1 Tuesday, 22 February 2011
2 [Pre-Trial Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Would the Registrar please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-03-67-R77.3, the Prosecutor versus
10 Vojislav Seselj.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Could I have the appearances.
12 Before that, Mr. Seselj, I wanted to make sure that you are
13 following the proceedings in the language you understand. Do you receive
14 the interpretation into your own language?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can follow the proceedings only
16 in the Serbian language. Right now I am receiving interpretation into
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
19 Then can I have the appearances.
20 Mr. MacFarlane.
21 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours. My name is
22 Bruce MacFarlane. I'm an attorney from Canada and have been appointed as
23 the amicus curiae Prosecutor in these proceedings. To my right is
24 Ms. Lori Ann Wanlin, who is with me this morning and has been with me
25 throughout the proceedings. She is also a member of the Canadian bar.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
2 Welcome, Ms. Wanlin.
3 Mr. Seselj, if you could introduce yourself for the record.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Dr. Vojislav Seselj, university
5 Professor and the greatest enemy of The Hague Tribunal.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
7 As the Chamber indicated in its Scheduling Order of
8 28th January, 2011, the trial in these proceedings will start today.
9 However, before we start, there are a few matters that we need to deal
10 with in the Pre-Trial Conference.
11 First, I'd like to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's oral request
12 for right of audience of Ms. Lori Ann Wanlin. And during the Status
13 Conference held on 14th December last year, the amicus Prosecutor
14 requested that his legal assistant, Ms. Wanlin, be granted a limited
15 right of audience in these proceedings in that she would be allowed to
16 participate in the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and
17 representation or argument under his supervision. The accused opposed
18 this request. On 16th February, 2011, the Chamber informally notified
19 the parties that the amicus Prosecutor's request was granted to the
20 extent, however, that this decision would not have any financial
21 implication for the Registry. We hereby reiterate that position.
22 Next, the Chamber wishes to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's bar
23 table motion. On 17th January this year, the amicus curiae Prosecutor
24 filed the confidential Prosecutor motion for admission of evidence from
25 the bar table in which the amicus Prosecutor seeks the admission of
1 72 exhibits which can be grouped into the following four categories:
2 First, documents forming part of the official court record in the cases
3 case number IT-03-67-T, IT-03-67-R77.2, and IT-0367-R77.3; secondly,
4 evidence related to the book which is the subject of these proceedings;
5 thirdly, 13 procès-verbal; and finally, fourthly, a series of screen
6 shots showing the accused's website.
7 Mr. Seselj did not file a response within the dead-line set forth
8 in Rules 126 bis of the Tribunal's rules, which expired on
9 10th of February. Having reviewed the material proposed for admission,
10 the Chamber is of the view that it is relevant and of probative value and
11 thus satisfy the requirements of Rule 89(C), and therefore the Chamber
12 will admit it into evidence.
13 The Chamber requests that Registry assign the appropriate exhibit
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Mr. Kwon.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Seselj.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course, I am not, I am not
18 opposed to having these documents admitted into evidence. However, in
19 the last request made by Mr. MacFarlane, what has presented are excerpts
20 from my Internet website and even the front page of my latest book. I
21 think that that is improper; namely, that the amicus Prosecutor had to
22 obtain the original of the book and that that would have been
23 conscientious on his part.
24 Since he did not obtain the book and since you have just admitted
25 it into evidence, I am offering a copy of that book to the Trial Chamber,
1 and to Mr. MacFarlane and his associate another copy, and then the entire
2 book can be admitted into evidence. As for Mr. MacFarlane and his
3 associate, perhaps I can write a dedication for them during the break
4 because the title of the book contains his name. So could you please
5 instruct the usher to take these two copies, along with my proposal to
6 have this admitted into evidence, so that it is a serious piece of
7 evidence, not so unserious [as interpreted] as presented by
8 Mr. MacFarlane. And I have two copies for the prosecuting side.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj. We'll see whether we need to
10 admit the original book, and it is always welcome for the parties to
11 co-operate with each other on a voluntary basis.
12 Next we are going to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's motion
13 dated 21st of February entitled, "Original Motion to Amend the
14 Rule 65 ter E 3 Exhibit List." Here, my understanding is that the amicus
15 Prosecutor seeks to add documents related to the accused's recent
16 publication of confidential information, documents that reflect a pattern
17 of changing service providers and website registrants, and the English
18 translation of excerpts from documents already on the original 65 ter
19 exhibit list.
20 Mr. MacFarlane, I take it that the accused hasn't received the
21 B/C/S translation of this motion, so the thing may be that the accused is
22 not in the position to respond to this. But having said that, on a
23 separate note, could you expand on the reason why we have to -- we
24 need --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received that, Mr. Kwon. I
1 have received that, as far as I can remember, and I can respond.
2 JUDGE KWON: In your language and you can respond?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the most beautiful Serbian
4 language, Mr. Kwon. It's already been two years now that the Registry of
5 The Hague Tribunal has been trying to do away with my Internet website by
6 sending instructions to these distributors of the Internet in Sweden,
7 Germany, Serbia, and they haven't succeeded in doing that throughout
8 those two years. They succeeded in the beginning of February this year;
9 however, six hours later, my website appeared elsewhere. It proved to be
11 Secondly, at my proposal, the appropriate authorities of the Serb
12 Radical Party appointed my oldest son, Nikola Seselj, to be editor of my
13 website, since in that case I am quite sure that he is not going to
14 relent to any kind of pressure and that I'm going to be the main creator
15 of the website and that nobody is going to intimidate him in order to
16 remove anything from my website. What I decide once and for all to have
17 on my website remains there. Once and for all. And no one can do away
18 with that. You can find a new distribute yet again. The one where my
19 website is now, perhaps you can force them to do away with my website.
20 I'm going to find another one and yet another and so on and so forth.
21 And if I do not manage to do that, then I'm going to address my great
22 friend, the great leader of the Korean people, Kim Jong-il to
23 re-establish my website. And no one can force him to relent to any kind
24 of pressure exerted by The Hague Tribunal. So my website will not be
25 destroyed. Then there's my friend Hugo Chavez, then there's my friend
1 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I have friends throughout the world and I will find
2 friends throughout the world who are going to take good care of my
3 website and will not allow you to do away with it.
4 JUDGE KWON: So, in a nutshell, you are not opposed to that
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've already said that to you
7 in my last motion. As far as I can remember, Mr. MacFarlane provided a
8 photograph of the cover page of the book taken from the website.
9 However, I am providing additional information to you, that I have made
10 sure that no one can destroy my website. You can kill me, but you cannot
11 destroy my website. It has become indestructible.
12 JUDGE KWON: However, Mr. MacFarlane, the Chamber is of the view
13 that it would in the interest of justice and the judicial economy if we
14 limit the scope or the focus of this trial to -- on the publication of
15 his three books, on books revealing the identities of the protected
16 11 witnesses, and deferring all the other issue, i.e., the -- whether he
17 should comply with the Court Order to remove some certain confidential
18 material from his website, to a certain and later stage, given that there
19 are several pending matters before the Chamber in relation to those
20 matters. So what do you think about that approach?
21 MR. MacFARLANE: Perhaps I could respond by outlining what
22 animated me to proceed in this fashion and then the Chamber can consider
24 In the Chamber's decision of the 2nd of December --
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we do remember. In our decision to amend the
1 indictment, we said at the end that the amicus curiae may consider such
2 material as the aggravating circumstances.
3 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, and perhaps even more so that, to use the
4 words of the Chamber, considering that for the purposes of the indictment
5 the support of the book, namely whether it was available in hard copy or
6 in electronic format or both, is immaterial to the central issues as
7 whether or not the witness's identities are revealed in the said book.
8 And so it struck me that the format was irrelevant. The question was
9 whether or not the 11 witnesses were identified improperly, or any number
10 of the 11 witnesses. And this most recent book that emerged in the last
11 few weeks, it seemed to be compounded, the situation, and formed a part
12 of an overall transaction that has lasted for quite some time. And that
13 for the purposes of judicial economy, to collapse everything into one
14 proceeding, because it all related to the same witnesses, made sense to
15 me. And that was in essence what animated me to seek to include it as a
16 compounding of the contempt and as a continuation.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something else before you
20 make a decision. Judges, the amicus curiae would have to bear in mind
21 some certain facts. Elementary facts. He has to appear in court in a
22 serious fashion. He cannot say that this book was published a few days
23 ago. He has to know the exact date when the book was published. The
24 book was published during the last days of December last year. That can
25 be established by checking it at the printing press and checking in the
1 National Library of Serbia where the first printed copies of any
2 publication are sent first and foremost. So it wasn't a few days ago.
3 It was at the end of December last year.
4 The book was published immediately after I filed, according to
5 Rule 65 ter, the list of witnesses that I intend to call during the
6 course of these proceedings. And the statements of these witnesses are
7 contained in that book. Each and every one of these witnesses is saying
8 that he or she is giving this statement publicly, that they agree to have
9 it published, and so on. I did not publish any statement given to the
10 Prosecution earlier on by any one of these witnesses. I am just
11 publishing their public statements. And every one of them signed before
12 a notary their consent to have the statement published.
13 Mr. MacFarlane doesn't know that because the book hasn't been
14 translated for him. He didn't make an effort to obtain the book. He
15 didn't even find out when it was printed and how many copies and so on
16 and so forth. That is not serious. There's a look of seriousness there.
17 He is using a lot of UN money but he is not doing his job
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE KWON: As I indicated, Mr. MacFarlane, the Chamber is of
21 the view to limit the scope of this case to the sole issue whether he
22 violated the order of the Court by publishing that book in a way of
23 revealing the identity and the protected statements of those protected
25 So what we are going to allow to add to the list is the -- those
1 English translation of excerpts from documents already on the original
2 65 ter exhibit list. And your intention is not only to add them to the
3 list, but also to tender them for those documents to be admitted?
4 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, that is correct, Your Honours. I do seek
5 to tender those documents. And as well, there is a further issue
6 concerning the report that parties and the Chamber received yesterday
7 from the Registrar. It touches on issues in relation to the former book.
