings or incidents were important. Then, for

12 example, there were also intercepts from the BiH Army, who intercepted,

13 for example, the same conversation as the Croatian authorities did, and

14 these were, basically, the documents which I reviewed and considered for

15 my testimony today.

16 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I would like to show you a selection

17 of these intercepts.

18 Mr. President, I have a packet that I would like to share with

19 the Trial Chamber, which I think would make it easier to follow the

20 testimony of Mr. Janc. We also have e-court, but I think it's also

21 helpful to have these packets which I'd like to pass up to the Court.

22 They do contain, and I should raise this, they do contain some material

23 that has not yet been added to the Prosecution's 65 ter list. So it's

24 the material with the 65 ter number with the star next to it to indicate

25 that the Trial Chamber -- and I've, of course, provided Mr. Gajic with a

Page 16103

1 copy of the same packet.

2 I don't know whether or not Mr. Gajic has an objection to the

3 Trial Chamber receiving the packet, itself, which is, I think, a separate

4 issue than whether or not it is used with the witness. But I assume that

5 if he has any objection when it's used with the witness, he can raise

6 that. With that proviso, I would like to hand it up to the

7 Trial Chamber.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position on that? May

9 that be used during the testimony of Mr. Janc?

10 Mr. Gajic.

11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as regards the first

12 issue raised by the Prosecutor, of course, we do not object that the

13 package we received also be delivered to the Chamber and the witness, if

14 necessary.

15 As for the documents to be added to the 65 ter list, I think

16 there are just a few of these documents. I had a chance of looking at

17 them. Unfortunately, they have not all been translated into Serbian. We

18 do not, at this point, object to their being included on the 65 ter list.

19 All we ask is that the OTP, when showing these documents in the

20 courtroom, bear in mind that there are no translations of these

21 documents, and, of course, that a translation be made as soon as

22 possible.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be the usual procedure, of course. And

24 if some documents are not yet on the 65 ter exhibit list, then you will

25 have the opportunity to object or to comment on the motion of the

Page 16104

1 Prosecution to add it.

2 The binders you have prepared should be delivered to the Chamber,

3 with the assistance of the Court Usher, to the Defence and to the

4 witness.

5 Mr. Gajic.

6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just a brief question,

7 first of all, for the OTP. I think it's in the interests of all

8 concerned to hear the official reply.

9 When Witness PW-070 testified, we received a bundle of documents

10 in a binder. All these documents have their 65 ter number, but now on

11 this Prosecution list, I can see that only a few of the documents from

12 this bundle, about one-seventh, are on that list. So what I would like

13 to know is whether the OTP intends to ask that these documents be

14 admitted at some later stage of the proceedings or not.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

17 That's a fair question. As I mentioned, the object of the

18 testimony was to establish the reliability of these intercepts. The

19 intercepts that are on the exhibit list are all intercepts that are

20 derived from the list that Mr. Gajic refers to, so they all have 65 ter

21 numbers. The documents that don't have 65 ter numbers, many of them are

22 documents that simply relate to matters that are discussed in the

23 intercept or otherwise go to the reliability of the intercept, and that's

24 why you can see some documents don't have 65 ter numbers, and that's what

25 I intended to use with the witness to establish reliability.

Page 16105

1 In terms of their admissibility, ultimately, I think it would be

2 helpful, certainly, for the Trial Chamber to have that so the

3 Trial Chamber can see for itself whether or not the information contained

4 in the intercept is corroborated to the extent that Mr. Janc testifies.

5 But at the same time, I think merely the explanation that's given as to

6 the reliability should be sufficient -- a sufficient-enough basis to

7 establish it, so we can resolve the question of admissibility at a later

8 point. But I think at this point, since the Defence doesn't have an

9 objection to the use of the documents, we can probably just proceed and

10 then resolve the admissibility issues later.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, would you agree to this proposal to

12 decide on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the use of certain

13 documents?

14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Mr. President. That

15 would be the usual procedure. However, I am afraid that Mr. Vanderpuye

16 didn't really understand my question. I think that it was

17 Mr. Vanderpuye. I don't know who, exactly, examined Witness PW-070. We

18 received 74 documents in a binder, and my question referred to these

19 documents only, not the documents in the binder we received today.

20 This is very important because the Defence needs to prepare, and

21 we would simply like to hear from the Prosecutor what they intend to do

22 with the rest of these documents; nothing else, well, to show you -- to

23 illustrate what I'm talking about.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I appreciate the illustration. I think I now

25 understand the issue more clearly.

Page 16106

1 With respect to the admissibility of this group of intercepts,

2 that is, the one that was referred to in other testimony, that

3 collection, we're seeking at this point to admit the intercepts that are

4 on my exhibit list. With respect to the remainder of those intercepts,

5 we're not tendering them at this point. They may become relevant at a

6 later point in the case, depending on whether or not there's a Defence

7 case, depending on what comes up in cross-examination, but for these

8 purposes today, and probably into tomorrow a little bit, all we're

9 seeking to admit pursuant to the testimony of Mr. Janc are the intercepts

10 that are on my exhibit list. I think there are probably 18 or 19 of

11 them. And that's it for now, and that's it pursuant to Mr. Janc's

12 testimony.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We fully understand you. When you refer to your

14 exhibit list, you are referring to the Prosecution's exhibit list for the

15 current witness, Mr. Janc, to use with him in your examination-in-chief?

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

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

18 I think we now understand the procedure you want to follow. You

19 have the floor. Please proceed.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you again, Mr. President.

21 Q. Mr. Janc, I'd just like to start with 65 ter 5536, if we could

22 have that one on the screen.

23 Your Honours, you should find this one, with any luck, right

24 under tab 1 of your binders, and you'll see the English, which should be

25 followed by a B/C/S translation, and then it would be followed by some

Page 16107

1 other corroborating material which you can see referred to in the index

2 of the packet.

3 Mr. Janc, I take it you've had an opportunity to review this

4 particular intercept.

5 A. Yes, I have.

6 Q. And we'll note that this one is dated 18 June 1994. It's at 2200

7 hours, and it records here that:

8 "On more than one occasion, General Kelecevic intervened with

9 Colonel Zdravko Tolimir (chief of security in the Main Staff of the VRS),

10 to intervene with President Karadzic and Stanisic, to place under the

11 command of the 1st Krajina Corps a special forces unit of the MUP ..."

12 Now, with respect to this particular intercept, you notice here

13 that the designation is "Colonel Zdravko Tolimir" as the chief of

14 security. Were you able to find any documents relating to Mr. Tolimir's

15 rank status in around this period of time?

16 A. Yes. At that time, Mr. Zdravko Tolimir was still a colonel, and

17 the significance of this intercept is related to the one which will be --

18 the one after this one, which is a few days after 18 of June, when

19 General Tolimir, actually at that time colonel, became a

20 Major General Tolimir. So that's the significance, so -- but for this

21 particular intercept, we don't have any corroborative document.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's take a look at 65 ter 5537, please.

