²⁷⁹³ Wednesday, 16 June 2010

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody in the courtroom. Good morning.

At the outset of today's hearing, the Chamber would like to raise three procedural matters. The first is related to replacement of draft transcripts again.

The Chamber wishes to clarify its previous oral order of the 3rd of May concerning the replacement of draft transcripts headed: "Not Official; Not Corrected." Although the draft transcripts specified for replacement in the previous order were the public versions, the Chamber considers that it is in the interests of justice to have all draft transcripts, whether public or confidential, replaced by the official, corrected versions. This means that, in addition to those transcripts specified in our previous order, the Prosecution should liaise with the Registry to also replace the following confidential draft transcripts with the official versions: P1, P8, P20, P48, P59, P68, P96, and P101, and any other draft transcripts that are subsequently identified.

Furthermore, the Chamber notes that in the future, draft transcripts tendered into evidence will only be provisionally admitted and marked for identification, pending replacement by the official versions. ²⁷⁹⁴ The second matter is related to tendered materials. The Chamber takes this opportunity to remind the parties that pursuant to the 24th of February, 2010, order on presentation of evidence and as explained in the trial management meeting held on the 5th of March this year, this is an e-court trial. As such, the documents in e-court comprise the official evidentiary record of the proceedings. Therefore, a party tendering a document into evidence should make every effort to ensure that the document is up-loaded and released in e-court as of the date of tendering. This is the date a party moves on the record for admission of a document into evidence, whether done orally in court or filed in a written submission.

Furthermore, as of the date of tendering, the parties shall not modify the tendered document without leave of the Chamber. The exceptions to this rule occur in the very limited circumstances when the Chamber has admitted an exhibit pending the attachment of a translation, or ordered the parties to replace draft transcripts with the official versions. In these instances, leave of the Chamber has already been granted for the tendering party to liaise with the Registry to modify the tendered documents. All other modifications of tendered documents must be approved by the Chamber.

The third matter is related to today's witness. And before the witness is brought in, the Chamber would like to note one procedural matter concerning this witness.

Yesterday, the Chamber orally and partially granted the Prosecution's motion filed on the 26th of April, in which it requested to ²⁷⁹⁵ convert the next witness, Danko Gojkovic, from a 92 bis witness to a 92 ter witness. In this regard, the Chamber notes that in the Prosecution's notification on its witnesses scheduled for this week, filed last Friday, the 11th of June, Gojkovic was listed simply as a 92 ter witness, without indicating that his evidence was still subject to a decision on the motion. Just before the end of the session yesterday, the Prosecution notified that the status of Gojkovic's evidence was still pending. In the Chamber's view, such a last-minute notice is not preferable and could be unfair, even though the accused did not oppose the Prosecution's request in this particular instance. In addition, the Chamber noticed that Witness Gojkovic is not included in the Prosecution's list of witnesses scheduled for this month. Therefore, the Chamber encourages that in the future, a timely notification be made so that the Chamber could issue a decision appropriately and expeditiously.

These were some guide-lines, and now the witness should be brought in.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir. Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: DANKO GOJKOVIC

[The witness answered through interpreter] ²⁷⁹⁶

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down. Mr. McCloskey, for the Prosecution, has some questions for you. Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, everyone.

Examination by Mr. McCloskey:

Q. Can you first, Witness, please state your name for the record?

A. My name is Danko Gojkovic.

Q. And can you spell the last name so we get it right?

A. G-O-J-K-O-V-I-C.

Q. Okay. Yesterday, did you get a chance, in our offices, to listen to your testimony in the Popovic case that you gave in April and May of 2007?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you find it to be correct and truthful or did you want to change anything in it?

A. To the best of my recollection, because it was three years ago, so I think that's it.

Q. Okay. And also did you have a chance to read your interview with the OTP that you did on 16 May 2006?

A. Yes.

Q. And as far as you could recall, was it also correct and truthful?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you were asked the same questions that you were asked in those -- in the interview and in your testimony, would your answers be ²⁷⁹⁷ the same?

A. Yes.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, there is a small problem. We always hear the typing of Ms. Stewart because your microphone is still on all the time. Perhaps you can move a little bit. Thank you very much. That is very helpful, especially for the interpreters. Please carry on.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a while since we've been in this courtroom, but we'll get our bearings, though the closer I am to Ms. Stewart, the better I feel about my numbers.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand that. But especially if you switch off your microphone when putting a question to the witness, it would be -- yes, disconnect the noise.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. At this point, I would like to offer the previous testimony into evidence, and it is number P496.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.

MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, you should have a list of documents, all of which came in through this witness in his testimony in the Popovic case, so they fit that particular category. However, some of those documents were mentioned in Tomasz Blaszczyk's direct testimony in this case when he was talking about the Drina Corps collection, because these documents are also from the Drina Corps collection, and so you will -- I think you should see on your list, in bold on the left side, ²⁷⁹⁸ those numbers that were previously given to some of Mr. Gojkovic's documents because they were discussed, in part, by Mr. Blaszczyk. So that should clarify that.

And one other clarification. I noted, in reviewing the testimony and when I moved this material into evidence in Popovic, I had stated that the witness had talked about each of the documents in this large packet. And when I reviewed each of the documents now, I noticed that the first three or four documents in the packet, he did not actually speak of in his previous interview, but I just wanted to clarify that. I still think all these documents should come in because they were part of this packet that was found separately in the Drina Corps collection. And given that it appears there is a challenge on some important documents, I think it's important that the Court has the entire packet so that they can look at it as a whole. And so that said, I would offer that packet of documents in their entirety as they came in in the Popovic case, and all their numbers you should have now that were assigned by the Registry. And I'm at --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I understood you correctly, you are referring to the numbers P468 through P495.

MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. And we already see that there is -- the Blaszczyk documents were P122, 128, 123, 124, 129 and 125.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's correct, and these documents will be received. And I hope they all have a translation.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, they do, although I noticed a few glitches here and there in some of the translations; nothing major. Some of them, ²⁷⁹⁹ I will be able to fix, and we'll be notifying the Court of anything serious.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told by the Registry they all have an attached translation.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, they do. And I'm told that the Popovic transcript is the proper revised, full transcript, so we should be in good shape.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please carry on.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, Witness, I will read a brief summary of your evidence.

Mr. Danko Gojkovic was born in June 1967 in Rogatica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He performed his mandatory military service in 1985 in the JNA in the Communications Section. He was mobilised in April 1992 and worked as a signalsman in the Command of the 1st Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade, known informally as the Rogatica Brigade.

In July 1995, Gojkovic was working as a teleprinter operator in the Communications Platoon of the Rogatica Brigade. At the time, he worked with other teleprinter operators, including an older man he knew by the name of Ziza.

Gojkovic described his duties and the system of receiving and transmitting encrypted communications between his unit and other VRS units.

As a teleprinter operator, Gojkovic would be brought various ²⁸⁰⁰ documents or telegrams, either typed or handwritten or received orally over the telephone, and he would type them into the teleprinter and then transmit them in an encrypted form to the appropriate location. After he typed a message into the teleprinter, he would sign and date either the original message or the typewritten version that came out of the teleprinter and send it back to the command.

He also received documents sent to the Rogatica Brigade over the teleprinter. When Gojkovic received a document addressed to the Rogatica Brigade Command on the teleprinter, he would write on the top of the document the time and date when it was received and then sign it. He or another person would then deliver it to the Rogatica Brigade Command. Gojkovic also described the process of coding and decoding transmissions and how couriers and other forms of communications were employed to transmit information and orders up and down the chain of command.

In his interview with the OTP on 16 May 2006, Gojkovic was shown a package of documents related to the Rogatica Brigade Command that was found in the Drina Corps collection. Gojkovic commented upon whether or not he recognised his initials or signatures on these documents. Gojkovic did not know or recall anything regarding the substance of these documents, but did identify his initials and those of some others. These documents included reports sent to General Tolimir at the Rogatica Command in July 1995 and included reports authored by General Tolimir and sent out from the Rogatica Command in July 1995.

Among the documents he was shown was document ERN 0525-8580, ²⁸⁰¹ dated 13 July 1995, under the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Milomir Savcic and noted to have been from the IKM of the 65th Protection Regiment at Borike, sent to the commander of the VRS Main Staff. The document was titled "Procedure for the treatment of prisoners of war." Gojkovic confirmed that he typed the document into the teleprinter and sent it. He identified his handwriting at the bottom of the page of the document, indicating the dispatch time of 1510 hours and the date of 13 July 1995 and his signature. Gojkovic could not recall whether he was given this document by a courier or over the telephone.

Gojkovic stated that there was no teleprinter connection between his office at the Rogatica Command and the forward command post at Borike. However, there was a telephone communication between his office and Borike. Gojkovic also stated that the Borike IKM did not have a teleprinter, meaning that the Borike IKM would not have sent any documents via teleprinter directly from the Borike IKM. And that concludes my summary.

Q. Mr. Gojkovic, did you, in listening to that, find any mistakes I made?

A. You did not make any mistakes.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't get a translation because I didn't have it on the right channel. Could you -- I'll just read that. Pardon me. Okay. Now, just to clarify, as a teleprinter operator, can you just describe to us what a teleprinter machine is, just in the most basic terms? We're familiar with fax machines, most of us remember old typewriters, but can you describe to us, just in the simplest terms, so ²⁸⁰² we can visualise what this machine is that you're operating?

A. A teleprinter is like an electronic typewriter. It sends and receives telegrams, and that the keyboard is the same like on a computer, except it's -- I don't know how to else to explain it. Only if we --

Q. Now, that's fine. And I'll go over four documents with you, and we can help explain it that way as well.

And so if we could go to the first document, and this would be P490.

And let me ask you, do you remember the substance or information in any of these documents where you identified your signature and that of others?

A. No.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. In that event, Your Honours, while the substance may be of interest, I will be concentrating with this witness on the B/C/S version, where he'll be identifying various things.

Q. And so if you could look at what's on the screen now.

MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we bring the B/C/S version a bit down so we can get -- I'm sorry, the other direction. Thank you.

Q. Now, can you tell us what this document is? We see that it's a -- you know, it's a printed document in all caps, mostly, with some handwriting on it. What is this, just -- does this have anything to do with the teleprinter?

A. Yes.

Q. And was this document received or sent by you?

A. I sent it. ²⁸⁰³

Q. And how do you know that?

A. In the top right corner, it's written "2315 of 15 July 1995," and my signature.

Q. And what does that mean, that time, date, and your signature, in relation to this document?

A. It's the time when the telegram was received at the corps, and they confirmed receipt.

Q. Well, and you say "the corps." How do you know it was received at the corps and not -- we also see it's addressed to the GS VRS, the Main Staff.

A. On the other side, there is also a teleprinter operator, and he typed back that he received the telegram. That's the only connection I have with the corps. I worked everything -- I worked -- I did all of my work for them.

Q. I understand that. Is there any way that you can tell from your notes that you actually received word back from the corps, as opposed to one of the other addressees on the document?