8 And for that reason I would seek to tender that and to file an amended 65
9 ter list as well. It's my submission that it's directly relevant -- in
10 the event of finding of guilty to the current count, it's directly
11 relevant to the question of sentence.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is not quite sure whether it is
14 necessary to admit it for the purpose of this case, so we leave it as it
16 Mr. Seselj, we come to your motion to call your character
17 witnesses. On 28th January, 2011, Mr. Seselj submitted a list of 28, I
18 quote, "character witnesses," whom he stated should be called at trial to
19 testify to his good character and the context in which his books have
20 originated. The motion was filed confidentially upon order of the
21 Chamber as it contained information which remained still confidential.
22 The Chamber wishes to remind Mr. Seselj that Rule 46 of the
23 Tribunal's rules on misconduct of counsel is also applicable to
24 self-represented accused. This list of character witnesses contains
25 abusive and insulting languages and suits no other purpose than to
1 obstruct the trial process and make a mockery of the Tribunal and these
2 proceedings in particular. The Chamber therefore dismisses the list of
3 character witnesses as frivolous and an abuse of process.
4 I think this disposes of the pending matters. Now we turn to the
5 planning of this trial. So I -- Mr. Seselj.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Kwon, not all pending
7 matters have been resolved yet. First of all, as regards my motion that
8 you rejected, it does not contain a single insulting or derogatory term.
9 It just contains the titles of book published long ago that may be
10 considered derogatory but are -- but cannot be changed as such, so in the
11 original they have to be there. I mean, there are no other things that
12 may be deemed improper.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, the Chamber has given its ruling
15 So, Mr. MacFarlane, how long do you expect your Prosecution case
16 to last?
17 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours. I can confirm that I
18 do not intend to call any viva voce evidence. I do intend to tender the
19 documents that have been received. And in terms of length of time, I can
20 confirm that I expect it will still be between three and five hours,
21 probably closer to four, but that's just my best assessment.
22 JUDGE KWON: Are you planning to make an opening statement?
23 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, I am.
24 JUDGE KWON: And you will make closing argument after having
25 concluded all the evidence including Defence?
1 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, that's correct. When I say between three
2 to five hours, that includes the opening statement. So it's the -- my
3 proposal and my submission is that we could proceed along these lines,
4 consistent with previous contempt cases in which I was involved: I would
5 provide an opening statement which would provide the usual overview of
6 the evidence, the documents would then be tendered in a more formal way
7 with comments on the relevance of each document for the benefit of the
8 Chamber, and that would bring us pretty well close to the end of the case
9 for the Prosecution. But all of that, what I just described, would be
10 between three and four hours, I suspect.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
12 Mr. Seselj, the Chamber has been informed by the pro se liaison
13 office that there may be issues concerning the scheduling of your ten
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what this word
16 conflict means to you right now. There's no conflict. I wish to present
17 ten Defence witnesses, and I submitted all the filings very properly, I
18 provided their preliminary statements, they have been translated into the
19 English language. However, the Registry made it impossible for me to
20 meet with my associates, with my Legal Advisor, Dejan Mirovic, who has a
21 master's degree in law, and another associate of mine, Nemanja Sarovic,
22 who also has a degree in law. I submitted a request last year, towards
23 the end of last year, that they come and visit me and that the Registry
24 pay for their travel expenses. They visited me once before, however, the
25 Registry did not allow Nemanja Sarovic a privileged visit. And then
1 Dejan Mirovic, by way of a demonstration, refused to come. My Legal
2 Advisor and Case Manager have not visited me at all since this indictment
3 was issued. On the 17th of February, I received a letter from
4 Jaimee Campbell, head of the department of OLAD, and she says that the
5 Registry is not going to pay travel expenses at all for my Legal Advisor
6 and the Case Manager. I hope that you have a copy of that letter. If
7 not, I have a copy in the English language and you can take it if you're
8 interested in seeing it.
9 So I did not manage to prepare thoroughly with these proceedings
10 because I did not have a single meeting with my Legal Advisor and the
11 Case Manager. Secondly, I would have to proof the witnesses. My plan
12 was an examination in chief of about half an hour of each witness, so
13 that means about five hours altogether for the examination-in-chief.
14 However, I have to talk to every one of the witnesses before they walk
15 into the courtroom. That is the practice of The Hague Tribunal, that all
16 witnesses are proofed regardless of whether they are Prosecution
17 witnesses or Defence witnesses. I have to proof these witnesses and I
18 have no possibility of doing so.
19 The Registrar is standing in my way. I don't have enough money
20 to pay for everyone's travel expenses. This is something that should be
21 covered by the Tribunal. This is not financing my Defence as such.
22 Covering travel expenses in each and every trial is not something that is
23 a bank roll by the Defence's budget. It has to be financed by the
24 Registry and cannot be charged to the Defence. In my trial, the
25 financing of my Defence has not been resolved yet. We need to cover the
1 travel expenses and the accommodation expenses for one Legal Assistant,
2 one Case Manager, and then a total of ten witnesses that I'm calling. At
3 the outset you told us that this exceptionally nice lady whose assistance
4 Mr. MacFarlane has enlisted for this trial is in a position to address
5 the Trial Chamber. And then it strikes me that I don't have a single
6 assistant of any kind who will have an opportunity to address the Court
7 or not.
8 We need to be on an equal footing here. The Tribunal is paying
9 Mr. MacFarlane and his associate and God knows who else. Well then I say
10 the Tribunal should pay for my associates too. The financing of my
11 Defence has not been resolved yet, but at least the Tribunal needs to
12 cover their travel expenses so that they could be here and help me along
13 with my Defence and proofing the witnesses.
14 I call some witness. All these witnesses are persons who have
15 something to do with the charges against me, in terms of publishing
16 certain names, with the exception of one person whose name I will not
17 mention now, it is a witness who was established as committing perjury a
18 long time ago. Last year the Prosecutor informed me and the
19 Trial Chamber in writing that they will not be invoking the testimony of
20 that witness at all. Even the Prosecutor believes, is convinced, that
21 the testimony was false. That is why I have no need at all for that
22 witness. Nevertheless, as for the remaining ten witness, levelling
23 serious accusations against the OTP, are truly indispensable.
24 Indispensable why? I need them here in this courtroom to confirm that
25 their names were published by their own free will. It wasn't something I
1 did without their consent. I was merely the person who made it happen.
2 Not a single confidential document containing their names was published
3 that was disclosed to me by the OTP. The only documents published were
4 the documents that were created while my associates were interviewing
5 those witnesses.
6 JUDGE KWON: So, in short, you are not in the position to proceed
7 with your Defence case, given the reasons you stated.
8 So, Mr. Seselj, going back to that financing issue, as you are
9 well aware by now, matters relating to the financing of the -- of an
10 accused's Defence are within the primary responsibility of the Registrar.
11 It is unfortunate that this financing issue could not be resolved before
12 today and that it will delay the completion of these proceedings, which
13 could and should have been completed in a relatively short time-frame.
14 However, the Chamber cannot but adjourn the proceedings since the Chamber
15 is of the view that you are entitled, under Article 21.4(e) of the
16 Statute, to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on your
17 behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against you.
18 The Chamber would note, however, that as a self-represented
19 accused, Mr. Seselj, you are responsible for making the initial
20 preparation to secure the prompt attendance of your witnesses. The
21 pro se liaison office without doubt will provide you with all the
22 necessary assistance you may need in this respect. And also in order to
23 get financing assistance from the Registry as an indigent person, there
24 are certain procedures you have to take. That's all we can say at this
25 moment, Mr. Seselj.
1 In order not to waste time, the Chamber considers that the
2 amicus Prosecutor would present his case today and that the proceedings
3 should be adjourned sine die thereafter, pending the resolution of the
4 accused's Defence by the Appeals Chamber. And the parties will be
5 informed in writing as to the date of recommencement of trial and how
6 long Mr. Seselj will be granted for the presentation of the case.
7 The Chamber's Legal Officer will contact the amicus curia
8 Prosecutor as well as Defence via pro se liaison office.
9 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
10 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you for the
11 ruling. I just wanted to reiterate a point that I made before Judge Hall
12 on the last Pre-Trial Conference, just so that there's no -- no one's
13 taken by surprise. I did want to mention on the last occasion that I
14 will be quite a distance from Northern Europe for a period of time in
15 April and early May and I just wanted to note that. I'm quite happy to
16 work with the Senior Legal Officer in terms of working out a date, but I
17 wanted to be fair to the Chamber and let you know in advance.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane. The Chamber is cognizant
19 of that information.
20 Then, Mr. MacFarlane, you have the floor.
21 The first break will be at 20 past 10.00.
22 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 I expect that I will in all likelihood be completed by the time
24 of the break. I will endeavour to do that.
25 These proceedings arise by virtue of Rule 77 of the Rules of this
1 Tribunal, which in essence provides that the Tribunal in the exercise of
2 its inherent power may hold in contempt those who disclose information in
3 knowing violation of an order of the Chamber. The -- on a review of the
4 Order in Lieu of Indictment, there are -- and in light of the evidence
5 that I will be alluding to, there are really two aspects to this case
6 that I would like to highlight at the beginning. The first relates to a
7 hard cover book which contained confidential information. And the second
8 aspect relates to the inclusion of that same book and confidential
9 information on the personal website of the accused. And we've already
10 discussed briefly the effect and impact of the decision of this Chamber
11 on the 2nd of December, which noted that there was no need to amend the
12 Order in Lieu of Indictment but, rather, all of those matters could be
13 dealt with under the general rubric of the current Order in Lieu of
15 So as a result, during the course of the presentation of the
16 Prosecution's evidence, you will hear evidence on both of those aspects
17 of the case.
18 The facts in this case, in my respectful submission, are actually
19 quite straightforward. The foundation of the case rests on several
20 orders of Chambers. There were two orders at an early stage which are
21 all embracing in connection with these proceedings and are nonspecific to
22 individual witnesses. The first was issued by Trial Chamber II in 2003,
23 and that focused on the importance of confidentiality of disclosure. The
24 second, likewise, was a decision of Trial Chamber II in 2004, and that
25 focused once again on the confidentiality of disclosure materials.
1 So the general framework for these proceedings and the importance
2 of confidentiality was established at an early stage, and the evidence
3 will demonstrate that the accused was present throughout the proceedings
4 and was aware of both of those general orders.
5 Subsequently, however, the Trial Chamber ordered various
6 protective measures that were specific to the 11 witnesses in issue.