23 Q. In this intercept we can see again it's dated 29 June 1994. If

24 we look to the second paragraph of this intercept, we can see that

25 there's a reference to a decree of President Karadzic with respect to the

Page 16108

1 promotion of certain military officers. And, in particular, we can see,

2 in the fourth line down in the English, and it should be about the fourth

3 line or so -- fifth line from the bottom in the B/C/S, we can see a

4 reference to Zdravko Tolimir, and, in particular, it says that:

5 "Pursuant to a decree of President Karadzic, the following people

6 were promoted:"

7 And it says.

8 "... to the general major rank, Colonels Mico Grubor,

9 Zdravko Tolimir, and Jovan Maric, Stavan Tomic ..."

10 And so on and so forth. Was this the document that you were

11 referring to concerning the promotion of Zdravko Tolimir from colonel to

12 major general or general major?

13 A. Yes, correct, this was the intercept I was referring to.

14 Q. Were you able to find any corroboration with respect to this

15 intercept as concerns the promotion of Zdravko Tolimir?

16 A. Yes, I was. There is a decree of the President Karadzic from

17 20 -- dated 28th of June, 1994.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is to show you this document

19 and see if it's the one you're referring to, and it is 65 ter 5525.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the record, I take it that these

21 documents now mentioned are under tab 1 in the binder we have received.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President, they're all under

23 tab 1.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE:

Page 16109

1 Q. Here, we have a Decree Number 01-1275/94, dated 28 June 1994, and

2 it refers to a number of officers that are exceptionally promoted. It

3 says:

4 "To the rank of Lieutenant General:"

5 And it names Major Generals Milovanovic, Manojlo; Gvero, Milan;

6 Djukic, Djordje. And then it names on the second page, and in the B/C/S

7 it's just -- it would just be -- just around the photocopy line near the

8 bottom of the page, we can see here a reference to the following colonels

9 being promoted to the rank of major. And you can see here the second

10 person listed here is "Zdravko Tolimir, son of Stanko, assistant

11 commander for security and intelligence of the VRS." It says "General

12 Staff." It should be, probably, "Main Staff."

13 But is this the document you were referring to?

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One -- I think one correction is needed. You

16 misspoke. Line 5 of page 43, "promoted to the rank of major." I think

17 you wanted to say "to the rank of major general."

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, major general or general major.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, but you said "Major" --

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

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and it is recorded in that way.

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

23 Q. Is this the document that you were referring to, Mr. Janc?

24 A. Yes, correct.

25 Q. All right. If we go to the -- if we go to the next page, we can

Page 16110

1 see here that it is from the president of the republic,

2 Dr. Radovan Karadzic; yes?

3 A. Yes, correct.

4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Mr. President, I would like to tender all

5 of these documents under tab 1, beginning with: 65 ter 5525, this the

6 intercept from the 28th of June, 1994, referring to the promotion of

7 General Tolimir; the document which is 5536, that's the intercept from 18

8 June, which indicates that General Tolimir at that time was a colonel;

9 65 ter 5537, which indicates -- which refers to, rather, the -- a decree

10 of the president; and there is one other document I'd like to show

11 Mr. Janc. The last of these documents is 3928, but I'll put that up on

12 the screen and show it to him first.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We want to see 65 ter 3928.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

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

16 A. Yes, I have.

17 Q. And you can see here that this one is dated from the -- dated,

18 rather, 28th June 1994, which is the same day as the document we've just

19 seen. The intercept, rather.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And it's also the same date as the decree that we've seen, issued

22 by President Karadzic, promoting then Colonel Tolimir to the rank of

23 general?

24 A. It's just a small correction, actually. This intelligence report

25 is dated on the day when the decree of the President Karadzic was issued,

Page 16111

1 but the intercept is the day after.

2 Q. Right. So it's -- this the same day as the decree?

3 A. Yes, correct.

4 Q. Okay. And on that day, if we look at the bottom of this

5 document, we can see how it is signed.

6 I'm sorry, we'll have to go to the second page in both.

7 A. Yes, we have a typed signature of General Major Zdravko Tolimir.

8 Q. And does this corroborate the information that you reviewed in

9 relation to the intercept, in terms of Mr. Tolimir's rank prior to the

10 28th of June, 1994, and following June 28th, 1994?

11 A. Yes, correct.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document

13 as well.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, since this is a quite complicated

15 procedure, I would like to ask you if you have any objections to

16 tendering these documents.

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

18 We don't have any objections to admitting this document.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These four documents, 65 ter 5525, 5536, 5537 and

20 3928, will be received.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5525 shall be

22 assigned Exhibit P2437. 65 ter number 5536 shall be assigned

23 Exhibit P2438. 65 ter number 5537 shall be assigned Exhibit P2439. And

24 65 ter 03928 shall be assigned Exhibit P2440. Thank you.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

Page 16112

1 Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

3 Q. Mr. Janc, I'd like to show you some of the documents I have here

4 under tab 2, and we'll start with 65 ter 5538, which is an intercept from

5 13 July 1994, at 22 hundred 18 minutes of that day.

6 Have you had a chance to look at this particular intercept?

7 A. Yes, I have.

8 Q. We can see here that the intercept talks about a meeting that was

9 supposed to occur between General Tolimir and General Van Baal on the

10 12th of July in Gorazde; yes?

11 A. Yes, correct.

12 Q. And were you able to find any information concerning the content

13 of this intercept that corroborates it?

14 A. Yes, indeed. There is several documents and a portion of a diary

15 of General Ratko Mladic where we can find corroborative information.

16 Q. And in terms of the diary of General Mladic, what, specifically,

17 were you able to identify that corroborates what we see in this

18 intercept?

19 A. Actually, there was a meeting on 11th of July, 1994, with

20 General Mladic and members of the UNPROFOR present, and part of the diary

21 from that date shows that it was mentioned or discussed that

22 General Van Baal will be going to Gorazde with General Tolimir.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we could take a look, please, at

24 P1424. I think we'll have to go to page 206 in the B/C/S, and hopefully

25 it will be 196 in the English.

Page 16113

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

2 A. Yes. This is a diary of General Ratko Mladic and the note --

3 notes which start on 11th of July, 1994.

4 Q. All right. Now, if we can continue up to the next page, we can

5 see here there's some note concerning freedom of movement of UNPROFOR.

6 Did you have an opportunity to review that, in light of the content of

7 the intercept?

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. And having reviewed it, does it support what is written in the

10 intercept as concerns a proposed topic of a meeting between

11 General Van Baal and officers of the VRS regarding the freedom of

12 movement for UNPROFOR?

13 A. Yes, it does.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the next page. I'm sorry, we

15 need to go to 209. It would be 199 in the English. 209 in the B/C/S and

16 199 in the English.