A. No, there isn't anything. I got it on a piece of paper, typed on the teleprinter, and I wrote down the time on the telegram.

Q. Okay. And can you -- did you originally get this document and type it into the teleprinter to send it off to the addressees?

A. Yes.

Q. And this particular document that we're looking at, since it has your signature on it, where did it actually come from? After you typed the document -- a document into the teleprinter, where does this document ²⁸⁰⁴ come from? Is this the original document you were given or is this a document that came out of the teleprinter?

A. This was typed into the teleprinter.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, if we could go to the bottom of the document.

Q. Now, we can see, from the bottom of the document, that it was from Rajko Kusic and M. Savcic, but there is no -- there is no signature. So is it possible, like it is with a fax machine, to send a signature over a teleprinter?

A. You cannot send a signature like that. Everything that's written on the piece of paper I typed into the teleprinter, but you cannot actually transmit a signature.

Q. When you get an important document like this document, would it normally have a signature on it before you actually typed the document into the teleprinter to send it?

A. No, it didn't need to have a signature. I really cannot remember whether it was supposed to have one or not, but for the most part there was no signature.

Q. All right. Let's go to another document, P123. And while we are waiting for that to come up, when you were shown these documents in the interview, were you shown the actual originals with actual inked signatures on your part; do you recall?

A. I don't remember, I don't remember.

Q. We have those originals here, if you would like to -- if you think you need to consult them at all. ²⁸⁰⁵

MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Your Honours, we have those, if you think that is necessary at any point.

Q. All right. And now, looking at this document, we see in the English up on the right, and we see in the Serbian up in the right, it looks like handwritten Cyrillic, and in the English it says "Ziza." Who or what is Ziza; can you tell us?

A. He was also a teleprinter operator when I worked there. Actually, he was the one who trained me. He was an older man, but I cannot really tell you until when he was there.

Q. Do you recall telling us in the interview that you thought that he had left before you or that you had replaced him during this time-period?

A. I do, but I made a mistake. He was there, and he left -- perhaps if we had more of these telegrams, then we could see exactly when he left, but I really don't remember.

Q. In my office yesterday, were you shown the packet of telegrams, where you had a chance to look at the telegrams from July and see Ziza's name on some of them?

A. Yes.

Q. And I mentioned a name of a person yesterday to you. I asked you if the name Desimir Zizovic sounded at all familiar. And can you tell us whether it does?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And is that -- does that have any relation to the Ziza you've been talking about? ²⁸⁰⁶

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And now looking at the -- let's look at the bottom of this document. We see "Ziza" written in -- at the right-hand corner on the top, and at the bottom of the B/C/S -- I think we need to go to the next page of the English -- sorry, and the third page of the English to get the end of the document. We see there, down at the bottom, the initials "DZ." It's actually typed in. Can you tell us who that is?

A. I couldn't really say, but I think these are Ziza's initials, "DZ."

Q. Would it be normal for the teleprinter operator to put their initials at the bottom of the teleprinted document like this?

A. No. Actually, if I remember correctly, I think it was not allowed. I'm not sure.

Q. All right. And we see, in the Serbian version, it says "Predato," it looks like, and then an hour. Can you just read that to us, what you see, "Predato," and what you think that says?

A. "Received" or "Handed in" at 950 hours.

Q. I don't know how well you remember the handwriting. Is it possible that "00,50," that's just what the translator saw, but you're the best person to be able to give us guidance. Can you -- do you have an opinion on which way that would be?

A. Perhaps it is "0050." I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Let's go to the next --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you leave this page, I would just like to indicate, for the record, in the B/C/S version it's "D.ZZ." Perhaps you ²⁸⁰⁷ could clarify why this is a double Z in comparison to the English version.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.

Q. If you could focus on again those letters that we see, "D.ZZ." Do you have -- can you help explain to us why there would be two Zs if this was what you thought it was, Ziza's initials?

A. I don't know why there is a double Z. I am not sure. Perhaps that's how he signed himself. I don't know why there are two letters Z.

Q. Can you think of any other reason, not related to Ziza, why there would be letters like this, some other related reasons in identifying the document, or the machine, or just some reason not related to teleprinter operator?

A. If I remember correctly, there was no letter "Zh" on the teleprinter, so I don't know why he put a double Z.

Q. And the letter "Zh" has a diacritic indicating the sound "Zh," is that correct, and that's not on the teleprinter?

A. That is true, it did not have that letter.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.

JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] A small question. Witness, is there a reason to think that this word

"Predato 00,50" -- or could it be "0950"? Is there a reason that it should be one or the other? Because in English, what is translated is "0050," without a comma and without a "9."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Could you please repeat it? ²⁸⁰⁸

JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'll start again. On the bottom of the B/C/S page, it says, handwritten "Predato," and the translation we have in the English text is "Handwritten/0050 hrs," "hours." I'm wondering the following: Could it be "00,50," as Mr. McCloskey seems to think or said, or "0950," 9 hours 50 minutes instead of 0 hours and 50 minutes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't really know if it's "0050" or "0950." I really cannot tell, either, whether it's a "0," or a "9."

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful if the Trial Chamber and the witness were able to see this and make your own judgement. It's one of those judgement calls, I think.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think that would be helpful.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps first for Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Gajic, and then to the witness.

Please show it to the witness now. Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY:

Q. Mr. Gojkovic, can you give us your best opinion on what you think that says?

A. I'm not sure that I'm able to answer this question. It could be "0050" or "0950." I really don't know.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Thank you for that. And I would note, for the record, that we can see that the English translation, while ²⁸⁰⁹ it got the time, it did not get "Predato," but I think the witness has clarified what that means, and I think it would be a good idea if we sent that to be revised so that they do get that in the record, so we don't have to go back to the transcript to figure it out, or a dictionary.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: And then the document could be given back to the Prosecution.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Now can we go to P49 [sic] and take a look at that for a moment. P491.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In order to avoid an error in the transcript, the following document actually says when it was transmitted, so my assistant can show you the document and give you the ERN number so you can establish, on the basis of that time, the time of this document. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that something to be dealt with in cross-examination or would it be helpful, for your line of questions, that Mr. Gajic is given the ERN number?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I -- there's many ways to figure out times and orders. You can look at the numbers. Other documents are numbered afterwards, so there are very many interesting and investigative ways of sorting this out. The General is absolutely correct. I have no problem with them showing that to us, but it may be better on cross. I'm not sure what he means, but if it's something you want to sort out right now, that's fine as well; either way. These are just meant to be a few examples of the kind of documents he's marking, but they will be, of ²⁸¹⁰ course, the subject of analysis of other witnesses, expert witnesses and other folks. But anything we can resolve, the sooner the better, in my view, but I think he's got a better handle on that right now than I do.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was only wondering if it would disturb your line of questions.

Mr. Gajic, please do what Mr. Tolimir was suggesting.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour. I would just like to say that we can establish whether it says "0050" here or "0950" here. We can look at Exhibit --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel kindly be asked to repeat the exhibit number.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] And we will see the manner in which Ziza wrote the dates in the document, the date and the time.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think, Mr. Gajic, you are the champion in the speed of speaking. The interpreters didn't catch your -- the number you have given. Please repeat.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we could look at Exhibit P489, since in this document, at the lower right-hand corner, the time is indicated, and it is very probable that this marking was entered by Ziza again.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We should have it on the screen, and we can then put a question to the witness on that. Thank you.

Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't see how that's very helpful. It is ²⁸¹¹ another Ziza document, and we agree with that. It's part of the material we're offering into evidence. I can ask the witness.

Q. Witness, do you see Ziza having done something on this document?

A. Yes.

Q. And would he have -- do you know who would have written "Predato" and the time in the bottom right-hand corner?

A. I think that it is Ziza, because also there is his signature in the upper right-hand corner. So it's probably him. I don't know who else it could be.

Q. And in looking at the way he wrote his numbers for the time, does that help you sort out what the time in the previous document might have been?

A. No. You can see clearly the numbers, and there it's --

Q. Okay. Perhaps let me ask you one thing about this document. It may or may not be helpful, but looking in the left-hand corner, where you see the abbreviation for "Strictly Confidential," "number 04-520-58/95," what is that?

A. The number of the telegram, most probably, and that before it came to the teleprinter, it was probably logged into some kind of record or log-book. I really cannot remember now.

Q. Would such a number be sequential, meaning would it change each time another document came in, in the order that the documents either came in or were sent out?

A. Yes, I do think it changed with each following dispatch.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. If we could go to -- ²⁸¹²

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we please go to the bottom again of both versions. And I think in English, the next page.

In B/C/S, we see the date, 17th July, and then the time, "0120," without a comma in between. Witness, what was usual, if you write a time, to put a comma between the hour and the minutes or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it just depends on the way people would usually enter such information. I would put a colon, somebody would put a comma, somebody would put a dash. It depends. I really cannot remember.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Staying on this issue, could we go to 492. And if I could hand the Court the original, and, of course, for the General and for the witness. And if we could put that up on the screen as well, of course.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be shown to the accused and Mr. Gajic, and then to the witness, and then back to Mr. McCloskey. We saw the original document and saw there was a comma included. That's all what we can see from that document.

And if you can scroll down or go to the last page. Thank you. And the same in English, please, last page.

MR. McCLOSKEY:

Q. And, Mr. Gojkovic, if we could just get your opinion on what time you believe this is, based on your experience, having worked there?

A. In this telegram, "0100." "0100," 1.00. ²⁸¹³

Q. And can you see which teleprinter operator did that?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document disappeared from the screen.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the right upper corner, again it says "Ziza."

MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we go to the first page of the English to see if -- make sure the translation caught that. Yes, I see it did.

Q. And so in your view, looking at that number down at the bottom, is that a comma, in your view?

A. I think it is.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. Let's go to 492, if we could, please. I'm sorry, let's go to 491, which is part of my regularly scheduled, second-to-last document.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question for the witness.

JUDGE NYAMBE: I have a question for Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

JUDGE NYAMBE: Is Ziza available to you as a witness?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, he is, Your Honour, and we have interviewed him and he should be available. He's not on our witness list, but as we see what is contested and what issues there are, we were thinking that that might be a good idea, but we're not absolutely sure yet because we're not sure how many of the documents there will be a contest to. But, yes, he is available, as far as I know.

JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

MR. McCLOSKEY:

Q. All right. Looking at this document, do you see your handwriting ²⁸¹⁴ on it anywhere?

A. In the right top corner, my signature and my handwriting.

Q. And so were you the person that wrote "Sent at 1820 hours on 13 July," and then signed your name?

A. Yes, yes.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And let's go to the bottom of the document, page 3 in the English.

Q. And we see -- can you look at the letters "G.D." down at the bottom left corner, and tell us what you think that is.

A. My initials.

Q. So that would be "Gojkovic, Danko," I take it.

A. Yes.

Q. And is starting with the last name first a customary way of putting one's initials sometimes in the former Yugoslavia, like this?

