1 Wednesday, 8 June 2011
2 [Rule 77 Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.33 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, everyone.
7 Before we begin, there's one matter in relation to an exhibit
8 number. The Court Deputy, please, yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I would just like to correct on the
10 record that the transcript of the meeting that was admitted yesterday as
11 P74 should be P73. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE KWON: Today, we'll continue to hear the remaining
13 cross-examination of Mr. Jovic.
14 Let's bring in the witness.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 WITNESS: NENAD JOVIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, Mr. Jovic.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Good afternoon,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE KWON: I hope you are feeling today -- feeling better
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Slightly better.
24 JUDGE KWON: Please make yourself comfortable. Please be seated.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon to everyone in the
2 JUDGE KWON: Today, we're going to conclude your evidence.
3 Mr. MacFarlane will ask you in cross-examination. Given the
4 circumstances you have, please don't bother to turn around and look at
5 him. He will understand the situation. Just try to look at us. That's
6 fine with us.
7 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
8 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. MacFarlane: [Continued]
10 Q. Sir, we didn't complete your evidence yesterday, and I just
11 wanted to check to see if you've had occasion to speak about the case
12 yesterday, or last night, or this morning to anyone.
13 A. No. I only called my wife, in the presence of persons from the
14 Victims and Witness Unit, because I insisted that he be there. I wanted
15 to call her just to reassure her that everything is all right, lest she
16 should see something on television or something. We used his mobile
17 phone to call her. And other than that, I did not communicate with
18 anyone else. I asked for permission, and he gave me his phone, and I
19 made a call.
20 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to show you a document that has
21 been marked in these proceedings as Exhibit 55Q in both the English
22 version and the Serbian version.
23 I'd like you to take a look at the beginning of the statement,
24 and with the assistance of the Court Usher, perhaps he could direct your
25 attention to the opening paragraphs that I would like to ask you about.
1 Do you see, in the opening paragraph, reference to your name?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. And there's further background and personal information about you
4 as well?
5 A. Yes, but the mistake is still there about the Court not being in
6 Mali Zvornik, but in Loznica. It's about 20 kilometres away. So we only
7 have a misdemeanor magistrate in Mali Zvornik.
8 Q. Aside from that, is the balance of the information accurate?
9 A. I can't tell you as far as the whole statement is concerned, but
10 my personal details are correct, my ID card number. But as for my
11 statement, I can't tell you, off the top of my head.
12 Q. That's fine, thank you. When we broke off yesterday during my
13 questions of you, I made reference to the fact that you are a radio
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you indicated that you were.
17 I don't think that you need to read that statement any further.
18 If you can just listen to my questions.
19 And I understand you have a licensed radio station in your home.
20 Is that right?
21 A. Yes, from the Ministry for Transport and Telecommunications of
22 Serbia, based in Belgrade. And, of course, I have a radio station, a
23 powerful aerial.
24 Q. I understand that you -- from what you said yesterday, that you
25 listened in and perhaps had conversations with many people throughout the
1 former Yugoslavia and, really, around the world. Is that right?
2 A. Yes, but not exactly all around the world. It depends on the
3 range of my aerial, so that's as far as I can reach. But I can talk with
4 people from the -- I can call -- I can talk with people from the former
5 Yugoslavia, and my code-name is "YT7REU."
6 Q. Thank you. I understand that you, during the course of 2005, on
7 occasion could hear Zlatko Peric talking on the radio. Do you recall
9 A. Yes. I remember a mistake being made in that context, although
10 there is some truth and there are some mistakes. So you are free to ask
11 me about this. I know Zlatko Peric personally. He's from Loznica.
12 Q. I understand that you advised the investigators that you could
13 hear Zlatko Peric talking on the radio, and on the air he was telling
14 people that you had committed atrocities in Zvornik during the war. Do
15 you recall that?