17 Q. And we can see at the top of the page item number 4, which is a

18 note written by General Mladic, and did you have an opportunity to review

19 this particular entry in relation to the intercept?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. And how did you -- how do you view this particular entry, in

22 terms of the reliability of the intercept?

23 A. This is a part what I was referring before, where it says that

24 General Van Baal and General Tolimir will be going to Gorazde. It

25 doesn't say when, exactly, but we can see from the intercept that

Page 16114

1 General Van Baal tried to go to Gorazde on 12th of July.

2 Q. And can you tell from the entry in the note-book -- or diary, I'm

3 sorry, when this was made, this particular entry that we're looking at

4 now?

5 A. If we followed the diary, itself, and we have been going page by

6 page now, we could see where we started, that it is a meeting from 11th

7 of July, 1994, and this meeting goes for a while. And the diary doesn't

8 shows any change in date up until this page, so it must have been still

9 on 11 of July, 1995 -- 1994, sorry.

10 Q. Do you know if this diary reflects a date between the 11th -- I

11 should say following the 11th of July, 1994?

12 A. Yes, there is a change in date a few pages after this one, and

13 the next date is then 13 of July. So we have no entries or nothing was

14 written on 12th of July, 1994.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: So if we go over to page 204 in the English, and

16 I think it will be 214 in the B/C/S.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need 204 in the English.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE:

19 Q. Mr. Janc, is this the entry that you're referring to that we see

20 here at the top of the screen?

21 A. Yes, correct, this is the page where the date changed to 13 of

22 July, 1994.

23 Q. Your conclusion is, then, what with respect to the entry

24 concerning the meeting or the future meeting between Van Baal and Tolimir

25 that we saw at page 199 in the English and 209, I believe, in the B/C/S

Page 16115

1 just a moment ago?

2 A. My conclusion is that that meeting supposed to take place on 12th

3 of July.

4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. If we could take a look now at 65 ter --

5 well, actually, this is a document that was not on the Prosecution's

6 original 65 ter list, Mr. President. As you can see, I've identified

7 that in the packet before the Trial Chamber. It is a document that is

8 from UNPROFOR. In particular, it's from General Van Baal, and I believe

9 that it relates directly to the content of the intercept at issue.

10 I don't know whether or not General Tolimir has an objection to

11 this particular document, and I don't believe we have a translation of

12 it. However, I can -- if it's required, I can certainly articulate the

13 reason why I'd like to use it, or, rather, its relevance to the intercept

14 in question.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any concern to add this

16 document to the 65 ter exhibit list, even without a translation?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as I have no

18 translation, could Mr. Vanderpuye establish with this witness whether

19 General Mladic entered in his diary observations he heard from others,

20 those he spoke with, or whether he noted down actual events that occurred

21 on a certain day in his -- where he was present?

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would propose that you, Mr. Vanderpuye - and I

23 take the word of Mr. Tolimir into account - use this document, and later

24 we decide about adding this document to the 65 ter list and a possible

25 admission into evidence.

Page 16116

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Very well, Mr. President. I think once you see

2 it, that will resolve a lot of issues.

3 It's 65 ter 744. And as -- yes, we don't have a translation, so

4 let me just read a little bit into the record so that General Tolimir can

5 familiarise himself, to some extent, with its content.

6 It is a letter that is addressed to

7 Lieutenant General Manojlo Milovanovic, chief of staff, and it says:

8 "Headquarters of the SR Army, Pale." And it's dated 12 July 1994.

9 If we go to the second page of the document, we will see that it

10 is signed by Brigadier General Van Baal.

11 What I'd like to focus on, in particular, is the previous page

12 for just a moment.

13 Q. And I would like to ask Mr. Janc first: Do you recognise the

14 document, and have you had a chance to review it?

15 A. Yes, for both.

16 Q. Can you just tell us, in summary, what this document -- or how

17 this document, rather, relates to the intercept that we've just seen?

18 The intercept was 65 ter 5538.

19 A. Yes, this is the actual complaint from General Van Baal to the

20 VRS, General Manojlo Milovanovic, about the incident that happened in

21 Rogatica when he was stopped at check-point by the VRS and he couldn't

22 proceed his trip towards Gorazde because his personal belongings were

23 supposed to be checked by the VRS. And in the intercept, itself, we can

24 see that this is part of the content of the intercept, where it says that

25 General Van Baal returned back to Sarajevo after refusing to have his

Page 16117

1 personal belongings searched.

2 Q. Let's take a look at the third paragraph of this document, and

3 here we have, in the middle of the paragraph, it says, for

4 General Tolimir's benefit:

5 "The commander, Captain Zoran, appeared there after five minutes

6 with the necessary information."

7 And he says:

8 "I personally spoke with him. He also insisted on the searching.

9 He excluded my personal belongings from the search. Once more, I told

10 him that I had been personally involved in all negotiations with the

11 BSA HQ on the matter of freedom of movement. Captain Zoran once more

12 stated that he had firm orders to search personal belongings. These were

13 direct orders from General Mladic, he said."

14 In the last paragraph -- well, I'm sorry, the second-to-last

15 paragraph on the page, he then says:

16 "I concluded that we had a different opinion on this point and

17 that I would complain about this humiliating procedure, unacceptable to

18 UNPROFOR, and that I had to turn back to Sarajevo."

19 In particular, what he's written here, how does that relate to

20 the substance of the intercept, in your view?

21 A. This, as I just explained, confirms the fact that he was, indeed,

22 stopped at Rogatica check-point, and he returned back to Sarajevo after

23 refusing to -- his personal belongings to be checked.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you one other document. That's

25 65 ter 7445.

Page 16118

1 Mr. President, this is another document that was not on the

2 Prosecution's original 65 ter list, but for the same reasons, I would

3 like to use it with this witness.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you should proceed in the same way as

5 with the previous document.

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

7 I don't believe we have a translation of this one either, so I'll

8 read a little bit of it into the record to familiarise General Tolimir

9 with its contents.

10 This is a document which says "From," at the very top, "UNMO LO

11 Team Pale to UNPROFOR HQ Zagreb," and then it says -- it gives the date,

12 "18 July," I believe, "2030 hours," "182030B July 94." The date on the

13 document, itself, says "July 18, 1994," and it says "Headquarters of the

14 RS Army." "To: UNPROFOR Command, Zagreb,

15 Lieutenant General De Lapresle." And it says "To: UNPROFOR Command,

16 Sarajevo." "Attention: Brigadier General Van Baal."

17 If we go to the second-to-last paragraph of this document, or at

18 least down the page, we can see that this document came from the Chief of

19 Staff Lieutenant General Manojlo Milovanovic, to whom the complaint was

20 previously addressed, and he says in that second-to-last paragraph:

21 "I want to express my regret to General Van Baal and to apologise

22 for the inconvenience he had undergone."

23 Q. Did you have a chance to review this document as well, Mr. Janc?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. And did you find that it supported or not the intercept in

Page 16119

1 question?