7 Those three orders emerged in June of 2005, August of 2007, and
8 October of 2007. I won't go into the details too much of these because I
9 want to be careful in terms of not disclosing any confidentiality myself,
10 so I will endeavour to be general.
11 In connection with the 2005 order, the order was issued
12 unanimously and granted protective measures in connection with a number
13 of witnesses who are named and who were assigned a pseudonym.
14 In connection with the second order in August of 2007, that
15 matter was conducted and emerged from the Pre-Trial Judge who gave a very
16 detailed set of protective measures. And the evidence will demonstrate
17 before you the lengths to which the Pre-Trial Judge considered the
18 witnesses on an individual basis and evidence concerning those individual
19 witnesses. And then in a very tailored way, tailored a series of
20 protective measures that was responsive to the circumstances concerning
21 each of those witnesses.
22 And in the third and final order of protective measures in
23 October of 2007, once again before the Pre-Trial Judge, there was a
24 further consideration again on an individualized basis with particular
25 attention to the evidence that was provided to the Pre-Trial Judge. And
1 once again there is a carefully-tailored set of protective measures that
2 was prepared and ordered by that Chamber.
3 The point of all of that is simply that in the tradition of the
4 Chambers at the International Tribunal, there is very careful attention
5 to the evidence and a tailoring of the protective measures to respond to
6 the evidence and that the accused was aware of that and was present and
7 received copies of the orders.
8 The position that we're in, then, as of late 2007 after the
9 completion of all of these orders was that specific protective measures
10 were in place for all 11 witnesses that are in issue in these
11 proceedings. The evidence will demonstrate through a series of decisions
12 procès-verbal and submissions from the accused that he was aware that
13 these protective measures were in place. And more particularly, the
14 evidence will demonstrate that he knew that there was a prohibition on
15 the publishing of information in connection with these protected
16 witnesses. It will also be demonstrated through the evidence that the
17 accused was very much aware of the fact that there was a need to come
18 back to Chambers if there's a desire to rescind or vary this detailed
19 framework of protective measures. The evidence on that will be quite
21 So, moving forward a little bit to late 2007, just to summarise
22 what the evidence will demonstrate: It will demonstrate that protective
23 measures were in place, they have been fully considered by the Chamber,
24 the accused knew that they were in place, the accused knew he couldn't
25 publish confidential information that fell within the framework that had
1 been established by Chambers, and he knew that he couldn't publish
2 confidential submissions.
3 Moving from late 2007 until around the middle of 2008, slightly
4 beyond the middle of 2008, the evidence will demonstrate a fair bit of
5 activity on the part of the accused in terms of this whole
6 protected witness framework. The accused became somewhat litigious
7 during this period of time on this issue. And through his submissions
8 and decisions that emerged, it will demonstrate quite clearly in terms of
9 the accused's knowledge that the accused knew that Chambers, and not he
10 and not other third parties, but Chambers controls the process of
11 determining whether protective measures are issued and whether they are
12 rescinded and whether they're varied.
13 The evidence will demonstrate, and this is important in the
14 overall scheme, that the accused knew that it was necessary, if there was
15 a desire to rescind or vary, that one needs to proceed back to Chambers
16 so that there can be a judicial assessment of whether that's an
17 appropriate step. And in fact, the evidence will demonstrate that the
18 accused and his associates actually assisted one individual in going back
19 to Chambers.
20 Further to that, during this, what I'll refer to as a litigious
21 period, the accused himself brought a motion for protective measures in
22 respect of certain witnesses. So it's quite clear in terms of the
23 accused's knowledge, he had a fairly, not a fairly, a pretty good
24 understanding of the statute and the rules and the procedures that were
25 necessary. And that will certainly be an inference that will be open to
1 the Chamber upon full consideration of the evidence.
2 So now, in terms of moving forward and the position that we're in
3 right now, the orders are in place, the accused is familiar with the
4 legal scheme and the framework. The evidence will in the next stages, as
5 we move along in this continuum, will demonstrate his breaches. And the
6 evidence will show that those breaches of the order and the scheme that
7 was in place was done knowingly, was deliberate. And I anticipate the
8 evidence will demonstrate that he was defiant in his approach. And that,
9 in my respectful submission, is exactly what the contempt scheme is
10 intended to deal with.
21 (redacted). First of
22 all, it disclosed information that enabled the reader to identify the
23 protected witnesses by publishing their full names, publishing their
24 addresses, and publishing in most instances their identity card number.
25 So the information was quite specific. And on some of the witnesses, not
1 all necessarily, but in several instances, the breaches went further and
2 outlined such identifying information as dates of birth, place of birth,
3 occupation, and unique master citizen number.
4 I anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that this is not
5 a case where the information that was published simply tends to identify
6 or is capable of identifying or may identify protected witnesses. This
7 is a case of actual identification of persons who are were still under a
8 protective legal umbrella.
9 But the 2008 book actually goes further than that. There is a
10 second dimension to the manner in which it breached the orders of
11 protection. The book reprints submissions to the Tribunal that have been
12 reclassified by Chambers as confidential and for reasons that were
13 appropriate throughout. But I expect the evidence will demonstrate that
14 these submissions which to the knowledge of the accused were confidential
15 were deliberately published, and they in turn contained further
16 identifying information.
17 You will receive evidence demonstrating, in relation to these
18 submissions, that they originated from the accused; they were
19 reclassified as confidential by the Chamber in the normal course of
20 events pursuant to internal protocols; that the accused knew of the
21 reclassification through a formal notice process that's well-established
22 within the Tribunal; and that the accused knew of the implications of
23 publishing confidential information, including his own submissions that
24 have been classified as confidential.
25 Concerning the 2008 book, the evidence, I anticipate, will
1 demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the publication of this
2 information was done deliberately and defiantly and was certainly not
3 done accidently. The evidence will show that he was aware of the orders
4 and decided to publish anyway.
5 Concerning the scope of publication, which is always relevant in
6 a case of publication contempt, the accused further compounded the
7 contempt beyond simply publishing a book in hard cover. The hard cover
8 book, the evidence will show, had a print run of approximately 10.000,
9 but that contempt was compounded by publishing the book on his own
11 I think, in my submission, the website aspect to the case is an
12 important one for the Chamber to consider because if one, through normal
13 hard cover books, seeks to distribute information, there are the normal
14 limitations of getting the information out. You only have certain
15 numbers of copies, each copy costs something, you need to promote it, you
16 need to get it out. So there's all sorts of limitations to a hard cover
17 book. But the decision to publish on the Internet was a very serious
18 step. Internet publication is far more pervasive than print publication
19 for a number of reasons. First of all, you have potentially a worldwide
20 audience well beyond what a hard copy book to be directed to. Secondly,
21 you have virtually an unlimited number of readers who could, as the
22 evidence will demonstrate, download the book free of charge. Thirdly,
23 the evidence will demonstrate that the book has been available on the
24 website of the accused since the earlier portion of 2010, and the
25 evidence will demonstrate that it's still on the Internet. Fourthly, and
1 there's quite a number of points that can be made in terms of why the
2 Internet publication is more serious, but the last one that I'll mention
3 at this point is that in the case of a hard cover book there have been
4 instances where the book was recalled, and I have personally been
5 involved in instances of that. Where the book or the information is on
6 the Internet is virtually impossible to do any sort of effective recall.
7 I can draw my comments to a conclusion by simply summarising what
8 I expect will be the thrust of the case for the Prosecution. As I have
9 mentioned on a couple of occasions, in terms of the mens rea or fault
10 requirement of the offence of contempt, I anticipate that the evidence
11 will be very convincing, that this was a deliberate and defiant approach
12 by the accused. The case, as I mentioned at the beginning, is relatively
13 straightforward. Protective measures were in place, the accused was
14 familiar with the scheme, he became litigious, he had been unsuccessful
15 in his attempts to rescind. And it would be open to the Chamber to draw
16 the inference that he arrived at a new strategy and that was to not
17 simply go back to Chambers to have the protective measures dealt with in
18 Chambers but, rather, to get the information out through other means,
19 namely through the book and the website publication of the information he
20 wanted to have public.
21 The evidence will demonstrate that one of the objectives and one
22 of the motives of the accused was that he wanted to ensure that the
23 public would see the evidence that went before the Chamber, unobstructed
24 and in full light. That was his overall objective on the basis of the
25 evidence. He felt frustrated and adopted a new strategy. That's a
1 rather brief outline of the case as I expect it will be presented to you
2 by the Prosecution.
3 Given the given the ruling of the Chamber with respect to the
4 right of audience, for which I thank the Chamber, the next stage in the
5 presentation --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
7 JUDGE KWON: What is it, Mr. Seselj?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. MacFarlane is using improper
9 language without permission. How does he know that I felt frustrated?
10 He's not allowed to say that kind of thing here. He can seek expertise,
11 but he is talking about my subjective condition. How can he be allowed
12 to do that?
13 JUDGE KWON: Your intervention is not helpful, Mr. Seselj.
14 MR. MacFARLANE: As I was just about to say, the next stage in
15 the case for the Prosecution will involve a presentation by my colleague
16 with respect to the documentary evidence. And for the benefit and
17 hopefully the assistance to the Chamber, she will be commenting on the
18 relevance of each document and how the documents fit into the case as a
19 whole. So I would turn the next stage over to my colleague Ms. Wanlin.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
21 Yes, Ms. Wanlin.
22 MS. WANLIN: Good morning, Your Honours. I have binders that we
23 would like to distribute, so just bear with us, please.
24 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Wanlin, although we have admitted all of this,
25 but we have to be very cautious because given that most of them will be
1 confidential material.
2 MS. WANLIN: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. Kwon, the material
4 I received here is in the English language only. I don't understand this
5 English language. I insist that the entire set of material be provided
6 to me in the Serbian language. I'm returning this.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, these are transcripts or part of Court
8 records and you know the practice and the rules of the Tribunal.
9 Let us proceed, Ms. Wanlin.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Precisely. Precisely, Mr. Kwon.
11 Precisely. Because I do know what the practice in the Tribunal is.
12 Although these documents had been provided to me earlier on, it is the
13 duty of the Prosecution when providing a set of material to the
14 Trial Chamber just before the proceedings start they have to send a set
15 to me as well. This has been observed in all trials so far and has to be
16 observed in this trial too.