16 A. Yes, I do, but it seems that you didn't read correctly or didn't
17 understand correctly, and I apologise for saying that. I said something
18 different. A Muslim from Sapna, because we are all socialising, the
19 Serbs, the Muslims and the Croats, there is no animosity among them,
20 called me and wanted to meet me in Zvornik. He told me that
21 Zlatko Peric, at a party, a Muslim party where people get together for a
22 coffee and a glass of brandy, he told them that, If you knew how many
23 people Nenad Jovic had killed, you would never talk to them. I
24 immediately called Rita, and I said, Look what you've done. Now my kids
25 are going to get killed. The nearest Muslims are only three kilometres
1 away from me. I had to guard my house for two months, fully armed. And
2 it was she who wrote in this statement that I said that Zlatko Peric knew
3 about some places where crimes had been committed, and I can't remember
4 exactly how she phrased it because I didn't write it, but that was not
6 I hope I gave you an exhaustive answer, or, rather, an extensive
8 Q. There's one further point I want to raise with you.
9 It's my understanding that you advised the investigators that
10 from your perspective, you were afraid that the Radicals were now trying
11 to blame you for their atrocities and to destroy you as a witness for the
12 Prosecution. Do you recall that?
13 A. Well, sir, if I understand you correctly, I hate to say to you
14 you were failing to understand things, although you are fully trained. I
15 never mentioned the Radical ever. I only mentioned people who could
16 potentially kill me. A person who lost his whole family, let's say, two
17 sons, or his house was burned, regardless of whether he was a party
18 member or not, would do that if he learned or heard that I was
19 co-operating with The Hague Tribunal. I never mentioned the
20 Radical Party. I am socialising with these people on a regular basis.
21 We are visiting each other for our religious holidays. And several
22 neighbourhood municipal boards always invite me to come, and I always go.
23 If I knew you were going to ask me about this, I could have
24 brought you some photographs. People, in turn, come as guests to my
25 house for my patron saint's day. If that was the case, I would have
1 filed a criminal report, I would have reported this to the police. I
2 would tell them that somebody was threatening me, whether it be a Radical
3 or someone else. But nobody threatened me, especially not any from the
5 And this is the second time that I'm seeing Mr. Seselj. The
6 first time I saw him in 1991. So there's no reason for us to hate each
7 other, and there's no reason for anyone to threaten me. That's sheer
9 Q. Let's fast-forward a bit to about a year later in October of
10 2006. And, once again, you had a meeting with investigators with the
11 Office of the Prosecutor, and you were discussing the prospects of a
12 statement and to further discuss security issues and your potential
13 participation in the trial of Mr. Seselj. Do you recall that discussion?
14 A. I don't remember exactly who the investigator was. I don't have
15 any papers in front of me.
16 Q. Perhaps I could refresh your memory by reference to names. One
17 was trial attorney Melissa Pack, and the other was Investigator
18 Rita Pradhan. Does that assist you?
19 A. Oh, yes, the name Rita really helps. I don't know if you would
20 be kind to repeat your question. I should focus much better. But I
21 wouldn't be surprised if it involves Rita. I wouldn't be surprised at
22 any kind of question that you might ask me.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. MacFarlane, I'm sorry to interrupt you at this
24 point. But speaking for myself, I would like to limit the issue of this
25 case solely to the one whether the accused has violated his obligation of
1 confidentiality. If we are going beyond that, i.e., trying to prove
2 whether -- what is the truth of the case and whether specific contents of
3 the witness's statement are true or not, even as a mitigating factor or
4 aggravating factor, we have to open a main trial, so it may go beyond the
5 original scope of this case.
6 Please take that into account, please.
7 MR. MacFARLANE: Might I respond to the comments, Your Honour?
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
9 MR. MacFARLANE: I find myself in the position of agreeing with
10 the comments, and yet seemingly going in another direction, and I'd like
11 to explain why.