2 A. Yes, it supported the intercept in question.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you another document. It's

4 65 ter 7446.

5 Mr. President, it's subject to the same circumstances as the

6 others, as you can see indicated in the packet. This one's in French,

7 and it has a B/C/S translation, fortunately.

8 Q. Have you had a chance to review this document, Mr. Janc?

9 A. Yes, I have.

10 Q. And in reviewing this document, were you able to find if it

11 corroborated or supported the intercept that we're dealing with now?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. How so?

14 A. We'll see that the meeting which is supposed to take place in

15 Gorazde with General -- between General Van Baal and General Tolimir will

16 be discussed in this document.

17 Q. We can see on this document that it is dated 11 July 1994?

18 A. Yes, correct.

19 Q. Okay. And is that consistent with the information in the

20 intercept thus far, up until this point?

21 A. Up until this point, I don't think so, but later on we'll see

22 that there is written the date of 12th of July, when this meeting will

23 take place.

24 Q. All right. Let's go over to item number big 3 --

25 Roman numeral III(A). That will be on page 2 in the English, and it

Page 16120

1 should be on page 2 in the B/C/S as well.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that there is no English, but the

3 French --

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

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- version.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE:

7 Q. Were you able to review this?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. And is this the reference you made concerning the date -- or the

10 reference that you found concerning the date of 12 July?

11 A. Yes, correct, in paragraph A.

12 Q. Okay. And how does this relate to the intercept in question?

13 A. It says here that a meeting will take place between

14 General Van Baal and General Tolimir on 12th of July in Gorazde in

15 relation to the death of the British soldier.

16 Q. And is that consistent with what's recorded in the intercept as

17 concerns the meeting that was to transpire between General Tolimir and

18 General Van Baal?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. How so?

21 A. On 12 of July, General Van Baal was on his way down to Gorazde,

22 and he returned back to Sarajevo because he refused to be -- to be

23 checked at check-point. And the intercept, itself, reflects this

24 information, that he was supposed to meet General Tolimir in Gorazde.

25 Q. And have you seen any other references to the circumstances of

Page 16121

1 the death of a British soldier, as is indicated here, that was to be

2 discussed on or about 12 July in Gorazde pursuant to this planned

3 meeting?

4 A. Yes, there is a reference to this same issue in Mladic's diary

5 which we have just seen before, so the same information is in his diary.

6 Q. And did you consider this together with the diary and the other

7 documents, in terms of the reliability of the intercept that we've just

8 looked at?

9 A. Yes, I did. And if you put all of them together, we are getting

10 more and more information about certain events. And in this case, we can

11 see that the intercept, itself, is just talking that he was -- I mean,

12 General Van Baal was on the way down to Gorazde. We don't see for what

13 reason. But from other corresponding documents, we can get more

14 information about what this meeting was about, and this is how you put

15 several different documents together and you get more and more

16 information. And also this is the way how to corroborate and --

17 corroborate the intercepts, itself, and to put them -- reliability.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me show you one other document, and this is

19 65 ter 7447. And -- okay, we have it now.

20 Q. And we can see here that this is an intercepted conversation

21 taken by the Sarajevo SDB Sector of the MUP of the BiH, and it's dated

22 13 July 1994, and it's timed at 2215 hours, and it's between

23 General Van Baal and General Mladic. And here we see -- have you had an

24 opportunity to review this particular intercept, first?

25 A. Yes, I have.

Page 16122

1 Q. And can you just tell us, just in general terms, what it's about

2 and what it concerns?

3 A. This is an intercepted conversation by the MUP Sarajevo on the

4 same date and, according to information on this intercept, at about the

5 same hour than the conversation from the Croatian intercept. And I

6 reviewed this document, and I can conclude that this is the same

7 conversation as it is -- as it was recorded by the Croatian authorities.

8 Q. Let me ask you this, because I'm sure everyone will be wondering:

9 Here we see a reference to the time of 1400 hours: "Tomorrow afternoon

10 at Pale, 1400 hours." Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in the other intercept, 5538, we see here: "14 July at 1600

13 hours in Pale"; that is, to meet with General Tolimir or General Gvero.

14 And then on the intercept we have on the screen in front of us, we see

15 General Mladic say:

16 "I think it would be better if it took place at 1500 hours."

17 So we have, between the two intercepts, three basically different

18 times, one proposed at 1400, one at 1500, and then in the Croatian

19 intercept, at 1600. Can you tell us how you took that -- if you took

20 that into account at all, in terms of assessing the reliability of the

21 intercept?

22 A. Yes, I spotted this discrepancy, and I can say that discrepancies

23 are quite common when you are reviewing the intercepts which were

24 intercepted by two different sources. For example, in this case, one

25 intercept was intercepted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia,

Page 16123

1 and the other one by the BiH side. Why this difference is there in this

2 time, I would say several reasons it might be for that, because, first of

3 all, the intercept which we have on the screen, the BiH intercept, is the

4 actual transcript of the whole conversation, whereas on the other side we

5 have just the summary of the Croatian intercept. So this might be one

6 reason why someone was not that precise when putting summary together.

7 So also some other reasons might be behind. And in this case, I would

8 say the most common problem would be that Croatians were so far away that

9 they couldn't hear, perhaps, the conversation clear enough to establish

10 what they are talking, and that's also, perhaps, the reason why, on the

11 other hand, the BiH side could hear this conversation better and they

12 could put this information into this intercept differently. So -- but

13 the gist of the conversation, itself, is the same, so we can say that

14 there is much more discrepancies in these two intercepts.

15 Q. Did you consider the discrepancies significant, in terms of

16 evaluating the reliability of the intercept?

17 A. No, not in this case.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would like to tender these

19 documents just as a matter of record. I don't know whether or not the

20 Defence objects to it. If they don't, then I would submit -- I would ask

21 for them to be admitted now. But if they do, then we can discuss it.

22 They were 65 ter 70 -- 7444 through 7447, and the intercept, itself,

23 which was 65 ter 5538.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are there any objections to add

25 these documents, the four mentioned documents, to the 65 ter exhibit list

Page 16124

1 and to admit them into evidence?

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

3 Yes, I do have an objection. The Prosecutor is speaking of

4 intercepts, whereas we can see in the intercepts that these are

5 translations from English. So let him tell us whether it was the English

6 who intercepted these conversation or whether it was Bosniaks, Croats.

7 There are many differences among them, and some have been translated,

8 some not. I cannot come to any conclusion just by looking at them.

9 Thank you.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I understood that the intercept is

11 that one of the 13th of July, 1994. The original is obviously Croatian,

12 because the English text has, in the heading, the remark "Translation."

13 This is what I take from this document, which should be 65 ter 5538.

14 This is the only intercept Mr. Vanderpuye just dealt with during this

15 part of the examination of Mr. Janc. The others were other documents.