17 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to respond, Mr. MacFarlane or
18 Ms. Wanlin?
19 MS. WANLIN: Your Honour, we have provided copies in B/C/S to the
20 accused prior to the proceedings. At the break we can endeavour to
21 produce a second copy in B/C/S if the Chamber pleases. However, the
22 translation will be made during these proceedings which I believe that
23 the accused will be able to follow.
24 JUDGE KWON: Let me be clear. Do we have a translation of
25 transcript as well?
1 MS. WANLIN: No, Your Honour. We don't have the translation of
2 the transcripts. One of the points that I was going to be making was to
3 read out the sections of the transcripts and therefore the accused would
4 receive the relevant sections in B/C/S so that he would be able to
6 JUDGE KWON: And we don't have the translation of Court
7 decisions, do we?
8 MS. WANLIN: I don't have the decisions in the binders. They are
9 available on CD and this is where --
10 JUDGE KWON: There exist English translation of -- B/C/S
11 translation of Court decisions?
12 MS. WANLIN: Yes, the B/C/S versions do exist. And I will point
13 out that the procès-verbal are actually in both B/C/S and in English, as
14 are -- several of the exhibits I'll be referring to are in both B/C/S and
15 in English. And further, many of the documents are actually English
16 translations of the accused's book and therefore we don't have the B/C/S
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, Mr. Kwon, I insist that I be
19 given everything in the Serbian language. The transcripts must be
20 submitted to me in the Serbian language. It is simply not practicable
21 for Mrs. - I can't seem to remember her name - read back portions of the
22 transcript and then to have that orally interpreted to me. That has
23 never been done before in any of the trials. It is impermissible and
24 only goes to show that the Prosecution is not ready for this trial.
25 JUDGE KWON: These transcripts are part of the transcript which
1 pertains to the trial against Mr. Seselj.
2 MS. WANLIN: These are all transcripts from the main trial. It
3 is our understanding that the policy of the Tribunal is not to translate
4 transcripts but that the accused has been provided with a DVD copy of all
5 of the proceedings and therefore is current with all of the information
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: Given that these are part of the trial of Mr. Seselj
10 and he has access to the video, audio/video file, the Chamber will
11 proceed with the presentation of evidence.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, Mr. Kwon, not only did I
13 receive the recordings of those trial, I was actually in the courtroom
14 myself, but the transcript from my trial runs into over 20.000 pages of
15 typed up text. Over 20.000 pages.
16 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has given its ruling.
17 Let's proceed, Ms. Wanlin.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, probably the best thing would
19 be for the Trial Chamber to decide to press on with this case against me,
20 if you intend to keep me here as a passive observer. You are violating
21 my rights openly, brutally. You are telling me the Chamber has given its
22 ruling. What's my role then?
23 JUDGE KWON: Your intervention is not helpful, Mr. Seselj. We'll
24 see to it that your rights are protected to the full extent.
25 Let's proceed, Ms. Wanlin.
1 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to have the
2 assistance of the Court Usher if possible. I will be referring to a
3 document on the ELMO system. This is a revised document that you have
4 already received in the pre-trial brief. And if you look in your
5 binders, a copy of it is in the front of the --
6 Sorry, please, this should be -- this is confidential, so if it
7 could be broadcast to the Chamber and not to the audience, that would be
8 recommended, please.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would it be of any use to you,
10 Mr. Kwon, if I told you that this document is only in the English
11 language? There is nothing whatsoever in it that is in the Serbian
12 language. Is that any use to you?
13 JUDGE KWON: This is not an exhibit. This is just aid. Let's
14 see what we can get from this.
15 Yes, Ms. Wanlin.
16 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 So I'll be beginning with three key questions that we'd like to
18 address. The first was, was there a disclosure; the next is, were there
19 protective measures in effect at the time of the disclosure; and thirdly,
20 the question of did the accused have knowledge of the protective measures
21 at the time of the disclosure. I will follow that with the evidence
22 related to sentencing.
23 The first question that I will address is: Were there orders of
24 a Chamber in effect at the time --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for slowing down.
1 MS. WANLIN: My apologies. Were there orders of a Chamber in
2 effect at the time of the disclosure. I will draw your attention to
3 Annex B, which is now on the ELMO system. Yes. And as you will note at
4 the top of this diagram, it's a time-line. What we seek to establish is
5 the point of publication in relation to when the protective measures were
6 in effect and when there were submissions by the accused which were
7 ordered confidential.
8 You will note at the top we refer to the hard copy of the book
9 was published. We've established that it was published after the
10 1st of September of 2008. The inside cover of the book does not specify
11 the specific month of the publication. It merely refers to the year of
12 publication. But there is a reference to -- in the book. I will refer
13 you to tab 55 L.
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
15 MS. WANLIN: Pardon me.
16 JUDGE KWON: If the Legal Officer could approach the Bench.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session.
19 MS. WANLIN: Yes, Your Honour
20 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in an open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Wanlin.
7 MS. WANLIN: So I would like to draw your attention to tab 55 in
8 your binder. If you go to tab L. And on page 11 of tab L.
9 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, it has only --
10 MS. WANLIN: Pardon me, that was me misreading my notes. Tab I.
11 Your Honours, I believe that there's a sticky note at the relevant
12 section at the bottom of the page. And in light of the fact that we are
13 in open session, I will simply refer to an interview that is noted on the
14 particular date that -- in the publication by the name of "Vesti" which
15 refers to an interview that was done by Nebojsa Stojanovic.
16 I would now like to draw your attention to tab 56 which I will
17 note is actually in B/C/S. And "Vesti," from our understanding, is a
18 publication that is for the diaspora, it is published in a number of
19 different places, but we can -- if we look at this second page, the back
20 of the second page has the relevant parts translated, and this coincides
21 with the information that was referred to at tab 55 I at the bottom of
22 the page that I just referred to. So we believe that this helps to
23 pin-point the date of publication.
24 In addition to this, we would like to refer to, if you turn to
25 tab 55 A, and on page 7, which once again is tabbed in Your Honours'
1 binders, about partway down, there is a reference to a decision of the
2 Chamber. I might ask to go momentarily into closed session, if I might.
3 JUDGE KWON: Before that, I note the time. How about taking a
4 break now. We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at ten to
6 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, there is another problem
9 that has cropped up which I would like to present to you before the lady
10 continues. You allowed the Prosecutor to have an opening statement,
11 nevertheless it is my impression that the lady from the Prosecution has
12 already started presenting evidence. Under Rule 84 bis, I have the right
13 following the opening statement of the OTP to make a statement in my
14 capacity as an accused. It is not before such time that the Prosecution
15 can go ahead and start presenting evidence.
16 JUDGE KWON: My apologies, I forgot to ask. I was minded to ask
17 that but I just simply missed it. But is it your case that you want to
18 make a statement based upon Rule 84 bis or Rule 84?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. Under Rule 84, once the
20 conditions are there. But all what I can do now is make an 84 bis
22 JUDGE KWON: That was my question, whether you are minded to make
23 a Rule 84 bis statement.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE KWON: How long will that take?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, half an hour, I suppose.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE KWON: My apologies, Ms. Wanlin, for your inconvenience,
4 but we'll proceed to hear Mr. Seselj's Rule 84 bis statement.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, judges. Do I have half
6 an hour? Do I? I hope so.
7 JUDGE KWON: Please proceed.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sirs, Judges, this is the second
9 contempt proceedings against me at this Tribunal already. Why has the
10 situation occurred? What has led to these proceedings? Because for
11 eight years a Prosecutor has in vein been trying to create some kind of
12 link between me and war crimes. The Prosecutor has suffered a fiasco.
13 And what they are trying to do now is to use my time in detention which
14 can in no way be justified and fill it with judgements and sentences for
15 contempt of court.
16 All that I have tried to achieve in this trial is to keep the
17 public as well informed as possible of everything that goes on here. My
18 right to a public trial is guaranteed under a great number of
19 international conventions. These conventions say exactly when the nature
20 of the trial can cease to be public. I will use a document which my
21 Legal Associate Dejan Mirovic, MA in law, sent to the Security Council of
22 the UN pursuant to my instructions in which he put forward a number of
23 arguments about why trials that are not public run counter to fundamental
24 human rights and freedoms.
25 I can provide a copy in Russian, French, and English of this text
1 in its entirety. Therefore, may copies please be made for the OTP as
2 well, since I only happen to have a single copy on me right now. So
3 could the Registry please use my copy to make copies both for the
4 Trial Chamber and for the OTP. The European convention on the protection
5 of human rights and fundamental freedoms guarantees that every human
6 being has a right to a public trial. The public can only be shut out
7 from this entire process only if the best interest of morale, the social
8 structure, and constitution are best served or if there's a need to
9 protect the interest of any minors involved or the public lives of any of
10 the persons involved.
11 I'm not being tried here for any sort of sexual offence. I'm not
12 being tried for anything at all that might violate the moral order or the
13 public order of democratic states. I stand accused here of the gravest
14 of all crimes, crimes against humanity, before an international tribunal
15 for war crimes. The crimes that we are talking about are exceptionally
16 serious and the proceedings must be public in their entirety.
17 Regardless of that, the Judges of The Hague Tribunal introduced
18 Rule 77, allowing for the possibility to prosecute for contempt of court
19 if information is published regarding protected witnesses. This rule has
20 no foundation in international customary criminal law. This is something
21 that the Judges of The Hague Tribunal came up with or invented. If you
22 look at the statute of Rome, if you look at the rules, the statute of the
23 ICC, you'll see that there is no provision about contempt of court there
24 as defined by publishing names of protected witnesses.
25 Needless to say, there are many witnesses who are in need of
1 protection. Nevertheless, the protection is arranged before they appear
2 in a courtroom and after they have left. Their appearance in a courtroom
3 must be public. If there is any real danger involved, then the witness
4 must be taken elsewhere far away, to the far end of the world, get their
5 names changed, get their identities changed, give them the right
6 conditions to get on with their lives, and so on and so forth.
7 In my trial, there was absolutely no reason to have any witnesses
8 at all protected in this way. I never threatened any of the witnesses.
9 I never threatened to violate their physical integrity in any way. And
10 these allegations are made in my trial. I never made a single threat to
11 any of the witnesses. All I want to do is unmask false witnesses who
12 appear in this courtroom and what I want to do is do this before the eyes
13 of the public. Because if the public does not know what is happening
14 during my trial, I might as well be swallowed by the earth beneath me.
15 The public is the only form of protection that I enjoy and the only form
16 of protection that I can count on.