A. I don't know. I typed "G.D." It could have been also "D.G."

Q. And what kind of a machine was this document created from?

A. You mean the document I'm looking at?

Q. Yes.

A. The teleprinter.

Q. And how can you tell that?

A. I think it was typed on a teleprinter. It's typed as a telegram. I believe it's a teleprinter.

Q. And we noticed there is no handwritten signature at the bottom, and can you explain why that is?

A. It was at the top of the telegram. You could write it at the top ²⁸¹⁵ or at the bottom. It didn't matter. What was important was that there was a signature.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we have the witness look at this -- the original of this?

Q. Does this sort of long, narrow shape and the paper help you sort out what kind of machine this came from?

A. It doesn't help me. I don't know what type it is. There were two types of teleprinters. I really can't say which one it is. I'm afraid to make a mistake.

Q. I don't need to know which actual type of teleprinter, but can you conclude it is a teleprinter, as opposed to a typewriter, or a fax, or something else?

A. This is certainly a teleprinter paper.

Q. Did you ever use a fax machine in your work in 1995?

A. Not that I remember.

Q. All right. Can you -- is this a document that you did?

A. I only typed it and transmitted it. I didn't create the document. Somebody brought it to me. I retyped it and sent it where it needed to be sent.

Q. So this is a machine -- this document came out of the teleprinter machine at the Rogatica Brigade after you typed it in; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know, what would you have done with the original document that you used to create this? For example, if General Tolimir brought you something either handwritten or typewritten, what would you have done ²⁸¹⁶ with that original that was brought to you by him or his subordinates or couriers?

A. I would return it to the command.

MR. McCLOSKEY: All right, thank you. Hold on to that document for one second.

Let's go to the last document, and I want to give you the original of that, and that is P125. This was the document that was the subject of the 92 ter and my summary, so I -- but it is a rather important document. And if we could show the original to the witness. And I don't know if the General or Mr. Gajic wants to see it first. They're, of course, welcome to.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please give it first to Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Gajic.

MR. McCLOSKEY:

Q. Okay. And if you could just study that for a minute. Again, I'm not interested in the substance of this document, but could you just hold both documents up so that we can get a good look at them, one in one hand and one in the other? I just want to get an idea of the shape so we can see the different shape of the two documents. Okay.

A. [Indicates]

Q. Okay. The document that we're now talking about is clearly much more rectangular than the previous document. Can you tell us the -- okay, thank you very much for that.

The document that you're looking at right now, 125, what kind of -- we see that that is a -- we see typeface on this. What kind of ²⁸¹⁷ machine did this document, in your view?

A. In my opinion, a typewriter.

Q. And did you have anything to do with this document?

A. No.

Q. What I mean by that is: Do you recognise any writing you did on this document?

A. Yes, I wrote that I transmitted it at 1510 hours on the 13th of July, 1995.

Q. And is that an original inked signature of yours in the bottom left-hand corner underneath that information you just gave us?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you sometimes use a typewriter in your job in 1995?

A. No.

Q. Did you have access to a typewriter around the command somewhere?

A. There was certainly a typewriter at the command. But where I worked, no.

Q. And do you recall whether or not you received this information over the phone and had it typed in or whether someone delivered you this particular document and you typed it into the teleprinter? Do you know which way it was?

A. I can't remember. I think they brought it to me to retype. I don't think it's likely that somebody dictated it over the phone for someone else to type it and then bring it to me to retype.

Q. If someone was in -- at the Borike Forward Command Post and wanted a message sent by you, could they dictate it over the telephone ²⁸¹⁸ for you to write it down and send it?

A. Well, they could, but as far as I remember, that didn't happen because there was a telephone connection with Borike.

Q. Was there any teleprinter connection or fax connection with Borike, where they could actually send you a document already done?

A. As far as I remember, there was no teleprinter at Borike, and even less likely a fax machine.

Q. We can see, from this document which has your original inked signature on it, that it does not have any signature on the -- from the author by the document, Commander Lieutenant-Colonel Milomir Savcic. Can you make -- can you comment on that, why there is no signature?

A. No, no, I don't have an explanation, and there's no signature.

Q. There's also no strictly confidential number, and it's, as we can see, not in the typical form of a -- that we've seen from the other teleprinter documents. Can you explain that?

A. I don't know. I can't explain it. If only we had this same document typed on a teleprinter with a number on it, or perhaps I made a telephone call to find out the number. If we had the teleprinter version of this document, we would see perhaps a number, or perhaps it was sent simply like this, without a number.

Q. But the fact that you have signed and written "Delivered" on this, does that indicate that you actually typed this into a teleprinter and sent it?

A. Yes, yes.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I have nothing ²⁸¹⁹ further.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Witness, you know that now the accused has the possibility to put questions to you.

Mr. Tolimir, do you have cross-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Peace unto this house, peace unto everyone. I hope that this day of trial and the entire trial and the entire process be completed as God wills it, not as I will it.

I do have questions for this witness, and I will put them now, with your leave.

Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

Q. [Interpretation] Witness, since we speak the same language, when I say, Thank you, at the end of the question, then please wait a couple of seconds, and you can follow the typing on the screen in front of you. Wait until the typing finishes and then start answering, to avoid overlapping. Thank you.

My first question is: In July 1995, you worked at the command of the Rogatica Brigade. How far was that command from the forward command post at Borike? Thank you.

A. Eighteen kilometres, if you go on the road.

Q. Make just a slightly longer pause before your answer. Mr. Gojkovic, you talked to the Prosecutor on 16 May 2005, at the field office of the ICTY in Sarajevo, and also now in preparation for this testimony, and other times you testified before this Tribunal, and ²⁸²⁰ you constantly discussed the same series of documents. Did you call this set of documents "Atlantis" or did the Prosecutor give it that name?

A. I was also told that the batch is called "Atlantis," but I personally don't know what it means.

Q. Can you say for the transcript that you did not write, yourself, this name "Atlantis" that is indicated here together with the ERN number?

A. No, I did not write that name.

Q. Thank you. Can you tell us where those telegrams that you and Ziza transmitted were kept and who had access to them in your teleprinter room?

A. They were in our keeping. And when we were done with them, we returned them to the command. We didn't keep them longer than the time we needed to type them and transmit them. They would be immediately returned to the command.

Q. And where did you keep teleprinter tapes that were an impression of the telegrams that you transmitted?

A. We would have one or two tapes. The others were kept somewhere in the depot or the command. I can't remember exactly where. But we always had one in use and one in reserve, just in order not to run out during one shift.

Q. Where were the copies of teleprinter tapes for already-sent, outgoing telegrams kept, and for how long were they kept, if you remember?

A. Well, they were kept for 24 or 48 hours. I can't remember. Then they were destroyed. I don't know exactly how long. We kept them for a ²⁸²¹ while.

Q. In your training to become a teleprinter operator, were you taught that these tapes had to be kept as proof that a telegram was sent?

A. Yes, that's what I said. They were kept for a day or two just in case a problem occurred, and then they were destroyed.

Q. Do you know they should not have been destroyed until the competent person, official, who gave you the code allowed it? They should not have been destroyed?

A. No, I don't know that.

Q. Do you know that a text typed on a teleprinter, on a perforated tape and on this narrow paper, must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy, who could use it to discover your codes?

A. I know that.

Q. Do you know that it is also prohibited to misappropriate both the perforated tape and the teleprinter copy that you can produce to the command as proof of sending?

A. Can you repeat that question? I didn't really understand.

Q. Do you know that teleprinter material, in the form of a perforated tape, and the copy that is obtained after typing on a keyboard, the keyboard of the teleprinter, must not be destroyed or given to other persons so they -- or, rather, lest they discover your codes based on the perforated tape?

A. Yes, it's true, we were not supposed to give it to anyone. It was not allowed.

Q. Is it the case that every teleprinter machine releases both a ²⁸²² perforated tape and a paper with the characteristic typing?

A. The teleprinter, yes. The teleprinter runs both the perforated tape and the paper.

Q. Did all your teleprinters write telegrams mostly in those large block letters or small letters?

A. I don't know how to answer that. There were two types of teleprinters. This is, for instance, one type. I can't remember exactly the typing of the other one.

Q. All these telegrams shown you by the Prosecutor that you saw yesterday and earlier today, were they written -- typed in big block letters?

A. The one currently on the screen is. The other one, no.

Q. The other one was not typed on a teleprinter, only a typewriter?

A. Only typewriter.

Q. In big or small letters?

A. There are both lower case and upper case letters.

Q. Which means that it was typed on a typewriter, not a teleprinter?

A. Right.

Q. Did you just say to the Prosecutor that you did not have and did not need a typewriter?

A. In my work-place, I had no use for a typewriter.

Q. Didn't you just say that there was no need for you to type any material brought to you first on a typewriter, then on a teleprinter?

A. There was no need for that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank the interpreters for this ²⁸²³ caution that we are speaking too fast -- that I am speaking too fast.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. I will quote. The Prosecutor asked you if you received these telegrams by phone. You said:

"No, I don't remember. I think it was brought to me, who would type it on a typewriter and then a teleprinter."

Is that what you said a minute ago?

A. Yes.

Q. Then I will conclude before this Court that you did not type the contents of this telegram on a typewriter in your workroom. Somebody must have brought it to you.

A. I certainly didn't type it on a typewriter.

Q. I'm asking you these questions purposefully while your memory of the direct examination is still fresh.

Let me ask you another thing. Is it normal and customary for these telegrams, typed on a machine, to be kept in your documentation, while the perforated tape of the teleprinter is destroyed?

A. They didn't need to be kept. As soon as we receive confirmation of receipt from the corps, there was no need to keep it any longer. We kept the tape for 24 or 48 hours - I can't remember which - but we returned the originals immediately to the command as soon as it was typed.

Q. What was to you proof that you sent something from a teleprinter? Was proof this typewritten paper or the tape, perforated in the teleprinter in a specific way, in that specific code? ²⁸²⁴ I will repeat my question. For you, as an encryption operator, what was more valid as proof, that you have the perforated tape from that telegram or the copy that the teleprinter machine produced, rather than a typewriter or a manuscript?

A. This is for me a confirmation from the other side, from my fellow teleprinter operator on the other side, who confirmed that it was well received.

Q. If some investigating authorities wanted confirmation that you really sent a particular telegram, would you show them a telegram typewritten on a typewriter or would you show them a teleprinter report and the perforated tape as proof that you sent it?

A. I wouldn't produce anything.

Q. If they came to you and asked you --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey would like the floor.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. I didn't want to interrupt the question, but could the record reflect that when he made the answer and said this is -- I don't see exactly where he said it, but this is proof that the other side got it. Could the record reflect that he was holding up -- that's 32, line 7, thank you. Could the record --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Line 4.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah. Mine says "7," but it says: "This is for me a confirmation from the other side, from my fellow teleprinter operator on the other side, who confirmed that it was well received."