16 Two of them don't have a translation yet. And, therefore, those

17 documents without a translation, of course, can only be marked for

18 identification, pending translation. That is clear. But in relation to

19 adding them to the 65 ter exhibit list and admission -- admissibility, in

20 principle, I would like to know the position of the Defence.

21 Mr. Gajic.

22 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that what

23 Mr. Tolimir is referring to is the document we see on the screen,

24 65 ter 7447. We will see, in the heading on the right-hand side, it

25 says: "Translation from English." I think that this is the element

Page 16125

1 General Tolimir was referring to. This has not been clarified in the

2 examination of the witness.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could it be scrolled down, the English text,

4 please. We want to see -- no, up, up. We want to see the heading.

5 I see the English translation and not translation -- oh, yes:

6 "Translation from English."

7 Mr. Vanderpuye, could you please clarify that with the witness?

8 In the heading I see: "English translation" --

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and further down on the right side:

11 "Translation from English."

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.

13 The explanation, I think, can be found in the fact that if you

14 look immediately beneath where it says "Van Baal" and "Mladic," you will

15 see a reference to the conversation occurring with the assistance of a

16 translator. So the conversation between Van Baal and Mladic is mediated

17 by a translator, because Van Baal, presumably, doesn't speak B/C/S and

18 spoke English, and that's what gets translated in the MUP intercept so

19 that it could be understood by the relevant authorities to which this

20 document would normally go.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, would that be your understanding of

22 this entry?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct, this is also my understanding.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

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

Page 16126

1 If something is translated, should it say in the document that it

2 is a translation from English? This is a transcript. There's something

3 wrong here. Why does it say: "Translation from English"? Did they get

4 documents from someone else and translate them or did they actually make

5 the tapes, the audio recordings?

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

8 To be honest, I don't think -- I think we just have a

9 disagreement with respect to the meaning of the term, as is indicated in

10 this document: "Translation from English." I don't know that -- I don't

11 know that there's any answer that can be given to General Tolimir,

12 because that question would apply regardless of whether or not this

13 intercept reflected translation from English or not. It could apply in

14 any circumstance with respect to any intercept which could be translated

15 from any language at any time. So I don't think there's any answer that

16 can be given to General Tolimir with respect to that question.

17 However, I think Mr. Janc has identified -- or I should say

18 confirmed at least a reasonable understanding of what the term has

19 indicated, just based on the face of the document, itself, and I think

20 that's a sufficient-enough basis to be able to use it with him, in terms

21 of, in particular, its relationship to the intercept which is recorded by

22 Croatian authorities, really, within minutes of this one, a completely

23 separate authority.

24 So -- but to that extent, I think it satisfies, I would submit,

25 the burden of admissibility at this point. If General Tolimir has

Page 16127

1 questions as to how it could have been recorded or whether it could have

2 been obtained from other sources, I think those are appropriate questions

3 to put during the course of cross-examination or, perhaps, are issues

4 that can be raised in a submission with respect to the weight to be

5 attributed to the document, but I don't think it's an admissibility

6 question at this point.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you get the floor, but I would like

8 to draw your attention to this sentence in brackets beneath the words

9 "Van Baal" and "Mladic," the two names. In the English translation, it's

10 written:

11 "(Conversation conducted with the help of an interpreter of

12 General Van Baal)."

13 That could be an explanation as just -- Mr. Vanderpuye did it.

14 You have the floor, Mr. Tolimir.

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

16 All conversations conducted by UN officers were interpreted.

17 This is the first time that it says on the transcript: "Interpretation

18 from English." I don't know how the document was drafted. You should

19 ask the one who processed other documents.

20 Could, perhaps, Mr. Vanderpuye tell us whether the entire

21 document is a translation from English or are just Mr. Van Baal's words

22 interpreted, because all officers who were in Bosnia spoke a foreign

23 language and all of their conversation and words had to be translated or

24 interpreted. But this is the first time ever in any of the document that

25 it is specified that the words are an interpretation or a translation

Page 16128

1 from English.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

4 I don't dispute General Tolimir's observation that we have here a

5 specific -- or an explicit, rather, reference in the document to the fact

6 that it's translated from English. There's -- like I said, there's no

7 answer to how much of it is translated, whether it was just Van Baal,

8 whether General Mladic spoke English, whether or not it was captured by

9 some third party in English, or translated into English and then fed to

10 the MUP. There's simply no way to answer that question, but I think, as

11 I mentioned, that the explanation that Mr. Janc has indicated is one

12 that, on its face, is a reasonable explanation.

13 And what we're talking about here, in terms of the admissibility

14 of the document, is, really, what's on its face, prima facie, not

15 relevance and reliability and probative value, which I think is clear.

16 It's clearly probative with respect to the intercept that is not

17 disputed, in terms of its authenticity, given the prior testimony in this

18 case, and it directly speaks to the issues in that intercept and directly

19 relates to the reliability of that intercept. So it's relevant, it's

20 probative, and, on its face, is reliable enough to be admitted.

21 So that's my argument at this point, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this document, 65 ter 5538, is already on the

23 65 ter exhibit list?

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 16129

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Like the Prosecution, the Chamber can't find an

2 explanation why there is this entry: "Translation from English." There

3 may be many explanations, but at the moment we are only dealing with

4 admissibility, which has a quite low threshold. If we look at this

5 document together with the other documents shown to the witness, we will

6 receive this document into evidence without giving weight to that at the

7 moment. That will be done by the Chamber at a later stage, if we really

8 can rely on this document. But it will be part of the whole package of

9 documents in evidence, to give weight to that at a later stage.

10 It will be received as an exhibit.

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

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please. We need the document number.

13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5538 shall be

15 assigned Exhibit P2441. Thank you.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

17 Then we have to deal with the four documents which are not yet in

18 the 65 ter exhibit list used with this witness.

19 Are there any concerns to add them to the 65 ter exhibit list,

20 Mr. Tolimir?

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

22 The Defence does not have any objections to that. Thank you.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

24 Leave is granted to add these four documents to the 65 ter

25 exhibit list. And I take it that you are tendering these four documents

Page 16130

1 as well.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am, Mr. President. It occurs to me, though,

3 that there might be some confusion in the record, and that is that the

4 document that you have in e-court now is 65 ter 7447. It is not 5538. I

5 just wasn't sure if maybe there was some confusion about that. 5538 is

6 the Croatian intercept, but that's not this document. It's another one.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're absolutely right, Mr. Vanderpuye. We

8 mixed up the two numbers. We didn't discuss the intercept, which is

9 65 ter 5538, and this is now in evidence. We discussed -- and the

10 concern of Mr. Tolimir was in relation to the other intercept, which

11 is - one moment -- please help me. Which one?