17 You know how many innocent people have been sentenced before this
18 Tribunal over the last 18 years, starting with Milan Martic and then
19 moving on to other innocent victims. These persons were perfectly
20 innocent. Why were they sentenced? Because their Defence was inadequate
21 and also because the public was shut out from parts of the proceedings.
22 I enjoy the privilege of the Serbian national television broadcasting the
23 entire trial, my entire trial, at least the public portions of my trial.
24 And that had a particularly depressing effect on the OTP. The conspiracy
25 at the outset that I should be sentenced in short order for purely
1 political reasons, that has now failed.
2 Mr. Kwon, exactly eight years ago you signed the first indictment
3 against me. You were given some additional material but you did not take
4 the trouble of studying that material because otherwise you would have
5 seen that there was no serious evidence there and that the indictment was
6 purely a political one. Carla del Ponte's book, which was published at a
7 later date, clearly demonstrated why an indictment was raised against me.
8 Why? Because at the time, I was in the way. I was in the way of the
9 mafia pro-Western regime that was in power at the time. Zoran Djindjic,
10 he clearly said, when he talked to Carla del Ponte, Take Seselj away and
11 please don't ever send him back again. This policy continues. Now that
12 you've taken him away, hold him there for as long as you can over there
13 in The Hague. If you can't get him sentenced for crimes, war crimes,
14 well, maybe you can get him sentenced for something else, contempt of
15 court. How about that.
16 For all I know there might be another ten trials where I will
17 stand accused. I will certainly do my best to have at least another ten
18 contempt trials instituted against me. I will not be deterred by anyone.
19 As the great leader of all Korean people says, Kim Jong-il, Whoever
20 fights sincerely in the interest of truth and freedom must be prepared to
21 sacrifice, to make a sacrifice. I followed his shining example and I
22 have demonstrated my readiness to make sacrifice, even if I should face
23 death itself. Until my conditions are met and fulfilled, I will do my
24 best to cope with whatever I may be subjected to here. I have since
25 become indestructible and I will remain indestructible to the bitter end.
1 Secondly, if we look at the codification of international
2 criminal law - I've mentioned the statute, I've mentioned the rules of
3 the ICC - it does not give you the right, it actually gives me the right
4 in terms of contempt of court. If you look at the Rules on Procedure and
5 Evidence, the statute of Rome, you have the following crimes clearly
6 defined: Perjury. False testimony, no one has stood accused so far
7 before this Tribunal for perjury, although there were instances of
8 perjury and false witnesses in each and every trial here.
9 Ask yourselves, Judges, why is that the case? You work as Judges
10 in a Tribunal whose legality and legitimacy are entirely questionable.
11 You have accepted your role but what you now must do is to defend your
12 own honour and save face. What about infractions of moral standards and
13 rules, basic human honesty and decency, what are the things happening
14 here before this Tribunal. Many people managed to get away with many
15 things, but I'm still hoping that at one point there will be a Judge who
16 will put his foot down and say, That's enough. Hasn't happened yet, but
17 I'm still hoping. It appears that I will yet see all of The Hague
18 Tribunal's Judges appear in my case in various roles and guises, but I'm
19 still hoping that there will be a Judge eventually who will put his foot
20 down and say, My face is more important than the interests of the great
21 political powers backing this Tribunal, particularly the US of A and the
23 This Tribunal is their political tool. This Tribunal was not set
24 up to see to it that justice was done. If you look at the foundation
25 documents of this Tribunal, it is defined as a tool for re-establishing
1 peace, these so-called Pax Americana, and that is precisely what it
2 continues to be. Justice is swept under the carpet. It's somewhere well
3 concealed in the basement of this building. What we see surfacing more
4 and more is the interests of the Western powers. In most other trials, I
5 can't say all, but I can say most, and I've read every single judgement
6 that has been made available to me, the Defence was instrumentalised by
7 the Tribunal and fully paid by the Tribunal in most trials here. Whose
8 interests did they represent? The payer's interests. Whoever was
9 bank-rolling their work. There wasn't a single trial in which a Defence
10 team was fully ready and prepared to oppose the wantonness of the
11 Prosecutor or the respective Judges as the case may be.
12 Mr. Kwon, you were a member of the Trial Chamber that tried
13 Slobodan Milosevic. One of the witnesses appearing in the Milosevic
14 trial was announced to be scheduled to appear in my trial; nevertheless,
15 this particular witness appears to have changed his mind. The Tribunal
16 failed to meet all of the promised conditions. So the witness simply
17 changed sides.
18 He said several times that he perjured himself in the Milosevic
19 trial. He signed statements to that effect and addressed the issue
20 publicly over in Serbia. He spoke to TV stations, to radio stations, and
21 various newspapers in Serbia. This is O2C6 in my trial; that's the
22 witness's code-name. I don't remember his code-name in the Milosevic
23 trial, but he was the first witness who said, I was coerced into giving
24 false testimony, and that is what I did, I gave false testimony. That
25 should have rung the alarm bell throughout this Tribunal.
1 I filed a criminal complaint with the president of the Tribunal.
2 My complaint was thrown out and the explanation that followed was this:
3 Proceedings are underway already to establish whether there are any
4 elements to establish the responsibility of The Hague Tribunal for
5 contempt, amicus curiae, who was appointed, whose name is being kept
6 secret; it wasn't published, and I haven't been informed of that person's
7 name, and now he would rise to the occasion. So this has been going on
8 for over six months.
9 My first criminal complaints were filed several years ago and the
10 evidence was abundant, clearly indicating that there had been false
11 testimony, that witnesses had coerced by the OTP to give false testimony,
12 that they were made certain promises that turned out to be false. Or
13 they were simply told that unless they testified as the OTP wanted them
14 to testify, that they would be facing charges themselves.
15 It was then said that no further indictments would follow after
16 2005. All the fear was suddenly gone. People started asking themselves
17 certain questions and they started publishing certain facts, the truth.
18 I have never published a single name of a false witness. No matter how
19 false and no matter how persistent in their falsehood. All I did was to
20 publish the testimonies of people whose hand was forced, who were coerced
21 into giving false testimony. But at one point they turned around, they
22 went back to the members of my Defence team, spoke to them, and gave
23 statements that were entirely different and new. There were a total of
24 about 20 such witnesses, many of them appearing in this courtroom as OTP
25 witnesses, many of them appearing as the Chamber's witnesses.
1 You will no doubt see that many of them were adamant that their
2 testimonies should be public in their entirety, which eventually
3 happened, their testimonies were public. One of them appeared in the
4 courtroom, took a seat, and the Chamber told him that he would be
5 testifying under protective measures, and he said, No way. The only way
6 I can testify here is in public.
7 There was a discussion in closed session for about an hour. The
8 witness was adamant that his testimony should be a public one, and the
9 Trial Chamber eventually ruled to drop this witness altogether.
10 It took another 10 minutes for the Chamber after the decision was
11 communicated to him to get the Trial Chamber to -- for the Trial Chamber
12 to get the witness to leave the courtroom because he refused to go away.
13 He wanted to testify. Many persons enjoy protective measures, but when
14 they came to this courtroom it to testify, they openly said that they had
15 never requested those measures. This was something that had been force
16 upon them by the OTP against their own will and they decided to go ahead
17 and testify in public. So I'm looking at a total of ten witnesses
18 here whom I would like to bring here, and many of them have already as a
19 matter of fact testified in public. I will give you the exact number.
20 Most of them have testified in public. Four of them were eventually
21 dropped by the Trial Chamber or by the OTP.
22 Why did the OTP decide to drop certain witnesses and give up on
23 their evidence? Because they were scared. If there is a witness who is
24 adamant that he should testify in public, the whole conspiracy charge is
25 gone and they can't get people to fabricate false testimonies. There was
1 a lot of false evidence in the preliminary statements. The OTP never
2 even tried to verify whether what was in those statements was feasible at
3 all in terms of physically happening. One of the statements said that I
4 had the Roman Catholic cathedral in Subotica blown up. But it's still
5 there, alive and well, and no one ever blew it up. Maybe someone threw a
6 fire cracker at one point or the other, but there wasn't even any serious
7 material damage. There was certain witnesses who said that in my public
8 speeches at rallies attended by several thousands of people I said that
9 all children from mixed marriages should be killed. There was a witness
10 who said there was this rally in August 1990 at Mali Zvornik and this
11 witness claimed that the rally took place in March 1992. And then a link
12 was established between that rally and the war events in Zvornik later
13 on, but that was proved to be untrue. And yet nothing became of that.
14 No one suffered any harm.
15 In my trial, the OTP dropped two witnesses who were supposed to
16 testify and who were here in the courtroom already, but then the OTP
17 realised their testimonies were false, so they informed both me and the
18 Trial Chamber that they would no longer be basing any of the charges on
19 the evidence given by those witnesses.
20 So what did I do? I stand accused of entirely fabricated crimes
21 in Hrtkovci. I ordered my investigators to track down any documents
22 available to counter the allegations of the OTP and to publish the whole
23 thing in the form of a book. And then the Trial Chamber, headed by you,
24 Mr. Kwon, sentenced me because a careful reader based on facts provided
25 in the book on a number of different pages would have been led to the
1 true identities of those witnesses. And I was sentenced to 15 months'
2 imprisonment, which was far more severe than anyone had been punished
3 previously for crimes of that nature.
4 Earlier on there were cases where the witness's identities were
5 made public in newspapers, on websites, and the sentences would be up to
6 four months or maybe symbolic sums of money in the worst of cases. Two
7 years ago you decided there was no reason to charge me about this book.
8 That was at the same time when the proceedings were underway in relation
9 to the other book, the hard-bound book that runs into 1.200 pages. And
10 then what happens next, the Appeals Chamber sends this back to you, sends
11 it back to the drawing board, and says, You have to try him for this book
12 as well. So what do you do? You charge me. And then I wanted to have
13 all of your rulings, the rulings that you made previously when you had
14 decided to not charge me for that, but none were served on me. All of
15 the rulings were served on the amicus curiae but I have not received any
16 to this very day. Why would I need those? Well, Mr. Kwon, I need those
17 to ascertain exactly your state of mind two years ago, at a point where
18 you decided that there was no reason to press charges against me about
19 that book. And yet now you have decided that there is reason to do just
20 that. So what has changed in the meantime? I need to assess that. I
21 can assess that based on your behaviour in the courtroom and any
22 judgements that might follow.