12 I had filed a -- not filed -- yes, I had filed a notice at the
13 beginning of the trial asking for leave to address the question of
14 relevance, based on the 65 ter statements filed by the accused, and a
15 ruling was made by the Chamber which, of course, I respect. It's my
16 position that we ought to focus sharply on exactly what Your Honour has
18 The 65 ter statements are all over the place, and the accused, in
19 his direct examination of the initial witnesses, at least, was dealing
20 with a whole range of things, so that's by way of a preliminary comment.
21 Mr. Seselj has indicated that he wants to tender evidence, such
22 as agreement on the part of witnesses to the publication of their
23 statements and personal information, and he now puts that forward on the
24 basis that it's relevant to mitigation. And the theory of the
25 Prosecution, which I'm endeavouring to deal with, is that while the
1 witness today may well say, I'm happy with the publication, I consent, I
2 don't see any problem, there has been a transformation on the part of the
3 witness, there has been an evolution on the part of the witness, and what
4 I'm endeavouring to demonstrate is that views and thoughts and positions
5 on the part of the witnesses has, for whatever reason, transformed over
6 the years, so that while there is a consent or a happiness being
7 expressed right now, during the course of the protective measures it was
8 quite a different story; there was real concern.
9 So one option might be if -- because I didn't have the
10 opportunity to provide a submission on relevance, I'd be happy to do
11 that. But ultimately my view -- my submission would be that we ought to
12 focus very sharply on the issues arising directly from the order in lieu
13 of indictment, and not get into these other matters. I am doing this in
14 response to the suggestion that this is relevant to mitigation.
15 It's my submission that what we're looking at are consents that
16 aren't really real.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I understand your submission.
18 If I can add this to your submission, which is that: Well,
19 whether or not there's a transformation, it is an established fact that
20 there existed a protective measure order already.
21 Yes. Please proceed, Mr. MacFarlane.
22 MR. MacFARLANE: Just one moment.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I have an objection.
24 Where has it established as a fact that at the time of the
25 publication of the book, the protective measures were in place? We saw
1 yesterday that that did not exist in all cases; for example, in the case
2 of Mr. Drazilovic. You shouldn't pre-judge the ruling or the position of
3 the Trial Chamber. You should wait.
4 JUDGE KWON: I didn't say "at the time of publication."
5 Yes, please proceed.
6 MR. MacFARLANE: I'm in a position, Your Honours, of being
7 unclear on the facts in issue. If it's strictly limited to the clear and
8 core issues in the order in lieu of indictment, I probably wouldn't have
9 much more, if any, in terms of cross-examination. If there are issues
10 concerning mitigation and the genuineness of consent, and the relevance
11 of that, then I might need to continue. So I'm in a bit of a quandary,
12 in terms of how to proceed, because the issues are unclear to me.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE KWON: If you could confine your submission and examination
15 to the issue of this case, as you indicated.
16 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
18 Mr. Seselj, do you have anything to re-examine this witness?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no questions in redirect.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This statement was drafted by
23 several authors. They should all be assembled together, and each one of
24 them should interpret what they wrote. That's why I don't understand. I
25 even cannot help laughing when I see Mali Zvornik having a municipal
1 court and this station and that station.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovic. That concludes your evidence,
3 and I thank you for your coming to give it, despite your conditions. Now
4 you are free to go. Have a safe journey back.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and thank you to
6 everyone in the courtroom. And thank you for yesterday. Everybody was
7 very helpful, because I really couldn't stand upright. And, I'm sorry,
8 it's a force majeure, it's a sickness.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Now I invite you, Mr. Seselj, to call your next witness.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I call Mr. Jovan Glamocanin as the
12 sixth witness for the Defence.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE KWON: Let's bring in the witness.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, Mr. Glamocanin.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
18 JUDGE KWON: If you could take the solemn declaration.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: JOVAN GLAMOCANIN
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE KWON: Please be seated.
24 Yes, Mr. Seselj, it's for you to examine the witness.
25 Examination by Mr. Seselj:
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Glamocanin, did you testify in the main trial against me in
3 The Hague Tribunal?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the witness
5 at all. Could he please be asked to speak into the microphone?