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: His concern was in relation to this particular

13 intercept, which is 7447, which is a corroborating document to

14 65 ter 5538. So the principal intercept is 5538. This is the Croatian

15 intercept. A document that's used to corroborate the reliability or

16 demonstrate the reliability of that intercept is this intercept, which is

17 in a BiH MUP intercept, which was recorded very close in time to the

18 Croatian one, but it is not -- it is a separate agency, it's a separate

19 thing altogether. And it's being offered as corroboration for the

20 Croatian intercept. The one that -- so the Croatian intercept has no

21 indication that it's translated from English; none. It's only this

22 corroborating document that does.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we can resolve this problem very easily

24 if I ask Mr. Tolimir if there are any objections to the admission of the

25 other documents used with the witness, all those under tab 2 of the

Page 16131

1 binder. Are there any other objections?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have already said

3 that the Defence does not have any objections, save for the document

4 65 ter 07447 [as interpreted], which, in our view, is not an intercept,

5 but a translated conversation. That is our opinion.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

7 In that case, we will receive into evidence the document

8 65 ter 7444, 7445, but those only marked for identification, pending

9 translation. And then 7446 and 7447, that was the document -- we ruled

10 on that after considering your objection.

11 Now we want to have the document numbers for these four

12 documents.

13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7444 shall be

15 assigned Exhibit P2442, marked for identification, pending translation.

16 65 ter document 7445 shall be assigned Exhibit P2443, marked for

17 identification, pending translation. 65 ter document 7446 shall be

18 assigned Exhibit P2444. And 65 ter document 7447 shall be assigned

19 Exhibit P2445. Thank you.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

21 I apologise for my mistake I made in mixing up the two intercepts

22 or conversations. Now our problems seem to be resolved.

23 Mr. Gajic.

24 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to seek

25 clarification with regard to P2244. We know that there is a translation

Page 16132

1 into Serbian. The document was originally drafted in French. There is

2 no translation into English. The Defence doesn't mind that fact.

3 However, we would like to see whether the Prosecution has any problems

4 with that, whether we may receive an English translation in the meantime,

5 and that would help us a lot.

6 As regards documents in French, if they are translated into

7 Serbian, they don't need to have English translations, as far as we are

8 concerned. As far as the other participants in the proceedings are

9 concerned, they should state their opinion with this regard.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, especially for those who are not able to

11 read French fluently, it would be very helpful. On the other hand, I was

12 told earlier that our Translation Unit doesn't translate documents --

13 French documents into English, and the other way around. But if it is --

14 if we could get an English translation, it would be very helpful. We

15 would --

16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand we've actually made a request to

17 have it translated.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that.

19 Please carry on.

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

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we need our second break.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have our second break and resume 20

24 minutes past 6.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.

Page 16133

1 --- On resuming at 6.22 p.m.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, please go ahead.

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

4 If I could go to the next tab. It should be tab 3.

5 Q. I'd like to show you, Mr. Janc, 65 ter 5542. What we should have

6 here is an intercept from the Croatian authorities from 10 September

7 1994.

8 We're having problems with the B/C/S version of it. That's no

9 problem. I can read some of it into the record until that comes up.

10 All right, we have something. Great.

11 Mr. Janc, have you seen this intercept before?

12 A. Yes, I have.

13 Q. Okay. And just in general terms, were you able to find

14 information from other sources that corroborate the contents of this

15 intercept? Once again, it's 10 September 1994. It's timed at 10 hours

16 33 minutes.

17 A. Yes, in general terms, I would say yes, because there is no

18 documents which would say exactly what we can see here in this intercept,

19 but there are UNPROFOR documents which are talking about the tensions in

20 this Bihac pocket on this date.

21 Q. You're referring to the part of the conversation that, well,

22 indicated here that a message was sent to General Tolimir regarding the

23 shelling of the town of Bihac?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. All right. And what documents were you able to identify? You

Page 16134

1 mentioned that there were some UN documents.

2 A. Yes, there are actually two documents, one of which is in French,

3 which I couldn't understand it, and was the relevant portion which was

4 marked -- was read out to me because I don't speak French, and the other

5 one is in English. The French document is from 10 September 1994.

6 Q. Let's take a look at that one.

7 A. The English one is from the same date.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: We'll take a look at the French one, which is

9 65 ter 7448.

10 Mr. President, this one is also a document that needs to be

11 added -- or I would be moving to add to the 65 ter list of the

12 Prosecution. I don't believe we have a B/C/S translation of this

13 document either.

14 For the benefit of General Tolimir, this is a document to

15 Mr. Annan from Mr. De Lapresle of UNPROFOR Zagreb, dated 10 September

16 1994, and it talks about the situation in the Bihac pocket?

17 Q. Is this the document that you're referring to, Mr. Janc, first of

18 all?

19 A. Yes, correct.

20 Q. You indicated that part of this -- what's recounted in this

21 document is reflected -- or, rather, reflects on the content of the

22 intercept which was 65 ter 5542; is that right?

23 A. Yes. On page 4 of this document, there is a first paragraph

24 which is talking about the situation in Bihac pocket.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Let's take a look at that. That's

Page 16135

1 item 12 on page 4, I believe.

2 Q. Now, I could take a stab at reading this, although somewhat

3 reluctantly, in order to have it translated into the record, but could

4 you tell us, generally, what you refer to in this paragraph that's

5 relevant -- of relevance, rather, to the intercept in question?

6 A. Yes. As I explained, I can't say exactly what's written there

7 because I don't read French. But as I was read out this paragraph, I

8 could establish that this was somehow connected to the general situation

9 in Bihac pocket at that time which -- where there were tensions between

10 VRS and the other side in conflict.

11 Q. Let's take a look at the first couple of sentences of this

12 document, which I think might help General Tolimir a little bit, and I'll

13 do my best to read it into the record so it can be translated for

14 everyone.

15 It says, at item 12 [French spoken].

16 [Interpretation] "... return to Zagreb, I was able to have an

17 update --"

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There are technical problems via receiving

19 English translation.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I thought it was my speech, but thank you.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I don't think that it was as bad as you

22 suppose.

23 Now we receive French translation on the English channel. You

24 should try once more, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll try again. Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 16136

1 Q. At paragraph 12, it reads -- [French spoken]

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Regrettably, we don't receive any English

3 translation on the English channel. Your French is too good.

4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Evidently.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you receive a B/C/S translation, Mr. Gajic?

6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The Serbian interpretation is

7 functioning, as always.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's hard work for you, it's really a challenge.

9 We have it -- oh, yes.

10 You should just continue, and we'll see if it will work.

11 THE INTERPRETER: It will work.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE:

14 Q. It continues:

15 [Interpretation] "As I returned to Zagreb, I was in a position to

16 take stock of the situation by phone with General Rose in order to

17 co-ordinate the organisation of meetings between the various parties and

18 look for a settlement of this Bihac problem. He told me about his close

19 contacts with the Pale and Sarajevo authorities. And regarding these

20 contacts, he said he had asked Mr. Ganic to have the mortar fire stopped

21 immediately, mortar fire that had taken place at 12.00 noon today, by the

22 Bosnian forces from the Bihac Villa as a response to the fire from the

23 Serb Bosnian forces against military objectives located close to that

24 town. A similar action was taken with General Tolimir in Pale, with the

25 aim of having any Serbian provocation stopped, as I requested already

Page 16137

1 yesterday, in the evening, in my letter to General Mladic."