23 So what has happened in the mean time? It's got to be something
24 strange. Two years ago there was no reason to go ahead with that. And
25 now suddenly there is a sufficient reason to go ahead with the charges.
1 Why now? Because in the meantime orders have come in from the Americans
2 and the British that I should not be allowed to go back to Serbia until
3 another round of parliamentary elections has run its course. Those were
4 the orders. And the American and British servants over in Belgrade are
5 adamant to see it done, those from the regime, those currently in power,
6 and those masquerading as the opposition, obviously. It's not that I
7 absolutely have to go back, not now, not ever, but I will not yield. I
8 will not give way. What have I done? We have a total of 19 or 20
9 witnesses. These witnesses have decided to not appear as OTP witnesses
10 but to make themselves available to the purpose of my Defence. They
11 agreed to appear as Defence witnesses.
12 I duly notified the Trial Chamber of the facts and I submitted
13 their new statements. All of the previous rulings in the Trial Chamber
14 were in reference to OTP documents. Protective measures were in relation
15 to OTP witnesses and their preliminary statements. When those witnesses
16 changed sides and decided to side with the Defence, suddenly they started
17 speaking up in public. I'm this and that person, my name is this and
18 that, the OTP wanted to force my hand and get me to appear in the trial
19 against Vojislav Seselj, I was coerced, my hand was forced, or I was
20 otherwise unaware of what I was signing, but I now refuse to appear as an
21 OTP witness, and the testimony that is attributed to me is false,
23 I have never published a single statement given by any witness to
24 the OTP. I've never published a single document that was under seal,
25 that was placed under seal by the Trial Chamber. All I've ever published
1 are statements made by those witnesses to me, those witnesses speaking up
2 loud and clear for all the public to hear, telling the truth about any
3 events that they may have been involved in, and particularly the truth
4 about any events they were not involved in but their hand was forced by
5 the OTP into giving false testimony about those same events. So that is
6 what I have now done. And I made this public for all to see.
7 What is the top-most interest of the public? The utmost interest
8 of the public? To be informed. Have I imperilled everyone by informing
9 the public that 20 Defence witnesses gave statements to me, although they
10 had been Prosecution witnesses beforehand? And they agreed for me to
11 disclose these statements publicly. I did not imperil anyone in that
12 way, nor is it my intention to imperil anyone. My only intention is to
13 unmask the OTP from The Hague. I wish I had been indicted earlier
14 because then I would have shaken the foundations of the Tribunal already
15 in 1995 or 1996 by showing the methods that the OTP has been using.
16 I was indicted as a relatively late stage but I never gave up on
17 my intention of doing that. I did that in this book. Now I published
18 yet another book. Now, what did I present in that book? The only thing
19 I presented were the statement of witnesses that I'm going to call here
20 in this courtroom as Defence witnesses. They are all going to go through
21 this courtroom and they are all going to testify in public. Every one of
22 them gave me their consent in writing that I may disclose their
23 statements as Defence witnesses publicly, and that is what I'm doing.
24 Is there a court of law that can force these witnesses to remain
25 anonymous? Especially since some of them had already testified in public
1 in the main trial and they confirmed that they had never sought
2 protective measures. They also confirmed that they had never been
3 threatened. In different cases there were witnesses who, in order to get
4 to a Western country and get a job there, home, money and so on, agreed
5 to provide false testimony. There was a witness here who was haggling
6 with the OTP just before he walked into the courtroom, whether he is
7 going to testify in accordance with the statement that he gave to the OTP
8 or the statement that he gave to me. He said that he would testify in
9 favour of the Prosecution if they meet all his requests and if the OTP
10 honours all its promises. This is one of the witnesses the OTP
11 ultimately gave up on and they said that they would not base their
12 charges on his statements.
13 One witness claimed that he had been beaten up before arriving in
14 The Hague by perpetrators unknown and then it was established that he was
15 cleaning the snow somewhere and that he fell down some slippery steps.
16 The Victims and Witnesses Unit here recorded his conversations with
17 friends in Serbia. He called them and asked them to provide information
18 to him stating that it was very dangerous for him there, that he was
19 under a threat, so that he could somehow make The Hague Tribunal take
20 care of him in a Western country, give him a job, a home, et cetera. Of
21 course it's misery, poverty, that led him to do that kind of thing.
22 When there is poverty, moral scruples become weaker, at least
23 that's the case with most people but not all people. There are poor
24 people who are ready to die but not sell out, not set out their virtue
25 and honesty. There were people like that in The Hague as well, in
1 The Hague Tribunal. Look at all the judgements that were passed on the
2 basis of fabricated, trumped-up charges based on false witnesses.
3 Starting with Milan Martic onwards. Remember the Milosevic case,
4 Mr. Kwon. There were about 40 witnesses who denied the text of the
5 preliminary statement they had given to the OTP. And remember that there
6 was this one witness who claimed that the Serb police tried to execute
7 him from a 10-metre distance using a heavy machine-gun. Four bullets
8 were used and three grazed his shirt without hurting him. How can you
9 remain unharmed if your shirt has exit/entry wounds? Slobodan Milosevic
10 said, How come? And the witness said that God have saved him. You must
11 remember that. You probably laughed about the whole thing with your
12 colleagues later on because you couldn't laugh in court.
13 It happened in other cases as well and no one reacted. Why was
14 no one held responsible until now for perjury? Very soon I am going to
15 file criminal charges against all the false witnesses in my case.
16 Someone will have to be held accountable. What about Timothy McFadden?
17 Why weren't criminal charges instituted against him on account of
18 contempt of court? He disclosed to the American embassy information
19 about the private life of Slobodan Milosevic.
20 We don't know what WikiLeaks is going to leak out in the future.
21 I hope that they are going to provide lots of documents that have
22 something to do with me as well. The warden of the prison is telling the
23 US embassy about Slobodan Milosevic's relations with his wife, with his
24 friends, with his political colleagues, his daily activities, and so on.
25 That is such a big time scandal that McFadden should have been in prison
1 straightaway. He should have been punished. I filed a criminal
2 complaint with the president of the Tribunal but I haven't received any
3 response yet. It has been properly filed and translated into English.
4 Why is the same yard-stick not applied to all? Why should McFadden be
5 protected? Why should any Prosecutor from The Hague be protected? Why
6 should perhaps even a Judge from The Hague be protected? While contempt
7 proceedings are initiated against different journalists in most cases or
8 people who refused to testify or in my very own case against an accused
10 Just imagine a court of law in any part of the world. You all
11 come from different countries. Imagine someone who has been charged with
12 the gravest possible crimes, mass murder, terrible war crimes, and crimes
13 against humanity. Instead of having intensive proceedings underway in
14 court within a reasonable period of time, this person is charged in
15 contempt proceedings on account of books that he published. You see how
16 grotesque all of this is? That kind of grotesque thing cannot happen in
17 any one of your countries, but it is possible before The Hague Tribunal.
18 Because anything is possible here.
19 The Rules of Procedure and Evidence have been changed 45 times
20 and are being changed as proceedings are underway. When is this going to
21 stop? When is this illegality and irregularity going to stop? Is it
22 going to stop before the Tribunal closes down? Hardly. This Tribunal is
23 going to be remembered in the history of International Law only by
24 violating elementary legal regulations and human rights and freedoms. I
25 spoke exactly for half an hour. I see that Mr. MacFarlane seems to be
1 getting jittery, but it was exactly half an hour because I'm careful. I
2 have thus concluded. Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: In relation to the matter raised during the course
4 of his Rule 84 bis statement, Mr. Seselj referred to the Chamber's
5 original decision and not to indict, initiate the proceedings which was
6 reversed later on by the Appeals Chamber. If my memory is correct, the
7 reason why the Chamber was not allowing the access of the accused to that
8 material is since that was not part of the support material. So it does
9 not be categorised as a support material as the rule provides. But
10 what -- do you have any observation on that issue? Or put otherwise: Is
11 there any reason for the accused not to have access to that decision as
12 well as the appeals decision?
13 Do you have that appeals decision, Mr. Seselj?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received a copy of the
15 decision of the Appeals Chamber, but I haven't received a copy of your
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
18 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours. My recollection was
19 that a distinction was being drawn between evidence in its normal meaning
20 and legal reasoning. And for that reason it was thought that it didn't
21 fall into a normal category that would lead to disclosure. That's my
22 recollection of the basis.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE KWON: At this moment the Chamber does not see any problem
1 in allowing the access to the accused -- of the accused to that decision
2 of our Chamber. You'll receive it. So we lift the confidentiality
3 ex parte nature of the document and order the Registry to provide the
4 accused with a copy of that decision.
5 Very well. Let us continue with your presentation, Ms. Wanlin.
6 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honours. I will ask to move into
7 closed session, please. Pardon me, private session.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we go into private is session.
9 [Private session]
11 Page 111 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in public session, Your Honours.
21 MS. WANLIN: Thank you. The next point that I will address is:
22 When were the orders in effect. And I would like to indicate that there
23 are two different types of orders that were in effect that we'll be
24 dealing with. The first type are protective measures. The second are
25 orders that came as a result of the filing policy where the accused's
1 submissions were subsequently ordered to be confidential.
2 With respect to the first section, the start of the protective
3 measures, I would like to turn to tab 23. Tab 23 is a public document.
4 It's a decision dated the 13th of March, 2003. And this was the first
5 decision that established an order for non-disclosure in the proceedings.
6 This decision was then followed by another decision which can be
7 found at tab 24. And I will point out in this tab, if we look at page 4,
8 paragraph 4, line 5, we will note the prohibition on publication of
9 confidential information that relates to protected witnesses. It also
10 then on page 5 states explicitly that breaches will be dealt with in
11 accordance with Rule 77.
12 There's three decisions that are relevant specifically to the
13 protected witnesses in these proceedings. The first decision can be
14 found at tab 25. I'd like to note that this decision is a public
15 decision. For ease of reference, I will be referring to this decision
16 further on as the June 2005 decision. If we turn to page 6 of this
17 decision, at paragraph 3 in particular, it sets out the protective
18 measures that are relevant to the witnesses in our proceedings.
19 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Wanlin, why do you refer to it as
20 "June 2005 decision"?