Could the record reflect that he picked up the P125, the more ²⁸²⁵ rectangular 13 July document, when he made that statement.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, could you confirm what the Prosecutor said?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we are over the regular time for the break, so that we should have the first break now.

We adjourn and resume at 11.00.

--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please carry on with your examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We'll continue where we left off.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].

Q. Witness, sir, the Prosecutor said this document that you indicated, he noted that for the transcript, did you show the document typed on the teleprinter or typed on the typewriter?

A. On the typewriter.

Q. And is that document confirmation that the document was sent or the one that was sent out on the teleprinter?

A. The one that was sent out on the teleprinter, that is confirmation that it arrived there.

Q. And is the document of confirmation also the one that was written by the typewriter or something else?

A. Confirmation for me is the time written on the document. ²⁸²⁶

Q. I asked you earlier, when investigators come and asked you to prove if you sent the contents of the telegram or not, what would you show them as evidence that you did send the telegram that was given to you? Thank you.

A. I would show them the time indicated on the telegram. I would go to the command and find that telegram.

Q. Thank you, but you can put in the time after the event. But what would you prove -- what would you show as proof that the telegram was actually sent?

A. If I had the tape, if I didn't destroy it, I would take the tape and show that as proof that the telegram was sent.

Q. What has more weight, the teleprinter report, the print-out from the teleprinter, or the print-out from the typewriter given to you by the commander?

A. I don't know.

Q. All right, thank you. I will give you an example now. You know that on the 4th of July, 1992, 45 members of the JNA were killed in Zepa, and 31 were wounded, when they tried to provide food to Zlovrh. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Because of the fact that they were killed, Avdo Palic and other persons were charged for killing them. They were from Zepa. They were only trying to provide food to a military facility there, and the teleprinter operator who was dispatching telegrams had to prove that he did send a telegram at Zlovrh that food would arrive, so that these ²⁸²⁷ people would not be captured. Thank you. Are you aware of that, these events? Are you aware of these events, because this is close to you?

A. Yes, I am aware that these soldiers were killed.

Q. Are you aware that an investigation was conducted into the way that these people were killed?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that the teleprinter was actually the tool that the encryption operator used to prove that there was a telegram sent that food would arrive? Are you aware of that?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Thank you. Are you aware that only on the basis of this teleprinter print-out, this person was able to prove that the telegram was sent out, because the Muslims had captured Zlovrh, and it was not possible to prove it on the basis of incoming telegrams, but on the basis of outgoing telegrams, and that he couldn't prove that with the document that he was supposed to send out, but he only did that on the basis of the teleprinter copy?

A. No, I don't know that.

Q. If you were in a similar situation, what would you provide as proof that you had sent the telegram? Would it be the typewritten copy or the teleprinter print-out? Thank you.

A. If I had the perforated tape, I would provide the teleprinter print-out to you.

Q. But if you didn't have the perforated tape, but only the text typewritten on the electronic typewriter or the teleprinter, what would ²⁸²⁸ you give me as proof that you did send the telegram? Thank you.

A. I really cannot answer. I don't know.

Q. If you did send the telegram, would it suffice that you just had something on the typewriter? You could have done that even after the attack on Zlovrh and you could have put it to me as proof.

A. I don't know why this would be something that I would be in my -- would have in my safekeeping. We wouldn't keep those. We would return them immediately.

Q. The investigator would consider it more important to have a print-out from the teleprinter, because each -- does each machine have its own characteristics?

A. Yes.

Q. And in an investigation or an examination, would you be able to prove whether a paper was printed on a specific typewriter or a teleprinter because of the machine characteristics?

A. Yes, I think that somebody could probably be able to establish that.

Q. Well, if you think that's possible, wouldn't it be better to show me the teleprinter print-out, that you had sent the telegram out, or would it be better for you to show me the typewritten text?

A. Well, the teleprinter print-out would be better.

Q. Thank you. We're not going to talk about this anymore. Don't be afraid that the Prosecutor and I are putting so many questions to you. I accept every document that you wrote, even the ones that the Prosecutor was trying to prove whether they were drafted on the 9th or not. So just ²⁸²⁹ answer calmly and truthfully to my following questions. I'm only putting questions in order to prove the authenticity of the documents, not whether you sent certain documents or not, just like in the example in Zlovrh. You have nothing to be afraid of. All you have to do is answer truthfully. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you should slow down. It's very fast again, and you are overlapping again. Please help the interpreters. Carry on, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I apologise to the interpreters for not having that in mind. Can we now please look at Exhibit P468. This is an interview with this witness by Tomasz Blaszczyk, Tribunal investigator, and as well as Julian Nicholls. This is the transcript of the conversation with Danko Gojkovic on the 16th of May, 2005, at the offices of ICTY in Sarajevo.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Was that when the interview was conducted, at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you please tell me now --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we clarify something? I see in the B/C/S version the year 2005, and in the English version the year is 2006. Witness, could you clarify, was it in the year 2005 or 2006?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was 2005, if I can remember correctly. But I can see that the other document says "2006." ²⁸³⁰

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just wanted to clarify it for the record. Please carry on.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Danko, can you please tell me if you signed any statement when you were interviewed by the investigators from the OTP in Sarajevo on the 16th of May, 2005?

A. If I remember correctly, I didn't sign anything.

Q. Did you sign any statement in any contact with the ICTY investigators?

A. No, I didn't sign any statement.

Q. Thank you. Well, that's better for you, isn't it? You didn't sign, and they didn't ask you to, so now you can be held responsible for only the things that you said. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 5 of this document in the Serbian and page 6 in the English. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you see what it says in the second sentence here? You say -- well, the investigator tells you, in line 1:

"We will look at this document later. We're looking at 0425-8558."

And then you say: "I don't know what that is."

So are you clear now about what is said by the investigator and what you said?

A. Yes. ²⁸³¹

Q. Well, this will be like throughout the whole text, you are marked as "DG"?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. And then the OTP investigator says: "We will tell you what that number is. We know that these documents are authentic because we received them directly from Republika Srpska."

Do you remember that he told you that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And then a few lines later, in relation to this same document --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment. Mr. McCloskey, please.

MR. McCLOSKEY: It may be a transcription, but the English has that "we received them directly from the VRS," and, of course, there's a very big difference between Republika Srpska and the VRS.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Carry on, please, Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you to the Prosecutor.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Danko, please, can you look at line 19?

A. Yes.

Q. Where it says -- the Prosecutor says: "Let's go through this document, 0425-8558. I'm looking at the translation." ²⁸³² And then he tells you:

"You tell me if I'm reading something wrong. 'Sent at 1745 hours, 14th of July, 1995.' And then underneath that, there is your signature."

And then after that, you say: "If nobody forged it, then it is."

Thank you. Can we now please show -- did you say this? Did I read this correctly?

A. Yes, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I didn't turn off -- turn on the microphone. Can we show in e-court 480. Thank you, now we see the document, 480.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. In 2005, were you shown this document that Investigator Nicholls says bears your signature?

A. As far as I remember, yes.

Q. On this document, we see only your initials, not your signature; is that correct?

A. Yes, you can see my initials at the bottom, and in the right top corner there is my signature.

Q. He told you, in the transcript, there is your signature below. We see only your initials, not the signature?

A. At the bottom, yes, there are only initials.

Q. Does this document bear your signature at the bottom of the ²⁸³³ document or at the top of the document?

A. At the top.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, could you please clarify one thing? The words: "And underneath is your signature; right?", this question of the investigator in the OTP statement, it is referring to the answer -- it is referring to the question before. It says: "Okay. So on the top, and I'm looking at a translation, so you tell me if I read anything wrong. It says: 'Sent 1745 hours, 14th of July, 1995.'"

And then the answer of the witness is: "Yes." And then: "And underneath is your signature" -- [overlapping speakers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will someone tell me which line it is?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is in the English version, lines 12 to 16.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We will look at it.

Can we please show page 520 of the first document we were looking at. It's P486, P486. Fifth page, lines 19 through 24.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think there's a wrong number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P468, P468, page 5. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We see, in line 19, Nicholls says to you, that's the investigator who talked to you, I quote:

"Let us go through this document, 0425-8558. With regard to what ²⁸³⁴ is written in this order, explain to us what is the difference between what is written in hand and this document. Before we began, I showed you briefly -- before the interview, I showed you briefly these documents that we will be discussing, and you remembered this. At the top, and I'm looking at the translation, you read me -- you tell me if I'm reading something wrong: 'Sent at 1745 hours, 14th of July, 1995.'" "And underneath is your signature?"

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just note that this last sentence quoted by Mr. Tolimir, regarding the signature, does not feature in the English translation.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, you should look first to the answer of the witness, "Yes," and then it continues:

"And underneath is your signature; right?" Do you agree?

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, I agree, but in that respect the original and the translation do not correspond entirely, because in the Serbian, line 24, it says:

"Sent at 1745 hours on 14 July 1995. "And underneath is your signature."

That is in the Serbian version, lines 24 and 25.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: There is, in fact, the answer "Yes" missing. Thank you.

Mr. Tolimir, what do you want to get from the witness? Please carry on. ²⁸³⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Instead of the answer, "Yes," the question asked by the investigator is answered by the witness as follows: "Unless someone falsified it, it is."

And the investigator says: "You recognise your signature?"

And Mr. Danko says: "I recognise it."

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. I only wanted to ask you: This answer that you gave, does it relate to some other document which did bear your signature rather than this typewritten document or typed document which does not bear your signature?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have it on the screen again.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I think as you pointed out to him, clearly the signature we're talking about was underneath the date, and so this accusation that Mr. Nicholls is falsely questioning the witness is unfounded and should be withdrawn and made clear to the witness, because the way this is going, he's suggesting to the witness Mr. Nicholls is inappropriately putting words in his mouth. That's absolutely not the case, and he should not go further in those suggestions.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the witness should be shown again this document, and he may comment on the signature we have already seen on the top of this document. I think it was P480, if I'm not mistaken.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. ²⁸³⁶ I kindly ask you that you and the witness and the Prosecutor look at line 19, where the number of the document is indicated, "0425-8558." And he speaks of a signature on some other document, where the typewritten document is P125 and bears the ERN number is 0425-8580. It bears the signature, and that's what the discussion is about. And Danko says after that:

"Unless someone falsified it, it is." I'm just pointing out the contents of this interview, and I'm asking the witness about something that's unclear to me.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should first have that on the screen, otherwise, it's not very satisfactory to continue in that way.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here, the document is on the screen, and I showed it first to the witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, and now again ask the witness about the signature.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Is there your signature on this document or are there only initials at the bottom?

A. At the bottom, only initials.

Q. Did you only sign under the indication when the document was sent? You are not signing for the substance of the document?

A. Correct, only for when it was sent.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm of the opinion that this problem is now solved.