2 [In English] Is this the relevant part of the document you

3 considered in relation to the intercept in question, which talks about

4 the shelling of the town of Bihac?

5 A. Yes, exactly.

6 Q. And let me show you the other document that you referred to,

7 which is 65 ter 7449.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please.

9 Mr. Gajic.

10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wish to draw

11 attention to page 70, line 3. In the English text, it says "a similar

12 action." I think it would be better to say "a similar demarche" or "an

13 analogous demarche."

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I think this is a more literal

15 quotation. Thank you very much.

16 Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

18 I think I've asked for 64 [sic] 7449 in e-court, I would just

19 like to show that to Mr. Janc.

20 Q. Here we have another document, and again without a translation.

21 This one, for the benefit of General Tolimir, is also dated 10 September

22 1994, and this one is from Akashi to Annan, and it is also concerning the

23 situation in Bihac. In particular, in -- first of all, do you recognise

24 this document?

25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 16138

1 Q. And did you consider this document also in relation to the

2 intercept that we've just looked at?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And what about this document bears on the content of the

5 intercept?

6 A. Again, as the one before, we will see on page 2 of this document

7 that it is talking about the situation in Bihac, the second paragraph and

8 the third one.

9 Q. Is there anything in particular in this paragraph that you found

10 supported the intercept -- supported at least the reliability of the

11 content of the intercept?

12 A. Yes. The intercept, itself, says that a message was sent to

13 General Tolimir saying that aerial attacks by NATO forces on Serbian

14 units would follow unless the shelling of the town of Bihac did not stop

15 as a matter of urgency. And here in the second paragraph, we can see the

16 last part of the paragraph written that:

17 "Accordingly, General Rose has advised the BSA of our assessment

18 of the situation and warned them not to attack the safe area."

19 So this is the sentence which I would say correspond to the

20 intercept, although we can see here in the document, itself, that it

21 refers to General Rose. On the other hand, on -- in intercept we have

22 General Stanley who is calling or sending message to General Tolimir.

23 But I would say that this does not change the point.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

25 Mr. President, I would like to tender these documents; that is,

Page 16139

1 the intercept as well as the corroborating material. That's 65 ter 7448

2 and 7449. Neither has an English translation, and I believe we've

3 submitted translation requests for them into B/C/S, and also, for the

4 French document, I believe, also into English, as well as the intercept,

5 itself, which is 65 ter 5542.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

7 I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir if there is any objection to add

8 document 65 ter 7448 and 7449 to the 65 ter exhibit list and any

9 objection to the admission of these documents into evidence.

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

11 have an objection.

12 These documents are not correct and are not authentic. May it be

13 checked whether General Stanley was ever at the UNPROFOR Command?

14 There's something wrong here. This is a forgery. Thank you.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you please indicate to which document you are

16 referring?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 05542, the first sentence, where it says "General M. Stanley." I

19 have never heard of General Stanley. I'm not supposed to testify, but

20 maybe Mr. Vanderpuye would be able to clarify with the witness whether a

21 General Stanley was in Bosnia during the conflict, whether he was

22 affiliated with the UNPROFOR Command.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I suppose I can ask Mr. Tolimir -- Mr. Janc

25 whether or not he can shed light on this, if you're able to.

Page 16140

1 THE WITNESS: No, not at this point. I would need to take a

2 closer look into this name to find out. So right now, I can't say, but

3 deeply inside, I think I heard this name. But I can't confirm for the

4 fact right now.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE:

6 Q. Do you see an indication in the intercept, 5542, of where

7 General Stanley is at the time that this message is sent?

8 A. No, we don't know where he was at the time. It might be

9 Sarajevo, it might be also Zagreb or anywhere else, so we don't see that

10 from the intercept, itself, where is he calling from and where is he

11 from, actually.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

13 Mr. President, I would still tender these documents. I don't see

14 that the fact that General Tolimir doesn't know or -- well, he's not

15 testifying - has represented that he doesn't know who General Stanley is,

16 or the fact that General Stanley is not -- his affiliation isn't

17 indicated in the intercept has any bearing on whether or not the

18 communication was actually made, as indicated in the intercept,

19 particularly to the extent that what is indicated in the intercept

20 relates to events which are otherwise fully corroborated by independent

21 means.

22 Specifically, it refers to -- it refers to a warning to the Serb

23 forces concerning the shelling of the town of Bihac, which we can see is

24 reflected in the two UN documents that we've just reviewed, one which is

25 a specific warning, which is under 65 ter 7449, on the second page of

Page 16141

1 that, which Mr. Janc just testified about, concerning a warning to the

2 BSA not to attack the safe area of Bihac, in particular, and that the

3 force commander has also sent a letter to General Mladic concerning this,

4 and then also, in the version -- not the -- rather, not the version, the

5 other document, which is 65 ter 7448 from Mr. De Lapresle, the one that

6 we've just read in French, indicating that Dr. Ganic was asked to cease

7 immediately firing mortars as of 1200 hours on the part of the Bosnian

8 side from Bihac in response to firing from the Serb side, which was

9 referred to as against military objectives in the proximity of the town.

10 And this is, on its face, reflected in the substance of the intercept,

11 65 ter 5542.

12 And so I think on that basis alone, it satisfies the

13 admissibility criteria under Rule 89, notwithstanding General Tolimir's

14 objective [sic] that he doesn't know who General Stanley is or what his

15 affiliation was.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. I have two questions, one

18 for the Defence and the other one for the Prosecution.

19 General Tolimir, you challenge both documents. What is your

20 basis, apart from the fact that General Stanley, according to you, was

21 not present in Sarajevo at the moment of the facts? That's my question

22 for the Defence. In other words, do you also challenge the substance of

23 the document?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge Mindua, I do not challenge

25 the substance of the document. It suits me to have it admitted because

Page 16142

1 it's false. I don't know any general by this name. And I would be very

2 happy were this document admitted into evidence because then I could

3 prove that these documents are spurious and unreliable. So we, the

4 Defence, have nothing against this document. Thank you.

5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Now my question for the

6 Prosecution: Could you tell us where those two documents come from?

7 What is their source?

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: The two documents, Your Honour, are UN

9 documents. We can see that one is from the force commander of UNPROFOR

10 from Zagreb, and the other one is from Yasushi Akashi from UNPROFOR in

11 Zagreb as well. Both of them are UN documents, and they are -- well,

12 they were provided to us by the UN for the purposes of use before the

13 Tribunal. The other one is -- rather, not the other one. The intercept,

14 itself, as we know, is of Croatian origin, from prior evidence in the

15 case. If you'd like me to elaborate on it, I can, but I think we'd have

16 to go into private session for me to do that.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this

18 explanation. It's not necessary to go into private session.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, just a clarification.