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Glamocanin, could you come closer to the
7 microphone and speak to them.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have stated that I intend to be a
9 Defence witness. However, the Trial Chamber issued a binding order, on
10 pain of an indictment for contempt of court, compelled me to testify as a
11 court witness.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Before that, were you on the list of Prosecution witnesses?
14 A. I was on the Prosecution list, as far as I know, from 2005, and
15 then I was taken off that list, and then put back on the list in 2008.
16 Q. Did you refuse to appear as a Prosecution witness?
17 A. That's what I always said. I always refused to testify as a
18 Prosecution witness, because I do not know about any war crimes.
19 Q. When you testified as a court witness, as a Chamber witness, did
20 you have any protective measures?
21 A. I did not accept any protective measures. I insisted that I
22 testify in public. I have nothing to hide.
23 Q. Can you recall in which year you testified?
24 A. I testified on the 10th/11th of December, 2008.
25 Q. Before the testimony, did you have some kind of code or
2 A. "VS-044," which I never acknowledged, because it was assigned
3 without my knowledge and without my approval.
4 Q. When did you have your first contact with The Hague Tribunal?
5 A. My first contact with The Hague Tribunal, my first interrogation
6 or interview, if you wish, took place on the 26th of May, 2003, and that
7 interrogation went on for four days.
8 Q. Who spoke to you then; do you remember?
9 A. I do remember, Paolo Pastore-Stocchi and Philippe Oberknezev.
10 Q. Was a statement written up on the basis of your testimony?
11 A. Yes, and in the English language, at that, a language I do not
12 know. I signed it as such because Paolo Stocchi said that I would be
13 interviewed until I sign it. I never received a copy of the statement
14 from the investigators in the Serbian language. I could not read it,
15 and, therefore, I could not object to anything, if necessary.
16 Q. Did you sign the statement in English?
17 A. Yes. I've already said I was threatened that my interrogation
18 would go on and on, even after these four days.
19 Q. I see. Did you ever talk to --
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
21 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 The issues are defined by the order in lieu of indictment. The
23 examination by the accused falls well outside of the parameters of the
24 issues in the order. It's my submission that the evidence thus far is
25 irrelevant to the true issues before this Chamber.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I have estimated 20
2 minutes for this witness, and that is a lot less time than Mr. MacFarlane
3 has been using. Within these 20 minutes, I have a concept of my direct
4 examination that I wish to pursue, and it has to have some kind of an
5 introduction. And the introduction is that this man already testified in
6 the main trial, that he refused protective measures, that it happened in
7 2008, two or three months after the book was published. And what is
8 there to be in dispute?
9 JUDGE KWON: Even if you confine your examination to 20 minutes
10 which is allotted for you, it is quite a separate matter you remain on
11 relevant issues, but I need to consult my colleagues.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE KWON: Given the Defence case may be different from the
14 position taken by the Prosecution, we'll allow the accused to proceed
15 with his examination.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Did you ever talk to Christine Dahl, a Prosecutor from The Hague?
19 A. Yes. I had a rather unpleasant conversation with
20 Ms. Christine Dahl. That was on the 15th of November, 2007, in my
22 Q. Did you say that this Prosecutor from The Hague, Christine Dahl,
23 came to your apartment?
24 A. Yes, she came to my apartment in a very unpleasant way, at that,
25 because Paolo Stocchi had agreed to talk to me in my apartment on the
1 16th of November. However, he called me on the 15th of November and
2 insisted that the conversation take place on that day, and that is why I
3 postponed some of the commitments I had had before that. It was also
4 unpleasant for me when I saw, without any prior announcement, that
5 Ms. Christine Dahl, who was then counsel for the Prosecution, appeared
6 with the investigation team. I most certainly did not expect her.