Please move on to your next topic. ²⁸³⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not hear the interpretation of what you said because the interpreters were changing.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I said, I'm of the opinion that this problem is now solved, and then I said to you, Please move on to your next topic.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, when this document was shown to you, the one you see on the left side of the screen, did it bear your signature at the bottom of the document or at the top of the document, which only refers to the time of transmission?

A. My signature is at the top.

Q. And what is at the bottom?

A. Initials.

Q. Would I be right in saying that one document was shown to you, where there is no signature of yours at the bottom?

A. At the bottom, no.

Q. Please, during the interview in Sarajevo, did investigators tell you and explain how they came into possession of these documents and what the chain of custody was until they reached this Tribunal?

A. They got it from someone from Republika Srpska, and that's why I asked if this was perhaps forged, because I'm not aware that we gave them these documents.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please wait.

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

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that these documents, before being shown to you, ²⁸³⁸ were in Serbia, in Mali Zvornik, later in Gornji Milanovac, later in Republika Srpska, and then in Zagreb, and that was the path they travelled?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Do you know that this Prosecutor, who questioned you a moment ago, said himself that one Defence team also had access to these documents while they were in Zvornik and they were not in the control of Republika Srpska authorities?

A. No.

Q. Was that perhaps an opportunity to falsify or replace documents, because they were not under the control of Republika Srpska authorities or your brigade?

A. I don't know. I don't know that.

Q. But if you had known then that these documents had been outside of the control of your brigade before they were given to the Prosecutor, would your attitude have been different to the signature on the document?

A. No, I wouldn't have a different attitude. I would have again said it was my signature.

Q. But can your signature be scanned and copied onto a blank piece of paper; do you know that?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Do you know anything about the technique of scanning a signature from one document to another?

A. I don't know anything about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This document, the telegram, P125, ²⁸³⁹ could it be shown to the witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is on the screen.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can see it now.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. This document we see, the typewritten one on the left side, would it have normally had a teleprinter impression if you had transmitted it by teleprinter?

A. If they had asked me to put it through the teleprinter, I would have done so. Perhaps they didn't ask for it, I just sent it and returned it.

Q. Did anyone ever ask you for the teleprinter version of the other telegrams you sent?

A. I can't remember.

Q. Why do all the documents have their teleprinter versions, only this one hasn't?

A. I don't know.

Q. Why did you keep in archives the teleprinter version of all the documents, all the telegrams, but not this one?

A. I don't know whether I had it in my possession, whether I kept it. I can't remember.

Q. Would it be logical, if you sent this telegram also by teleprinter, that it would have a teleprinter impression, like all the telegrams -- all the other telegrams introduced by the Prosecution here?

A. It's possibly there somewhere in the Drina Corps. They must have the teleprinter copies. I don't know. How do I know that? It just came ²⁸⁴⁰ to me. I retyped it and sent it.

Q. Please focus on my question. I'm not accusing you of anything. You said you transmitted it, and I'm asking you: If you really transmitted it, is it logical that every telegram you transmitted has a teleprinter impression, like all the other telegrams the Prosecution is introducing, but not this one?

A. I don't know what to answer.

Q. I know you don't know what to answer, but answer the Trial Chamber. How come that only this telegram does not have a teleprinter copy, just a typewriter copy?

A. I don't know. I told you a moment ago they probably didn't want us to give them a teleprinter copy.

Q. Did I ask you for copies for other telegrams?

A. Not from me. Why would you ask it from me?

Q. Why do they have all the copies of telegrams that I sent, all the other ones?

A. I cannot answer that either. I don't know. Maybe you asked for the other copies to be made.

Q. I never asked anything from you, nor have I ever seen you before. Have you seen me before?

A. Never. I'm 99 per cent sure. I'm leaving the 1 per cent just because I'm not inclined to make it 100 per cent.

Q. Did you ever speak to me on the phone?

A. No.

Q. It's logical that you -- that copies were kept for all the other ²⁸⁴¹ telegrams. It's not your fault, but it should have been done by the archivers of telegrams?

A. We returned everything the same second to the command. We kept the teleprinter tape for a day or two or three, and then it would be destroyed.

Q. All these telegrams that we are seeing here that are being introduced through you, that the Prosecutor showed you in direct examination, which are accompanied by teleprinter copies, were they also sent by you to the Documentation Department of the Drina Corps?

A. Yes, most of them we sent to the Drina Corps because we liaised with them.

Q. They were also your superior command?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they duty-bound to keep all teleprinter copies for telegrams you sent, but they didn't seem to have kept this one from Savcic?

A. I suppose they should have kept them. You should ask one of them.

Q. Is there a possibility that someone misappropriated the teleprinter copy of this and put in a typewriter copy, or perhaps there is no teleprinter copy for the Savcic telegram at all?

A. I don't know that.

Q. We also see in the transcript of this interview that the Prosecution interrupted you when you said: "I don't know what it is," and they said:

"We know these documents are authentic." ²⁸⁴²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could my legal adviser indicate the reference.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We'll look at it now, and you will see it in the record of your interview. At one point, you say: "I don't know what this is." And they answer: "We know," and so on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's P468 that we looked at before. Can it be shown again, page 5?

MR. McCLOSKEY: In the English, it's page 6, line 16, where they say:

"Well, we know that these documents are authentic."

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. We see now -- do you see line 3? I'll read it to you. Investigator Nicholls says in line 3:

"We will tell you what this number is. We know that these documents are authentic because we received them directly from Republika Srpska. When we received them, we put a registration number --"

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is "directly from Republika Srpska." In the English version, we have "from VRS." There is, again, perhaps an interpretation problem or translation problem. I just wanted to clarify that.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, this interview was done in English with Mr. Nicholls, and so he would have -- the English version is what would ²⁸⁴³ have come out of Mr. Nicholls' mouth. And it may have been the translator on site may have made the mistake.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just wanted to indicate that there is a problem of translation.

Please carry on. Sorry for interrupting you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] All right.

Q. It continues: "When we get them, we stamp what's called an evidence registration number. That is our number just to keep track of evidence." Now, I want to ask you: These words about the authenticity of a document, could they have influenced you so that you accept -- take it for granted that a document is authentic?

A. I think it's authentic just because of my signature, nothing else.

Q. But you never suspected that it's technically possible to scan your signature and then put it on a blank piece of paper?

A. No, I did not have such suspicions.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry for speaking first. At this point, I would like to object. And if Mr. Tolimir continues on this, I think he's obligated, under Rule 90(H), that in cross-examining a witness, he needs to put his case, his position, to the witness. So if he is, in fact -- it is his position that this is a falsified document, he needs to say that, under this Rule, as opposed to ²⁸⁴⁴ just going all around the issue. This Rule requires that you actually say that to the witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I don't mind this document at all. I could even have it admitted. The Prosecutor shouldn't worry about that. I just want to reach -- to get to the truth about the authenticity of particular documents.

Let us go to page 6 of the Serbian version, lines 2 to 5, and English version page 7, where Mr. Nicholls says to the witness -- it says:

"There are no surprises here, no tricks, nothing, no forgery. Forget what's written in the order, and I mean forget it. I want you to explain to me how it worked, these headings. This order would be sent," et cetera, et cetera.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that what Nicholls said to you in Sarajevo?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the Prosecution ask you anything about the contents of the documents during breaks in your interview in Sarajevo? Did you have any breaks?

A. I did.

Q. During these breaks, did you discuss documents at all; authenticity, anything?

A. No. ²⁸⁴⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now show P469. This is the cover page of the Atlantis telegram. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you see this on the left-hand side of the screen?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the right-hand side, you can also see "Atlantida," the translation into the Latinic script, and on the right-hand side [as interpreted] it's written in the Cyrillic script?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Can you explain whether what is written in the Cyrillic, this heading, "Atlantida," was written in the Rogatica Brigade by you and Ziza, or was this written by somebody else after the telegrams were placed in this cover and in the file, and when it was given this number that makes it authentic? Thank you.

A. I am definitely not the one who wrote these words.

Q. Thank you. Do you see on this page where it says: "Telegrams 28/34"?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this written in the Latin or the Cyrillic script?

A. The Latin script.

Q. What about the heading; is that in the Cyrillic or the Latin script?

A. "Atlantida" is written in the Cyrillic script.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now show document P469, page 2. Thank you. ²⁸⁴⁶

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before this document disappears from the screen, could the witness please tell, if you recall, who has written the word "telegrami" on this cover page? Do you recognise this handwriting?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't recognise that. The first time I saw this cover sheet was when it was shown to me in Sarajevo. That was the first time. I didn't see it before.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Then the other document should come up on the screen.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you see this document, and what is it? What is it that you see? Can you explain, please?

A. I can see "Military Secret, Strictly Confidential," and then I can see the number "042," which is upside down, and I cannot read what it says here.

Q. Do you see anything written in the Cyrillic, underneath "Military Secret"? Thank you.

A. The word "Vod," "Platoon," is written, definitely "Vod." I can't read this other word, the second word.

Q. Thank you. The document which has no content, is that something which would be marked with the words "Military Secret" and "Strictly Confidential"?

A. Well, it is here.

Q. In your practice, would you put anything like "Military Secret, Strictly Confidential" on a document that didn't have any contents?

A. Well, as far as I can remember, no, we wouldn't do that. ²⁸⁴⁷ That's -- that was not what we would do.

Q. Thank you. And did you place the date, time, and place on a blank piece of paper when you sent the telegram or did you put that information on the contents of the telegram?

A. We would do that on the contents of the telegram.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we look at page 2 of this document. Oh, we are looking at page 2.

Can we now show document 122.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Do you see the document on the left? Is this something that was typed on your teleprinter, and did you process this document on your teleprinter and receive it? Thank you.

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you mark it in the upper corner?

A. The right-hand corner: "Received at 245 hours the 30th of July, 1995."

Q. Did you always mark the documents in the upper right-hand corner, the time that you received it, the time you sent it, and put your signature there? Thank you.

A. Well, I would always say whether it was received, sent out, the time, the date, and the signature. The top part of the paper would always need to be marked.

Q. I'm asking you, in the telegrams that were shown to you that are being tendered here through you, did you always sign in the upper right-hand corner of the paper? ²⁸⁴⁸

A. I don't remember. The couple that we looked at was signed in the right-hand corner, upper corner. Sometimes I signed it at the bottom of the page too.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at P472 now, please. Can we also look at P468 together with this document. Thank you. Page 9 in the English -- in the Serbian, page 9 in the Serbian, and page 12 in the English. Can we look at page 9 in the Serbian and page 12 in the English of document P468. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We see the part when you start speaking. This is the fourth line from the top. You say:

"No. As a rule, this is not a telegram at all. You could not send this like this. There is no indication of to whom this is being sent to, for example."

And then the other person says: "But this could be a document that was supposed to be sent to the field or is an order; what is it?"

And then you say: "I don't know." Did I quote correctly what you said and what the Prosecutor said? Thank you.

A. Yes.

Q. Please, since during the war you did send telegrams, can you please point out to us what is missing on this telegram that we are looking at now? What is missing there? Thank you.