21 MS. WANLIN: I refer to it as the June 2005 because it was
22 actually -- it was submitted on the 27th but it was filed, if you look on
23 the first page, on June 1st.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 MS. WANLIN: And so just for -- for -- to prevent confusion later
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you.
3 MS. WANLIN: I'd like to now just point out that the specific
4 details with regard to the protected witnesses in our case are set out as
5 paragraph 13 of our pre-trial brief. I can go into further detail if
6 Your Honours would like but that would require going into closed session.
7 JUDGE KWON: We can proceed now.
8 MS. WANLIN: Okay. Moving on to the next decision, I would like
9 to turn to tab 27. Tab 27 is a confidential decision. I will refer to
10 this decision as the August 2007 decision. And the relevant pages in
11 this decision in particular are at page 8 and page 9, tabs 1 -- pardon
12 me, paragraphs 1 to 4 -- sorry, 6, 7, 8, and then on page 9, 11. These
13 have been marked in Your Honours' submissions [sic].
14 Again, this one, the specific relevance is outlined in detail on
15 paragraph 14 of our pre-trial brief. The third decision relevant to
16 these proceedings is found at tab 29. This decision, again, is a
17 confidential decision. And I would like to point to pages 4 and 5 with
18 respect to two of the protected witnesses who are relevant to the
19 proceedings presently. Again, paragraph 15 of our pre-trial brief has
20 further details on these.
21 Now I would like to -- I'm not sure if we our -- we're still on
22 the ELMO with Annex B. If not, I would like to request my friend to put
23 Annex B. I also would like to apologise for the small font which may not
24 make things easy, but the relevant point here is to illustrate visually
25 the time-lines that we're looking at. You will note --
1 JUDGE KWON: Just for practical purposes, the Judges were just
2 handed over this --
3 MS. WANLIN: Yes, the Judges have that copy.
4 JUDGE KWON: I take it Mr. Seselj has one?
5 MS. WANLIN: He has that.
6 JUDGE KWON: So this -- when the -- it's -- so this is
7 confidential material, there's no -- we do not have to broadcast this?
8 MS. WANLIN: No, this is also confidential, as I indicated
10 JUDGE KWON: So there's no point of putting it on the ELMO
11 because --
12 MS. WANLIN: Well, if everyone has it, this is correct. Okay.
13 JUDGE KWON: Go ahead.
14 MS. WANLIN: In that case, then we can just refer to our copies.
15 It is a confidential document because it contains references to the names
16 of protected witnesses. Simply I would just like to point out here we
17 can visually see the -- when the measures came into place in relation to
18 the date of publication established earlier. And with regard to the
19 start date all of the protective measures were in place at the time that
20 the disclosure took place.
21 The next consideration we need to consider is whether or not the
22 protective measures ceased before the time of publication. And this is
23 where I would point to the -- what can be considered to be a third
24 section of the Annex B. And in this section we have identified each
25 individual witness, the start and end time of their respective protective
1 measures. I would simply note that for many, the protective measures may
2 have ended at the time of testimony. However, returning to the point of
3 publication, at the date of publication, there was only one order that
4 had rescinded or varied the protective measures.
5 I would like to turn to tab 31. Tab 31 is a confidential
6 decision with respect to one of the protected witnesses, and we will note
7 that the order varies the protective measures. However, it only refers
8 to one aspect of the protective measures. For the record, I would simply
9 like to indicate that tab 24 is a public document.
10 It may be helpful for Chambers also to be -- for me to point out
11 that since the time of publication, that protective measures have varied
12 for some of the witnesses in question. If we turn to tab 19, tab 19
13 which is a confidential transcript, and here we have one of the protected
14 witnesses who ultimately testified in open session. However, up until
15 this point, which is the 10th of December, 2008, which is after the
16 publication, the protective measures were still in place.
17 The same thing can be said for another witness. If we turn to
18 tab 20. Tab 20 is a public transcript. And, again, with respect to this
19 particular witness, as of March 9th they were a protected witness. The
20 Chamber indicates that there will be voice and face distortion and there
21 will be no discussion on the protective measures adopted by the
22 Trial Chamber. In effect, the protective measures for this particular
23 witness have not changed.
24 At tab 21 we have another witness who testified in open session.
25 Again, the date of this is in 2010, which is long after the publication.
1 Again, this tab 21 is a public transcript.
2 Tab 22 refers again to a protected witness who in July 2010, if
3 we look at the first page which is 16181, we note that the Judge is
4 indicating that there -- they were granted protective measures. And
5 turning to the last page of that tab, at lines -- just in general there's
6 a discussion and the witness testifies in open session.
7 Finally, I would like to draw your attention to tab 32. This is
8 a confidential document. And I will simply note, the Chamber would like
9 to look at paragraph 2, where the Prosecution withdraws this particular
10 witness. Therefore, in effect, at the time of this decision, protective
11 measures were -- had not changed.
12 The second element that I would like to refer to now are the
13 confidentiality orders which result from the filing policy established in
14 the main trial. This filing policy, which is a public document, can be
15 found at tab 40. And I would point to paragraph 8 on page, the first
16 paragraph, which establishes that where a submission reveals any name of
17 protected witnesses, the existence or content of confidential
18 information, that the CMSS will file it confidentially.
19 The accused has received a copy of this, yet he -- in many of his
20 submissions there are -- the same statements that are included in the
21 present book have been already determined to be confidential in earlier
22 submissions. In particular, submissions 343, 359, 382, 386, and 394.
23 And at this point I would like to turn to Annex A, which is at
24 the front of your binders. It may be on the flip side of Annex B. This
25 annex endeavours to point out which specific submission has been deemed
1 confidential and which particular statement from that submission has been
2 subsequently included in the book.
3 I would like to turn to tab 42. Tab 42 is a confidential
4 document. At page 19 through 24 of this document there is a statement of
5 one of the protected witnesses in this proceeding. This same statement
6 can be found in confidential tab 55 F.
7 I would like to turn to tab 43. Tab 43 is a public document, and
8 this the procès-verbal that indicates that the decision has been filed
10 Turning to tab 44. Tab 44 is a confidential document. And at
11 pages 25 to 30, again, it's the same statement that we just looked at in
12 tab 42, and, again, we find this at tab 55 F of the translations of the
14 Moving on to tab 46 which is submission, a confidential
15 submission, 382. And pages 13 through 17 of this submission can also be
16 found in -- on tab 55 J in the translations of the book. Incidentally,
17 it can also be found at tab 50, which is another confidential filing of
18 the accused. The version found in tab 50 is at pages 95 through 97. And
19 I would like to refer to tab 47, which is a public document, which is the
20 procès-verbal that has been filed confidentially.
21 I would now like to turn to tab 48. Tab 48 is a confidential
22 document. Pages 5 through 17 of this document contain the same statement
23 that can be found at tab 55 K in the translations of the book.
24 Turning to tab 49, which is a public procès-verbal of --
25 indicating that this submission had been filed confidentially.
1 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Wanlin.
2 MS. WANLIN: Yes.
3 JUDGE KWON: When you say "same," do you mean both are identical?
4 MS. WANLIN: From -- if you compare both side by side, they are
5 the same. There might be possibly a difference in translation, but they
6 are. We have provided the original to the translation unit and they are
7 the same.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 MS. WANLIN: Now I'd like to return for a moment to look at
10 Annex B. Again, the relevance of these submissions is that they were all
11 determined to be confidential before that line, before that time-line,
12 the date of publication. I will refer to a final submission. However,
13 what's different with this one is that he -- the accused did not receive
14 a procès-verbal until after the date of publication. However, it is
15 relevant because it does help to establish the knowledge of protective
17 I can go on to set out all of the information included in Annex A
18 if it pleases Your Honours, or I can move on to the next point of our
19 submission, if you would --
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
21 MS. WANLIN: Yes. Thank you.
22 In our pre-trial brief, we included a third annex which
23 indicates the information that was disclosed for each particular
25 If I can ask for the assistance of my friend to -- I was not able
1 to get these into the folders. Or we can -- this might be a bit
2 difficult to look at on the ELMO system, so perhaps if we could
3 distribute them.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, these copies are provided just for the
5 purpose of convenience. They were tendered -- provided to you in the
6 language you understand, so it's up to you whether or not you use it in
7 the courtroom.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, you know that the usual
9 practice in all cases is that the Prosecution provides a set of all the
10 exhibits that they wish to use in the courtroom on that day. They had to
11 provide me with the same things that they provided to you. Since they
12 have not done that, I am simply in a position to mediate and not even
13 listen what the lady is saying. And I'm not even complaining about it.
14 JUDGE KWON: Well, we'll proceed, Ms. Wanlin.
15 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honour. I would simply like to
16 point out, however, that in the binder there are several documents that
17 we will be coming up to that will be in -- that are in B/C/S and that
18 have the relevant translations.
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you kindly turn off your mike.
20 MS. WANLIN: So in an effort to try and keep in open session as
21 much as possible, what I will be doing is simply referring in the
22 sequence set out in this document and indicating, if it pleases
23 Your Honours, the type of information that was disclosed in referring to
24 the relevant tabs.
25 The first line I would like to turn to, tab 55 J. 55 J is a
1 confidential translation. What I would like to point out globally for
2 this section, that each of these are statements that have been given.
3 And the common pattern that can be found in each of them is that at the
4 very beginning of each statement there will be a number of details about
5 each protected witness that is disclosed right at the outset. So that is
6 typically on the first page.
7 With respect to this first protected witness, the full name, the
8 date of birth, the place of birth, the address, place of residence, the
9 ID number of the card, the unique master citizen number, the ethnicity,
10 religion, relevant medical issues, details about being a witness for the
11 Prosecution and details about a statement or interview with the
12 Prosecution have been included in this statement. In addition, we would
13 like to point out that details about the father, the wife's identifying
14 details, and sister-in-law, so members of this protected witness's family
15 have also been disclosed in this statement.
16 The next relevant statement can be found at tab 55 O, which,
17 again, is a confidential document. Again I would point to the first
18 section of the translation. Here we can find the full name, a nickname,
19 date and place of birth, address, number of the ID card, as well as,
20 later on, in the statement there is information about the occupation and
21 details about being -- either a interview or statement with the
23 The next protected witness translation of the statement can be
24 found at tab 55 N, which is a confidential document. With respect to
25 this protected witness, the full name, the address, the number of the
1 ID card, and details about being a Prosecution witness or providing a
2 statement are included.