20 Your last comment was that you don't have anything against

21 admission of this document, but you challenge the content of it and the

22 way it was produced, this intercept. And, therefore, is it your position

23 that you will deal with that during the cross-examination of this

24 witness, or with another witness, or during the Defence case? Everything

25 is possible. Is my understanding correct that you do not object to the

Page 16143

1 admission of this document?

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

3 I'm not objecting to anything. I just want to tell the Chamber

4 that there are incorrect things in this document and it's misleading for

5 the Chamber. If there's a general mentioned in the document, we have to

6 know who the general is. There aren't all that many generals. And it

7 says here that there's a general in Zagreb and one in Sarajevo, so the

8 transcript does not reflect the documents. Is the transcript to be

9 trusted or not? Is it incorrect, imprecise, unclear? Thank you.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First, since there is no objection by Mr. Tolimir

12 to the admission of the intercept, which is 65 ter 5542, it will be

13 received, with your remarks, Mr. Tolimir, you have put on the record in

14 relation to a certain General Stanley and with your remark that, in your

15 opinion, it is a forgery. This document will be received.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 5542 shall be assigned

17 Exhibit P2446. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The other two documents will be marked for

19 identification, pending translation. And, again, we hope that it will be

20 possible to receive an English translation of the French letter.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7448 shall be

22 assigned Exhibit P2447, marked for identification, pending translation.

23 And 65 ter document 7449 shall be assigned Exhibit P2448, marked for

24 identification, pending translation. Thank you.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

Page 16144

1 Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

3 If I could show the witness, please, 65 ter 5408.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that we are now dealing with documents

5 behind tab 4 of the binder.

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

7 Q. While we're waiting for the English, let me ask you, Mr. Janc:

8 Have you had a chance to review this particular intercept? It's dated

9 October 5, 1994, and timed at 1500 hours 10 minutes.

10 A. Yes, I have reviewed it.

11 Q. And were you able to identify any additional documents supporting

12 the reliability of the content of this particular intercept?

13 A. Yes, I was. There are two documents.

14 Q. And can you tell us what those were?

15 A. Yes. One is an intercept again from Sarajevo State Security

16 Service, from this same date. And in my opinion, it is about the same

17 conversation. And the second one is a document -- is a UN document

18 again, UNPROFOR document, a daily report from that day.

19 Q. All right. So in this particular intercept, we can see that it

20 refers to the Main Staff having dispatched General Tolimir to Kopaci

21 village, and then in parenthesis it says "(Gorazde)," "... to co-ordinate

22 with the UNPROFOR the evacuation part of the population from Gorazde."

23 If I could, I'd like to show you 65 ter 5611. And this document,

24 can you tell us what it is?

25 A. This is the intercept I was talking about before. MUP SDB, State

Page 16145

1 Security Service, from 5th of October, 1994. It's a conversation --

2 transcribed conversation of the intercept communication.

3 Q. And, in particular, what part of this conversation is reflected

4 in the intercept 65 ter 5408 that we've just looked at, the Croatian

5 origin -- the intercept from Croatian origins?

6 A. Yes. If you move down into this, we can see the paragraph one

7 before the last one, which starts with "M." And this is

8 General Milovanovic saying:

9 "I will send General Tolimir and his crew to Kopaci near Gorazde

10 to co-ordinate the evacuation process with UNPROFOR and the Muslims."

11 So it's talking about the evacuation and General Tolimir being

12 dispatched to Kopaci village.

13 Q. And did you find that this intercept, that is the MUP intercept,

14 Sarajevo SDB sector, supported or corroborated the Croatian-origin

15 intercept in other ways, or in any other way, if you can recall?

16 A. Yes, also there are some other parts which are talking about the

17 issue of how many vehicles have been approved for evacuation, and there

18 is a dispute regarding the UNHCR vehicle in both intercepts. So it's --

19 actually, in this intercept we have more information than we have in a

20 summary of Croatian intercepts, but everything what is in Croatian

21 intercept is also in this one, in BiH one.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

23 Let's take a look at one last document, if we could,

24 Mr. President, and then we can wind up for the day, and that is

25 65 ter 7452.

Page 16146

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

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

3 Before this document is tendered, it might be a good idea if the

4 Prosecutor were to clarify with the witness why this is a translation

5 from English. If this is an intercept, was it the service that

6 intercepted the conversation that translated it as well? And if not, who

7 did translate it?

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It seems to be a quite similar issue we dealt

9 with earlier with another document. In the document 65 ter 5611, we see

10 the heading "Report Submitted on 5th of October, 1994, Translated from

11 English." I take it that Mr. Tolimir is referring to that part of the

12 document.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I'm certain that he is.

14 If we look under item number 1, we can see that there is a clear

15 indication that the conversation was again mediated through an

16 interpreter, and it seems that the same explanation that obtained with

17 respect to the other intercept from the MUP Sarajevo SDB Sector would

18 apply in this circumstance as well, as well as the same arguments with

19 respect to its admissibility and provenance in respect of the intercept

20 of Croatian origin.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the arguments are put on the record, as

22 with the previous document.

23 Please carry on and try to come to an end for today.

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

25 We should have, hopefully, 65 ter -- no, we don't. 65 ter 7452

Page 16147

1 in e-court, please.

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

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. Okay. And is this a document that you considered, in terms of

5 evaluating the reliability of the intercept that we've just seen?

6 A. Yes, correct. This is a daily sitrep from 5th of October, 1994,

7 and the relevant part is on page, I think, 8 of this document,

8 paragraph 33.

9 Q. Let's just go straight there and take a look at that. Tell us

10 what about this particular paragraph supports the reliability of the

11 intercept in question, 65 ter 5408.

12 A. First, before paragraph 32, we can see "UNMO team Gorazde," and

13 here is the summary for Gorazde, what was happening. And paragraph 33 is

14 talking about the humanitarian activity, and we can see that:

15 "Today UNPROFOR escorted and transported out of the pocket: 33

16 Serbs to Kopaci at 1530 ..."

17 And so on and so on. And the last paragraph, it says:

18 "The operation went well, and General Tolimir (head of security)

19 was present."

20 So this paragraph corroborates the intercept, itself.

21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Janc.

22 Mr. President, I see we're out of time, so I guess we'll -- I'll

23 tender these tomorrow so that we can cut it short now, and we'll pick up

24 then.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a very good proposal. It is appreciated.

Page 16148

1 We deal with that tomorrow. And we will resume tomorrow, in the

2 afternoon, at 2.15 in the same Courtroom III.

3 We adjourn.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of July,

7 2011, at 2.15 p.m.