7 However, what was a major incident was how the Serbian policeman
8 acted, the one who came with the team. This policeman searched my
9 apartment, without any kind of court order, without a warrant, so in a
10 totally unlawful manner.
11 Q. That was roughly a year before my book was published, the one
12 that contains your statements?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. How long did you talk to Christine Dahl?
15 A. About an hour and a half. During this conversation, she asked me
16 to testify about war crimes of the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party
17 before Ovcara and at Ovcara. I said that I was never in Vocin or Ovcara
18 and that I don't know about any war crimes, whatsoever, of the volunteers
19 of the Serb Radical Party. After that, she said, with resignation, You
20 don't want to testify about the war crimes of the volunteers. Nobody
21 wants to testify about the war crimes of the volunteers. I don't know
22 what I'm going to do with the indictment. Then Seselj is going to come
23 back; into Serbia, I mean.
24 Q. What was your conclusion on that basis; that I was not supposed
25 to return to Serbia ever?
1 A. Yes, yes, precisely. That was my conclusion on the basis of this
2 conversation with Christine Dahl, because she pointed out, when talking
3 to me, that she was, first and foremost, pursuing America's policy, that
4 she respects that policy, that that is the policy of introducing Western
5 democracy and Western values in Serbia and throughout the world; also,
6 that she doesn't hold anything against the Serb Radical Party or the
7 programme of the Serb Radical Party, but that Dr. Vojislav Seselj can
8 certainly not be the president of that party in any way. A few times,
9 she said to me that she had ways of persuading me to testify for the
10 Prosecution, rather than being a Defence witness, as I had insisted upon
11 and wished.
12 Q. Did Stocchi take part in the conversation too?
13 A. Yes. Stocchi reacted very vehemently when I said I could only be
14 a Defence witness. He said that I would be brought in by the police to
15 testify for the Prosecution in The Hague Tribunal, as is done by the
16 Carabinieri in Italy.
17 Q. What about the then authorities in Serbia? Did anybody bring any
18 pressure to bear against you?
19 A. Oh, yes. The then premier of Serbia, Prime Minister
20 Zoran Djindjic - that was in mid-April 2003 - he asked me to take part in
21 the political liquidation of Dr. Vojislav Seselj and to put the
22 Serb Radical Party on the margins. He talked to me in a rather indecent
23 way. I can put it that way. We did not talk to -- talk in his office or
24 on some other official premises; rather, in Topcider Forest above
25 Belgrade. He insisted, during that conversation, that
1 Dr. Vojislav Seselj and the Serb Radical Party are the only serious
2 obstacle to the New Democratic government, that that government enjoys
3 the full support of the West, and that the West was prepared to invest
4 lots of money in Serbia. He said, in particular for Dr. Vojislav Seselj,
5 that he was the most dangerous of all, a lot more dangerous for Western
6 policy than Slobodan Milosevic, and that he needs to be eliminated from
7 the political scene of Serbia. In response to that, I said that because
8 of my convictions, I cannot take part in such activities. And then
9 Dr. Zoran Djindjic said, and rather vehemently at that, What kind of
10 convictions, what patriotism? One should work for the state. Leave all
11 that aside. You should think about how you're going to live. I know
12 that your income is very modest and that you deserve more. After that,
13 he said to me that I should call him back within a week.
14 Q. What about Daniel Saxon; did he come to your apartment?
15 A. Yes, Mr. Saxon came. During this long conversation, among other
16 things, he said that the only solution for Serbia is a pro-Western
17 government, and that all of those who are opposed to that government and
18 who stand in the path of that government should be done away with, and
19 that the most serious opponents of the pro-Western policy are
20 Dr. Vojislav Seselj and the Serb Radical Party. When I said that with
21 that position he was actually pursuing the policy of the United States of
22 America and their intelligence agencies, his answer was -- I mean, I said
23 that he was doing that, rather than working for the OTP, and he said to
24 me, Why are you not working for your government and its intelligence
1 Q. Mr. Glamocanin, did anybody else from The Hague Tribunal visit
3 A. Well, I was visited by a lady. This was on the 27th of February,
4 2008. After she rang the doorbell, I came out, and she said that she was
5 Ana Marhajn, a Slovenian, and she was supposed to talk to
6 Jovan Glamocanin. And I said, I don't know you. You are unannounced,
7 and I have nothing to discuss with you. She said, But I have to, and she
8 forced her way into my apartment. When she entered the apartment, she
9 said she is a friend of The Hague Tribunal, of the Court from The Hague.