A. The person who is sending it is missing, and to whom it is being ²⁸⁴⁹ sent is also missing.

Q. A teleprinter operator, would he know to whom he should send this telegram and who it was received from? Would he know that?

A. No, he wouldn't.

Q. Would you add this telegram to your collection of telegrams, such as the collection "Atlantida" is, if you wish to keep a collection of telegrams for some purpose or other?

A. No, I would not include it in my collection.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we have the English up so we can see it for the testimony? It's hard to say what it -- I mean, Ms. Stewart's got it for me on her private one, but I think it's helpful to see that so we can understand what the questions have to do with.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, that would be helpful.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. And we do see the English version, which is what the Prosecutor asked for. Can I continue, Your Honour? Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to have an indication where, in the English translation of the interview of the witness, we found -- we will find this passage.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I asked the witness what was missing in this telegram so that the teleprinter would be able to process it and send it. He said that there was no heading and there was no addressee indicated. In English, that is in the transcript on ²⁸⁵⁰ page 12, where he talks with the -- thank you. And then he answered my question that he wouldn't know to whom he would send the telegram to - thank you - because there is no address that the teleprinter operator would be able to use. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Page 12, line 5 and the following. Please carry on.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Witness, can you please tell us if you have to have an address to which you would send the telegram, and the address would need to have a technical means of receiving what you are sending to them; is that correct?

A. Yes, it would.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now look at Exhibit P481, page 2, please. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We can see the exhibit that I asked for on the left. The document is in the form of a telegram. However, do you see if something has been added by hand at the bottom of this page?

A. Yes, item 7 has been added in handwriting. It's not typed.

Q. Thank you. And would this look more like a draft telegram or a telegram, and was it permitted to add things like that by hand?

A. Well, if I remember correctly, it wasn't, but I'm not really sure.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We see that this item 7 was not translated into English, but it's not important, in terms of this ²⁸⁵¹ witness or for these proceedings in general.

Can we look at 65 ter 124 on the screen now, please. Thank you. Thank you. Prosecutor's 65 ter 124 is not part of the "Atlantida" set of documents, as the representatives of the Prosecution marked it. This is Prosecutor's 65 ter number 124. Can we look at that one, please? Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, there are some problems to find such a document. Do you perhaps mean the P number 124 instead of the 65 ter number? It can't be found.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was the Prosecutor's 65 ter number 124. Perhaps the Prosecutor can tell you where we can find it. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, can you assist us?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I can say that the document that is on the screen, which is P124, is part of the compact section of "Atlantida." We have the originals here, and the ERN numbers were done in the order that they were in the file. And that ERN number on this document is within the ERN range of the "Atlantida," so this particular document, which is on our list, is part of the "Atlantida" collection. Beyond that, I'm not sure where we went.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, can you help us?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. All I can say is the document, Prosecutor 65 ter 124, has number ERN 0293-5555. Thank you. This is a document on the accommodation of prisoners of war.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey. ²⁸⁵²

MR. McCLOSKEY: I think he meant 65 ter 124, and that fits, and that is not a member of "Atlantida." So he just mixed up the now almost archaic 65 ter numbers.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: He was referring to the 65 ter list of the Prosecution?

MR. McCLOSKEY: That appears to be what, and we're slowly pushing that list to the side and replacing it with other numbers.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I note, Mr. Tolimir, that you didn't indicate that you were going to use this document. If you do that in advance always, it would help everybody in the courtroom, especially the Registry, to find the document properly.

I think we have it now on the screen. Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Ms. Stewart says it is on his list. It was in a range of material. They did ask us just a few hours ago for the originals of this, which we have, if they need those. And, yes, it does have the 65 ter number for identification. But it's not in evidence yet, so it has never been -- gotten another number.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you to Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. President. We did indicate this document last night.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Can we now ask the witness to tell us whether he was the one who processed this document on the teletype and whether he confirmed its ²⁸⁵³ receipt with his signature on the 13th of July, 1995?

A. Yes, at 2230 hours.

Q. Did you indicate that in the upper right-hand corner?

A. Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question. The microphone was switched off.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you please look at the third line of this document, and you can see where it says the number there is still unclear. Can you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you please tell us what this number is? Thank you.

A. "8," and I think there's one "0" there. I'm not sure. I would say that it's "80."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now look at page 2 of this telegram. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you see on page 2 now, in line 5 of the text, the number that was unclear on the previous page?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you please tell us what number that is and whether there was some kind of teleprinter error, typing error, or for some other reason, where the number is not the same?

A. Yes. Here we can see "8" and then most probably two "0s," "800 ." ²⁸⁵⁴

Q. So what should be written in the first document?

A. It should be "800."

Q. Yes, "800." All right, very well. It says -- in hand, it's written:

"If you are not able to adequately accommodate all prisoners of war from Srebrenica, we inform you that in Sjemec, in the facilities of the 1st" something "Brigade, there is arranged accommodation," with an unintelligible word, "Palace [phoen], for 800 prisoners of war"?

A. Yes.

Q. You probably wrote this yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. On this telegram written in hand, did you put any initials?

A. You can't see them here. Probably not.

Q. Did you indicate when it was transmitted, when it was sent, on which date?

A. No.

Q. Was it customary that you write that only on the teleprinter copy?

A. If somebody wanted us to make a teleprinter copy, yes. But if we just returned it like this, we didn't write anything.

Q. Look at the next page. We're again on page 1, and you put your signature and time sent on the teleprinter copy, not the copy that I gave you?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it have been normal to do the same with the Savcic telegram ²⁸⁵⁵ that was only typed on a typewriter, without a teleprinter copy?

A. Well, probably when somebody brought this telegram of yours, was it your telegram?

Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you about the Savcic telegram. If you had a teleprinter copy, would you have signed the teleprinter copy or the one on the typewriter?

A. Well, he maybe didn't want a copy. Maybe he just wanted to get back the copy that he gave me, and that's what I signed.

THE INTERPRETER: The question was not heard. The microphone was off. The answer:

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Never.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I suppose you did whatever your superior taught you to do. I didn't ask you for anything, because I'd never seen you and I never talked to you on the phone. But please don't worry about that. I'm only discussing what is logical. It would have been logical to have a teleprinter copy of what was written on a typewriter. Would it have been logical to have a teleprinter copy of the Savcic telegram typed on a typewriter, like you have the teleprinter copy of the telegram that I wrote in hand?

A. There should be a teleprinter copy of the Savcic telegram.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, this document, the first and the second page, I would like to have admitted into evidence because --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's no need for giving a specific reason. It ²⁸⁵⁶ will be received.

Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: While we're still on this document, we just received the original, so it may be a good time for the General to look at it so he doesn't have to go back, if that's possible.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, we agree.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank Mr. McCloskey.

THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 124 is now Exhibit D49.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The Chamber would like to see it as well.

It may be shown to the witness so that he can state for the record what he said to the versions on the screen.

Do you recognise these two documents, one handwritten and one obviously from the teleprinter?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do recognise.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just to clarify, the handwritten version, is that written by you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean this one? No, I didn't write this.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know who produced this? Whose handwriting is it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whose handwriting it is.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: You just received it and typed it into the teleprinter and sent it out; is that correct? ²⁸⁵⁷

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That might be given back to Mr. McCloskey.

Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Mr. Witness, now, a moment ago you had in your hand both the handwritten telegram and the teleprinter version. Were both signed by Major-General Zdravko Tolimir?

A. I didn't pay attention. I can have a look again.

Q. Yes, please. Can the telegrams be given to the witness again, because you said you didn't know who wrote them, for the record.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it says "Z. Tolimir, Major-General, Assistant Commander." I'm not 100 per cent sure, but --

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Could you please concentrate on item 1 of this telegram that you see on the left-hand side of the screen. Rather, the three lines above item 1. To answer this question, I'll read it to you: "If you are unable to find adequate accommodation for all prisoners of war from Srebrenica, we hereby inform you that in Sjemec, in the facilities of the 1st Light Infantry Brigade, there is arranged accommodation with tents for 800 prisoners of war."

A. Yes.

Q. Did you write this on the teleprinter?

A. Yes. ²⁸⁵⁸

Q. Is this a notification, because in the second line it says "we hereby inform you"?

A. Yes, it's a notification.

Q. You are a native of Rogatica. Were there any sheep, or horses, or pigs in Sjemec, was there a farm?

A. Yes, there were barns and stables, and there was -- there were sheep, cattle, pigs.

Q. When did you send this?

A. It was transmitted at 2230 on the 13th of July, 1995.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender this telegram. In fact, it's already exhibited.

And now we move on to the next round of questions.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. I think it's incumbent upon the General to provide some authentication for that. And under Rule 90(H), since he is cross-examining on it, his position on whether this is authentic and from him would be helpful to know, unless he chooses not to, but I think that would be helpful to know. And there is precedent that would suggest he must tell us, Rule 90(H), and when offering a document into evidence, its authentication should be attested to by the person offering it.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we would like to receive your comment on that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I took a Prosecution document that the Prosecution marked 65 ter 124, and that he'd disclosed to the Defence. I tendered it like I tender any document. I do not make ²⁸⁵⁹ claims of authenticity when I tender documents. I'm not the accused here and I'm not being questioned here as a witness. I am tendering documents into evidence, and the Prosecution and the others can discuss it and take their positions. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Based on what the General has said, I would object to this being -- coming into evidence, because I think it's an inappropriate precedent that a document comes into evidence with no attestation about authenticity, and of course, just because the Prosecution gave something to him doesn't mean anything. And I think he should say something about it, and if he's going to cross-examine him on it, he should say, under Rule 90(H). Now, yes, he is an accused representing himself, and that complicates the issue, I think. But when it comes to offering a document into evidence, I think he's required to say something more than, I don't have to say anything. To the degree of what he says, of course, is your -- in your view, but he must say something, in view of the Prosecution.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the fact that the Prosecution has disclosed many documents to you and your Defence doesn't mean anything about the authenticity of these documents. It is an obligation of the Prosecution to give you all the documents related to this case. You are using now this document, and not the Prosecution. They didn't tender it, they didn't put it to the Chamber's knowledge. You did it. And, therefore, you should consider your position, although it's complicated for you, as you have no counsel but you are representing yourself. But ²⁸⁶⁰ for the fairness for the witness, especially, and for the fairness of the procedure, you should take into account the position of Mr. McCloskey so that we have a full picture what is happening during the examination of this witness.

Would you like to have the second break now? Then you can consider the situation and confer with your legal assistant, perhaps.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. But I confirmed, through this witness, that he sent this telegram. And he said in the right top corner he signed, that it was transmitted at 2230 hours on the 13 July 1995, so I'm introducing it through this witness. He confirmed he wrote it.