3 With respect to the fourth protected witness, I will refer to two
4 tabs, in fact: tab 55D and tab 55 E, both of which are confidential
5 documents. The full name, date and place of birth, address, number of
6 the ID card, a unique citizen or master citizen number, education,
7 occupation, details about involvement with the Office of the Prosecutor,
8 and a statement are included with respect to this protected witness.
9 I would like to now turn to tab 55 K, 55 L, with respect to the
10 fifth witness, fifth protected witness. And, again, these are
11 confidential documents which reveal the full name, date and place of
12 birth, address, ID -- or number of the ID card, unique master citizen
13 number, occupation, ethnicity, religion, and details of their involvement
14 with the Office of the Prosecutor. Also important to note with respect
15 to -- to this protected witness, the father's name, the country where
16 they took asylum, and new names for him and his wife are also referred
17 to, which are factors which help to pin-point, once again, this protected
19 Moving to the next protected witness, I would draw your attention
20 to the tab 55 M, which is a confidential translation. The full name,
21 date of birth, place of birth, the address, the number of the ID card,
22 unique master citizen number, and the occupation are revealed with
23 respect to this protected witness.
24 Turning to the next protected witness, the confidential
25 translation can be found at tab 55 Q, where the full name, address, place
1 of residence, number of ID card, and education, and involvement with the
2 Office of the Prosecutor are identified.
3 The next details can be found at tab 55 H, confidential
4 translation from the book, where the full name, the nickname, address,
5 number of the ID card, education, occupation, ethnicity, religion,
6 pertinent medical issues, and details about their involvement with the
7 Office of the Prosecutor are set out. In addition, there's information
8 about the family of this protected witness, details about marital status,
9 uncles', sons', and mother's name and the name of his son's girlfriend,
10 all of which, again, help to narrow the particular person that is being
11 referred to.
12 The next protected witness has a statement at tab 55 F, as well
13 as 55 G. The full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, number
14 of the ID card, unique master citizen number, education, occupation,
15 details about involvement with the Office of the Prosecutor can be found
16 in this statement.
17 The next protected witness has two statements again, found at
18 tab 55 B and C respectively. These are confidential statements. And in
19 these, the full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, and the
20 number of the ID card and unique master citizen number are revealed.
21 And finally, moving to the last of the 11 protected witness, we
22 can turn to tab 55 P, where the full name, address, place of residence,
23 number of the ID card, education, and occupation are revealed.
24 So we've covered whether or not there was a disclosure. We've
25 covered if there were protective measures that were in place. I would
1 now like to turn to whether or not the accused had knowledge of the
2 protective measures at the time of the disclosure. There are several
3 exhibits that I will be referring to. The first is at tab 33, which is a
4 confidential submission.
5 Now, this is a first of a series of submissions which indicate
6 that the accused knew that where protective measures were in place he had
7 to seek an order to vary those protective measures. Tab 33, which is, as
8 I mentioned, confidential, simply if we look on page 2, the very
9 introductory paragraph provides information about the knowledge of the
10 protective measures that were in effect at the time.
11 The next two documents, pardon me, that I will refer to are
12 decisions where the accused sought to appeal the protective measures.
13 The first is at tab 34. Tab 34 is a public document. And the motion was
14 denied, which means that the protective measures remained in effect. The
15 accused received that decision at tab 36. There's a procès-verbal which
16 establishes that the accused received that decision on the
17 23rd of January, 2008.
18 Moving to --
19 JUDGE KWON: Tab 35.
20 MS. WANLIN: Pardon me, you are correct. Thank you.
21 Tab 36, there's another public decision, once again, where the
22 accused had sought to vary the protective measures. Again it was denied.
23 And the procès-verbal relevant to that can be found at tab 37.
24 At tab 38, which is a public document, we have a submission by
25 the accused seeking to have protective measures again which go to the
1 knowledge of protective measures. And finally, the procès-verbal for
2 that is at tab 39.
3 All of this to say that he had -- the accused had knowledge of
4 the protective decisions because he signed the procès-verbal
5 acknowledging receipt of these decisions. And those procès-verbal can be
6 found at tabs 26, tabs 28, and tab 30, which are all public documents.
7 I would now like to turn to the very beginning of your binder, at
8 tabs 1 and 2.
9 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Wanlin, I note the time. If it is convenient,
10 shall we take a break, or ...
11 MS. WANLIN: If it pleases Your Court, yes.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll have a break for half an hour and resume
13 at quarter to 1.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
16 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Ms. Wanlin.
17 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honours. So I will continue where I
18 left off, which was explaining that the accused was present in court when
19 protective measures were discussed. We can turn to Exhibits 1 and 2.
20 And both of these are transcripts from public session. I don't have a
21 pin-point specifically, but just generally we can note that at tab 1
22 there's discussion of protective measures, and, again, at tab 2 there are
23 more references to protective measures, in particular in tab 2 at page
24 1784 and again at page 1787.
25 Further, the accused has referred to the decisions and their
1 effects in his own submissions, as I had referred to earlier, Exhibit 38,
2 at pages 3 and 4. Also, as I had mentioned earlier, with reference to
3 the Annex A in the submission found at tab 50. Now, this submission was
4 drafted and filed in the weeks leading up to the publication of the book.
5 It contains several statements by the protected witnesses relevant to our
6 case. And in this decision the accused refers to the existence of the
7 protective measures which again supports the question of knowledge.
8 I would like to turn now to Exhibit 4.
9 For the record, I would further -- first like to note that
10 submission -- or tab 50, pardon me, is a confidential submission.
11 Turning to tab 4, which is a public transcript. And in the
12 middle of this page, the question of publishing confidential material
13 related to protected witnesses is specifically referred to by the
14 Trial Chamber. I would look at lines 19 through 21. It's a public
15 document and so I will read them out:
16 "As you know, like everyone here, the statements of protected
17 witnesses are by definition also protected, and it is absolutely banned
18 to publish outside this legal arena these kind of statements. Maybe I
19 misunderstood you and I would like to be assured as to what you intend to
21 This is an explicit warning.
22 Again as referred to earlier, in -- when we were looking at
23 Annex 8 with respect to these submission, knowledge came when the accused
24 signed several of the procès-verbal related to these documents. I will
25 simply point out, Exhibits 42 through 49 will go to knowledge.
1 Next I would turn to Exhibit 11. Exhibit 11 is from private
2 session, so it's a confidential document. And in this he refers, at
3 lines 14 and onward, to one of the submissions that we have also referred
4 to in Annex A, which indicates that he is aware that it has been
5 classified as confidential.
6 As I'd mentioned earlier, the accused had knowledge of the filing
7 policy that resulted in the reclassification of his submissions which he
8 had filed publicly. Exhibit 3. At the top of the page of this
9 confidential transcript, the filing policy is discussed in the main
10 trial. And the filing policy and the procès-verbal that goes with it can
11 be found at Exhibits 40 and 41. Exhibits 40 and 41 are both public
13 That gives the general overview of the relevance of the exhibits
14 to the elements of the offence. I would now like to turn to elements
15 that are relevant to -- specifically for sentencing, specifically the
16 scope and the aggravating circumstances. However, to do so, I would like
17 to go into closed session, please.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll go into private session.
19 MS. WANLIN: Private session, pardon me.
20 JUDGE KWON: It doesn't matter.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 128-132 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 Ms. Wanlin, you've concluded your case?
6 MS. WANLIN: Yes, I have. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Mr. Seselj, it's now for you to present your case. Are you
9 minded to make an opening statement at this time pursuant to Rule 84?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I do wish to make an opening
11 statement, but I'm not able to do so now. I insist that the
12 Trial Chamber order the Registrar to allow me at least a single visit by
13 my Legal Advisor Dan Milovic, MA in law, and Case Manager Nemanja
14 Sarovic. I need to confer with them and consider my Defence strategy. I
15 also need to be allowed to conduct preliminary interviews what all of my
16 future witnesses so that I can proof them. Once I'm done doing that, I
17 will be able to make an opening argument. If I'm not given a chance to
18 confer with my Legal Advisor and my Case Manager, if I'm not given a
19 chance to interview my witnesses, then any opening statement that I may
20 make would hardly make any sense at all. We might as well move on
21 straight to our closing arguments in that case.
22 As for my opening statement, I would present from the
23 [indiscernible] guide-lines of a witness testimony in my Defence case. I
24 would point out the substance of their evidence. I would underline what
25 is essential, unlike the OTP who have been presenting facts here today.
1 They spent the entire day presenting facts that I've never challenged.
2 Some witnesses were protected witnesses, rulings were made cornering
3 protective measures. I've tried to challenge some of those rulings in
4 relation to protective measures and my motion was thrown out, and so on
5 and so forth. There's nothing disputable about that. What is, however,
6 disputable and open to challenge is the main theory of the OTP, namely,
7 they suggest that I published the identities of certain protected
8 witnesses. That is not true and I can prove that that is not true. I
9 have proof indicating that those witnesses themselves made their
10 identities public. They agreed for the statements which they provided to
11 the Defence to be published.
12 The basic question is: Does a protected witness enjoy the right
13 to himself publish his identity and who can deny him that right? The
14 Trial Chamber makes a ruling concerning protective measures in order to
15 protect a certain witness and not an order to violate his rights.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, you are not making an opening statement
17 at this moment. What I can emphasise again is this: The matters related
18 to the financing for the Defence are within the primary responsibility of
19 the Registrar. There are procedures you have to follow in order to get
20 that assistance. In the meantime, I hope the Appeals Chamber decision
21 would resolve all the issues.
22 On a practical matter, if we are to hear any evidence from the
23 Defence witnesses, the only available date for the Chamber seems to be
24 sometime at the end of May or in the beginning of June.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This year or next year? Is it this
1 year you are talking about or next year?
2 JUDGE KWON: That was a good one, Mr. Seselj.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything I say is good. Whatever
4 I say goes down in the history of international legal science. If you
5 were trying to intimidate me in this way and get me to give up my Defence
6 altogether, then you have mis-assessed the situation. I will stick to my
7 procedural rights. As far as I know, this might go on for another ten
8 years, the trial that we are in the middle of right now. And the other
9 trial might take another 20.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE KWON: Next date for trial will be announced in due course
12 to the parties. The hearing is now adjourned.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.16 p.m.
14 sine die.