I can write hundreds of documents in my own hand, whether they will be accepted by the Prosecution or not. I'm introducing it through the witness, and it's up to the witness to say whether it's authentic or not. I asked him whether the handwritten document is consistent with the contents of the telegram that he transmitted. Of course, he can be asked the same question by the Trial Chamber.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: That is sufficient, in the view of the Prosecution, Mr. President.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: As the document is already admitted as D49, I think we can leave this problem at this stage. Thank you very much. You have five minutes left before the second break, Mr. Tolimir. Please carry on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, ²⁸⁶¹ Mr. President, and I thank the Prosecutor.

Can we please call up 123, Exhibit 123. It's a document dated 13 July. It has a typewritten signature, "Zdravko Tolimir," and the title is: "The situation in the Zepa enclave."

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is, in fact, P123.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, if you just look at this document, you will see that it was processed by your predecessor on your shift, and it's signed "Ziza" in the Serbian version, and even this teleprinter copy you sent to the Drina Corps. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In the top right corner, does it say "Copy" and "Ziza"?

A. Yes.

Q. In the bottom right corner, does it say "Transmitted at" and the time indication?

A. Yes.

Q. It is a matter of indifference to me whether it's "0050" or "950," so I'm not going to ask you anything about that. Can we conclude from this document that it was sent on the 13th of July, 1995?

A. No, you can't conclude that. The date indicated in the heading is 13 July 1995, but it's not supported by any text below. I'm not sure.

Q. It doesn't matter. Does the heading say "13 July"?

A. Yes, it does, "13 July 1995."

Q. At the beginning, we read: ²⁸⁶² "This afternoon, we did not manage to establish the planned contacts with the representatives from Zepa, Torlak and Omanovic, as it had been scheduled to meet at 2100 hours.

"They informed us through UNPROFOR that they were active during the day, informing the population about the conditions of their evacuation from Zepa, and they were forced to do that because the government in Sarajevo decided that they should not evacuate." Now, based on what I've just read, can we conclude from the document that it relates to the events of 12 July 1995, from this passage where it says: "This afternoon, we did not manage to establish contact as planned ..."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show document P491 to help the witness answer this question?

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] It's again a document sent on the 13th of July, 1995. The same title, "The situation in the Zepa enclave," under the name of Zdravko Tolimir. And we see in the right top corner that it was transmitted at 1820 hours on the 13th of July, and we see your signature in the right top corner.

A. Yes.

Q. In the bottom corner, are these your initials?

A. [No interpretation]

Q. On the 13th, were you working, because you seem to have sent all the telegrams on the 13th?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you now read the first sentence: ²⁸⁶³ "On 13 July 1995, at 1200 hours, we contacted Hamdija Torlak and Mujo Omanovic ..."

Is that written in the first two lines?

A. Yes.

Q. We read a moment ago that we were not able to have contact on the 12th, and now in the 13th, in the telegram you sent, it says that the contact did take place on the 13th because they had talked to the population. Can we then conclude that the previous document relates to the 12th and this one to the 13th?

A. This one relates to the 13th. Now, the previous one, where it says there was no contact, it could be the 12th. Maybe we can return that document back on the screen.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we do that, one answer of the witness was not recorded because there was no verbal response. The witness was asked:

"In the bottom corner, are these your initials?" And I think your answer was: "Yes, 'GD.'"

Are these your initials?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, just for the sake of the record. Let's have a look on the other document again to answer the question of Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P123. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen now, I think.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you. ²⁸⁶⁴

Q. You asked to see the document in order to be able to answer whether these two telegrams are linked by their contents and whether the contents from the telegram that we looked at earlier and the first sentence of this telegram refer to the same topic. Is that correct?

A. Yes, they do refer to the same topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you said that I had five more minutes. I have finished with this section. If we need to go on a break, we can do that now, and then we can continue with part 2. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine. We must have our second break now, and we will resume at 1.00.

--- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.

--- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Our apologies for the delay. Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

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

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, sir, we are going to move to a second set of questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And before that, could we please see document P125. Thank you. That's the document that was typed on a typewriter, which is allegedly the telegram sent by Savcic. Thank you, thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We've seen in all the telegrams that we have been shown so far that you wrote in the upper right-hand corner when you received and sent ²⁸⁶⁵ the telegrams that we saw on the screen and that we looked at so far; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Only in this telegram, we see that what is written in the left lower-hand corner is: "Handed in at 1510 hours on the 13th of July, 1995," and your signature, and that that is a photocopy of your signature and the words that you wrote in; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you please tell me if you listened to the testimony of General Savcic here before this Tribunal over the internet, or did you follow it in the media because it was open and public? Thank you.

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that in the Popovic case, General Savcic stated that he never wrote this telegram and that he never -- and that it never arrived in the battalion?

A. No, I'm not aware of that.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. General Savcic is on the witness list. But if he's going to make reference to the Popovic testimony, especially on something like this, he needs to provide line and page, because my memory is distinctly different from what he has said on that point.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, could you give a reference?

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

This is page 15262 of the transcript from the Popovic case. ²⁸⁶⁶ Since the witness doesn't understand English, I'm going to read the translation of a part of the transcript. It is 1D118, page 32, in the e-court. Thank you.

Can we look at the English on one side and the Serbian on the other side so that the witness could, because he doesn't understand. Thank you.

Can you put Savcic's document on one side and on the other side -- so on one side, you can put the Prosecutor's 65 ter 185, which is Exhibit P125, and on the other side can you put the transcript that Savcic is speaking. Thank you.

Now I'm going to read lines 2 and 5 on page 15262. The Prosecutor asked Savcic:

"Do you remember if you prepared this document?" And the witness, Savcic, replies on lines 7 to 14, I quote: "My name is there, but there is no signature, so I've already told you that that I don't recall drafting this document myself. And here are a few reasons why I still can't believe that I did. First of all, in the heading, it says 'IKM, forward command post of the 65th Protection Regiment,' et cetera, 'Borike, 1400 hours.' I did not set up that forward command post. I just led a part of the unit that was there. There is no date indicated. This document does not have the format of a telegram ..."

And then on lines 16 and 17, he states, I quote Savcic: "Next, I cannot suggest something to the commander of the Main Staff or his deputy, because I'm not an assistant commander to ²⁸⁶⁷ suggest and propose anything. I'm just a subordinate who executes the orders given to him."

Then Savcic says in lines 19 to 24, after the first sentence he says as follows:

"'Assistant commander of the Main Staff of the VRS for intelligence and security proposes the following measures.'" This is what it says in the telegram after the first sentence: "So the assistant commander proposes, and I'm the one who writes. If he is the one proposing, then why he isn't -- isn't he the one who's writing?"

Then I've just noticed the names of units start in small letters, not in capital letters. This is page 15263 of the transcript, and it is page 33 in e-court, lines 1, 5. And it goes on to, and I quote: "That's something that I know, so I cannot say with any certainty that I drafted this as dictated by Tolimir, but I cannot refute the possibility with 100 per cent certainty either. I can just say that this document was never received by the commander of the military police ..."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note: We no longer see the original on the screen.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] "And the commander of the military police never acted upon it."

Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. What I'm saying is that the document on the left-hand side of the screen, if it was signed by Colonel Milomir Savcic, which he denies, ²⁸⁶⁸ would it also need to bear his signature?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Had it been typed, the name, wouldn't he need to sign the document?

A. I don't know. I really cannot answer that question.

Q. All right, thank you. We understand each other. Can you please read what the first sentence of the telegram says, the telegram allegedly sent by Savcic? Thank you.

A. "In the sector of Dusanovo (Kasaba) ..."

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes. "In the sector of Dusanovo (Kasaba) over 1.000 [Realtime transcript read in error "100"] members of the former 28th Division of the so-called B and H Army were arrested. The prisoners are under the control of the Battalion of the Military Police of the 65th Protective Regiment."

JUDGE FLUEGGE: First we would like to have the English translation on the screen, on the right side, please. And, secondly, Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: That's all I was trying to do. It's an important document. It's very difficult for the interpreters as well.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Absolutely. Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.

I don't know, it appears that there are differences between the English translation we see on the screen and the translation we received on the record. For instance, "over 100 members," and if I look at the ²⁸⁶⁹ translation, there are "over 1.000 members." This is quite a difference. And in the original, it seems to be "1.000." I just wanted to point out that difference. There may be others.

Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. That's, of course, exactly the problem with not allowing the interpreters to see that. But this is an official CLSS translation of this document on the screen, so that should be the dispositive translation. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm sorry that I don't speak English, but I think that the interpreters, instead of saying the name "Dusanovo" first, they put it at the end. But I'm sorry, it's just a question of my not knowing English.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is on the screen, and you should just carry on and put the next question to the witness.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Does the first sentence state or have the commander of the battalion allegedly inform the addressees about a certain situation in Dusanovo?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it say where this information was obtained and how does he know this information?

A. No.

Q. "As for the rest of the telegram, the assistant commander for security and intelligence affairs of the VRS Main Staff proposes the ²⁸⁷⁰ following measures:"

Is that what the second sentence of the telegram says?

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Can we now look at document P123. Thank you. Can we look at the document on the left-hand side of the screen, thank you, and then we will come back to this document again.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. You can see the document P123, and you can see here that it's from your brigade, and it's got such and such a number. It's sent to the Main Staff, the Sector for Intelligence, and the Command of the Drina Corps. It's also sent to the Command of the 65th Protection Motorised Regiment and the Command of the 68th Protection Regiment. And then the bottom is signed by Assistant Commander

General-Major Zdravko Tolimir?

A. Yes.

Q. Could Tolimir write directly to the battalion commander, because as you see, it has his address and it says that he sent this order to him? Could he also deliver the measures that he allegedly proposed in the same way to him?

A. I don't know. How can I know that?

Q. Thank you. But did Tolimir have the authority to directly address the commander of the battalion, as we can see from this telegram that he's addressing him in the heading, because it does say here: "To the Commander of the 65th Protection Motorised Regiment"? It's the ²⁸⁷¹ second addressee from the bottom. Is that what it says?

A. "The Command of the 65th Regiment."

Q. If he sent this telegram to him, could he also send a telegram to him in which he's suggesting measures? Thank you.

A. I don't know whether he could have done that or not. I really don't know what the structure was and who could issue orders to whom.

Q. All right. If I'm writing a telegram here, sending it to the Command of the Protection Regiment, could I send them other contents, other than these ones, and also send them to the same address? Could I do that or not? Was I able to do that or not?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: I think these questions regarding who has the power or authority to do this or that, he's clearly answered he has no idea. And to be raising his voice at this point, shouting that question over and over again, is inappropriate. I know he doesn't mean it badly, but it's been asked and answered. This witness doesn't know about these things, and I would ask that the objection be sustained.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I was concerned about the use of court time with this witness. You should perhaps focus on those matters the witness can really testify about. He clearly stated that this was beyond his area of responsibility.

And we have not much time left, perhaps 10 or 15 minutes for your cross-examination, and we should try to finish with this witness today, because the Prosecution and you indicated a certain time for examination and I think we have reached the end of it. ²⁸⁷² Please carry on.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Witness, can you please tell me when this telegram that you see on the left side of the screen was written?

A. On the 13th of July, 1995, was when it was typed. I don't know when it was written.

Q. When was it handed in?

A. I don't know whether it was at 0050 or 0950 hours. We don't know.

Q. 0050, as you asserted first, was it written before the telegram in which I am asking for the prisoners to be sent to Sjemec? If they don't have anywhere to accommodate them, I'm informing them that there is a room at Sjemec?

A. Yes, it's possible.

Q. Could I send a telegram to the Protection Regiment --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand what the accused said.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the interpreters didn't catch your question. Please repeat. "Could I send a telegram to the Protection Regiment," and what was the end of your question?

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Was I able to send to the Protection Regiment a telegram with the same contents as Savcic's telegram, and would you have had to send it if I had sent it to you for encryption?

A. Yes. ²⁸⁷³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that was my question, and that was the answer of the witness. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you, based on this telegram that allegedly Savcic wrote, know to whom he was to send it, to which address? Does this typewritten paper, written on a typewriter, bear a heading?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Simply, can we get it back up on the screen so the witness knows what document you're talking about and the record is clear?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P125, please, so the witness can see it.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Does the telegram indicate the address to which you are to send it?

A. Yes.

Q. What does it say?

A. Commander of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska Army, assistant commander for morale, religious, and legal affairs of the same Main Staff, commander of the Military Police Battalion of the 65th ZMTP.

Q. Does it say who is sending the telegram?

A. Forward command post of the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment.

Q. Did you see that Savcic says in the telegram that he did not manage to set up a forward command post -- ²⁸⁷⁴

THE INTERPRETER: Could they slow down, please, both speakers.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please don't overlap. The interpreters can't catch it.

THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please repeat the last question?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to confess I made a mistake. I thought you had indicated that you need two hours. You have indicated three hours. You are not under time pressure.

Please carry on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Can we then show document P490.

Thank you, we see the document.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please look at the heading? Does it say "Command of the 1st PLBR"?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it say which date it is, 15 July?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the signature say "Commanders Lieutenant-Colonel Rajko Kusic and Lieutenant-Colonel M. Savcic"?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it mean that back on the 15th, Savcic did not have a forward command post; instead, he used the command post of your brigade commander?

A. I wouldn't know that. ²⁸⁷⁵

Q. Does this telegram make it obvious where Savcic was located?

A. I can't see that.

Q. Did Savcic and Kusic sign this telegram?

A. Yes. At least their names are indicated there. I don't know whether they signed.

Q. Are they the authors of the contents of the telegram that you sent?

A. I don't know that. I don't know if they authorised it.

Q. Did you get this from someone who brought it from town or from your brigade command?

A. Maybe the command, maybe from the town. I don't know.

Q. Would you write telegrams on a teleprinter if you got it from someone from town?

A. You mean a simple citizen? No.

Q. Do you see in the heading "Command of the 1st" such and such "Brigade, strictly confidential, 15 July"?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that the contents were signed for by Rajko Kusic and Savcic, their names are typewritten?

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. Does that tell the person who processes the telegram and who receives it -- it's sent to the Main Staff and to the forward command post. Does it tell the receiver that these two men are together?

A. It might. How do I know?

Q. I understand what you're saying. Thank you. How much time did ²⁸⁷⁶ the messenger need to bring a telegram from Borike, from the forward command post, to you, this telegram from Savcic?

A. It was 20, 25 minutes by car.

Q. Did you transmit this telegram at 2315 hours?

A. On the 15 July 1995, yes.

Q. Thank you. That evening, was it brought to you from Borike or was it brought earlier?

A. I can't remember when it was brought. But as soon as it was brought, it was transmitted immediately afterwards. That means it's probably -- it was probably brought that evening, but I cannot be certain about the time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have again P492, and that's where we'll wrap up for today.

Could we also see the lower right corner.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. What is the time indicated here?

A. "0100."

Q. It's "14 July"; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it say: "To the Command of the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment"?

A. Yes.

Q. We've just seen a telegram sent to the command on the 13th, the Command of the Protection Regiment, by Tolimir?

A. Yes. ²⁸⁷⁷

Q. Have we read here a telegram that says, We sent it on the 13th, and where it says, We established contact with Torlak and the others?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it also sent from your teleprinter?

A. Yes.

Q. It says: "At 12.00, we had a meeting with Torlak and Omanovic." You sent this telegram at 1510 hours?

A. Yes.

Q. Could Tolimir have written that telegram you sent at 1510?

A. He could have, but maybe he didn't. I don't know.

Q. If he met with Torlak at 12.00 and attended that meeting, was it then possible for him to write that telegram and send it to you from Boksanica by courier, having typewritten it as well, so that you were able to send it already at 1510?

A. I don't know how long that meeting was. Boksanica is far away. And from Rogatica, I don't know.

Q. Look again at P125. Judging by the form and contents, who wrote this telegram?

A. It says "Lieutenant Colonel Milomir Savcic." Whether he wrote it, I don't know. That's what I see on the monitor.

Q. Was it transmitted at 1510?

A. Yes.

Q. How much time did you need to do your work and transmit it?

A. I cannot tell you exactly to the minute, but perhaps 30 minutes, ²⁸⁷⁸ perhaps slightly more or slightly less. I'm not sure.

Q. Thank you. This telegram does not bear any proof that it is Savcic who sent it?

A. His name is there. It was sent under his name. Whether it was sent by Milomir Savcic, I don't know.

Q. Is it true that anyone can type the name of Milomir Savcic or anyone else?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Is there anything that authenticates it as written by this signatory?

A. There's just his name.

Q. On record before this Court, he says that he never set up a command post and he never wrote this telegram?

A. That's what he says. I can only see that it's written -- signed "Milomir Savcic." That's how I processed it and sent it.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: That is a misstatement. We saw what he said. He did not say he never sent it. He said he didn't recall sending it. He couldn't exclude the possibility. He never said what the General just said, and it's inappropriate to make such a false statement to a witness like that.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Referring to another transcript, you should be very precise, Mr. Tolimir.

Carry on, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. ²⁸⁷⁹ I quoted that. It's on the transcript, and I'm not going to ask the witness about it because we don't have time to call it again into e-court. I only asked him a question in relation to what is evident on the screen. I asked him about authorisation --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: We shouldn't debate this problem. Carry on.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Please, Witness, do you know about this date, the 13th of July? Did you speak to Lieutenant-Colonel Savcic or no?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you ever talked to him during combat activities?

A. No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This completes my cross-examination. This confirms that this telegram could not even have been dictated by the person who allegedly signed it. Thank you for answering my questions, Witness. Thank you for coming before this Court. I wish you a safe journey and a good life. God bless you.

Thanks to the interpreters, who were keeping with us because we were really in a hurry today.

Thank you, Your Honours, for your understanding and patience and all the assistance on behalf of my Defence.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Tolimir, just to avoid a misunderstanding, it is up to the Chamber to give weight to the witness testimony today. We are not in agreement with conclusions by either party after a witness has given ²⁸⁸⁰ evidence.

Mr. McCloskey, do you have re-examination?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I do, Mr. President.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Have you an indication? How much time do you need? Do you need more than five minutes?

MR. McCLOSKEY: I may need more than five minutes, but -- yeah, it's hard to say five minutes, but --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just start, and we'll see what --

MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, I appreciate it. Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:

Q. Witness, General Tolimir suggested just recently that you normally -- or that all the documents we've seen, you sign in the right-hand top corner, and it's only -- he's suggesting, it appears, that only it's the left bottom signature from the 13 July Savcic document, P125, that is different from those. That was on page 55, lines 10 through 20, and more recently, just in the last 10 or 15 minutes, he mentioned something like that.

MR. McCLOSKEY: I have a document which we have given a 65 ter number recently, Mr. President, in response to this issue. The number we have given it, for the purposes of court, is 6347. I bring it specifically as redirect to counter the assertion made by General Tolimir. So it is in e-court at 6347, and I would like to give the original to the witness.

Q. Now, Witness, have you seen this document recently?

A. Yes, yesterday. ²⁸⁸¹

Q. Yesterday, in my office?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell us -- we can see it's dated 31 July. Is your handwriting on it at all?

A. It's there, "Transmitted," and then the indication of time, "0900, 31 July 1995," and my signature.

Q. All right. And so is this like the Savcic document; you've signed it "Transmitted" down in the lower left corner?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell, from looking at this original document, whether the document you hold in your hand is typed from a typewriter or from a teleprinter?

A. This was a typewriter.

Q. And who is the -- we see that Lelek is the Chief of Staff. Was he the Chief of Staff of the Rogatica Brigade at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know where his office was in relation to yours in the Communications Section?

A. The commands were some 60, 70 metres away.

Q. So Lelek was in the command building, 60 or 70 metres from where you were in the communications building?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And, I'm sorry, I don't know this -- those buildings very well, but are they separate buildings or is it one big building and separate parts of? ²⁸⁸²

A. Communications were in one small building and the command was in one larger building, but they were separate.

Q. Did Captain Lelek have a secretary?

A. There was a secretary. Whether she was his personal secretary, I don't know.

Q. Did the command staff, Lelek and the secretaries, have access to a regular typewriter over at the command building?

A. There was a typewriter there in their building. Whether they had access to it, I don't know.

Q. All right. And I'll also note we see a signature on this document. Do you recognise who that signature is?

A. Do you mean what I wrote or this other signature?

Q. Good question. The one under "Lelek."

A. I don't recognise whose signature it is, whether Lelek's or someone else's. I wouldn't know.

Q. If someone else had signed for Lelek, should there be an indication before the signature?

A. Could you say that again?

Q. If someone had signed for Milan Lelek, should there be an indication of that at the signature block somehow?

A. I can't answer that question.

Q. Do you recall sometimes seeing the word "Za" on the signature block and then a signature? The word "Za" meaning "For" in English?

A. You mean during the war? I don't remember. But generally speaking, later I would have seen things like that. ²⁸⁸³

Q. Can you tell us what the round thing on this document is?

A. A stamp, if we mean the same thing.

Q. So is that the official stamp of the Rogatica Brigade?

A. Most probably, because it's affixed here.

Q. And like the Savcic document of 13 July, did you send this document and -- type it into the teleprinter and send it off at the -- as noted with your signature and time?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why the Savcic document, 125, did not have a signature or a stamp like this one does?

A. I don't know that.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I have about five or ten more minutes, and I know we'll get in trouble.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: We're getting really in trouble because of the other trial.

I think we have to adjourn now, and perhaps there are some questions by the Chamber as well, so that it is necessary to continue with this witness tomorrow. I apologise for that, but we have to continue tomorrow, Witness, Mr. Gojkovic.

We have to adjourn now and resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 in the same courtroom.

And just to let you know, you shouldn't contact either party about the content of your testimony here in The Hague today. Thank you very much for your understanding.

We adjourn and resume tomorrow morning. ²⁸⁸⁴

[The witness stands down]

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.