10 Of course, I didn't believe her. I chased her out of the apartment. And
11 as she was walking out, she said, Wait and see until you come to
12 The Hague.
13 Q. Mr. Glamocanin, when did you have your first contact with my
14 associates from the team that is assisting my defence?
15 A. I had my first contact with your associates already on the 16th
16 of November, 2007. That is when I called Zoran Krasic from the team that
17 is preparing your defence, and I explained to him all the pressures that
18 were exerted against me both by the representatives of The Hague Tribunal
19 and the former prime minister of Serbia, Dr. Zoran Djindjic.
20 After that, on the 19th of November, I gave a statement to a
21 member of the team for preparing your defence, Petar Jojic, and I said,
22 unequivocally, that I never accepted to be a Prosecution witness. On the
23 contrary, I wanted to be a Defence witness.
24 Q. Mr. Glamocanin, did you give your consent to my then associates
25 for all statements that you gave to these associates of mine be published
1 in a book? Please do not mention the title of the book, because that is
2 going to be a reason for redacting the transcript and the recording.
3 A. I gave my consent to your associates for my statements to be used
4 by you in public during your defence before this Court. I also gave my
5 consent for you to use them in your book, to publish them in Serbia and
6 abroad. I also gave my consent that you make them public on your
7 internet site and the web site of the Serb Radical Party.
8 Q. Do you have a copy of this book where your statements were
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Do you remember who wrote the preface?
12 A. The author of the preface is Aleksandar Vucic.
13 Q. Did he ask you for your consent that your statements be made
15 A. He asked for that, and others did too.
16 Q. And then the book was published; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. After the book was published, did you take part in public events
19 where the book was promoted?
20 A. Yes, I took part at public events and promotional events, in
21 general, for your book. I even spoke at some of them.
22 Q. Did you display pride on account of the fact that the book
23 contains your statements?
24 A. Yes. I'm in the service of my people, my fatherland, and --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you give any interviews to the newspapers?
3 JUDGE KWON: Because of your overlapping, the interpreters were
4 not able to hear the last of the witness' answer.
5 Mr. Glamocanin, what did you say after saying:
6 "I'm in the service of my people, my fatherland, and ..."?
7 What did you say after that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I always shall be in their
10 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
11 Please continue.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. My next question was: Did you give any newspaper interviews?
14 A. Yes. On the 21st of November, 2007, I gave a long interview
15 under my full name and surname. As a matter of fact, I disclosed my
16 identity, and I informed the Serbian public about all the pressures that
17 were exerted against me by the Office of the Prosecutor from The Hague
18 and Zoran Djindjic, of course, from 2003 -- or, rather, from 2001 until
19 2007, or, rather, as I said, all the way up until the 27th of February,
21 Q. I'm afraid members of the Trial Chamber may have missed this.
22 Could you repeat this once again? When did you give this long newspaper
23 interview, when you said all of that?
24 A. In 2007.
25 Q. Was that a year before the book was published?
1 A. Yes, that interview took place before the book was published.
2 Well, about a year, at least.
3 Q. In my book, was this interview of yours published, along with the
5 A. Yes, in its entirety.
6 Q. Did you read the whole book?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. In the case of other people who gave statements to my team, did
9 you see that I also published their newspaper interviews?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. For example, your newspaper interview can be found on page 85,
12 entitled "Pressures on Jovan Glamocanin," and it goes on for a full five
13 pages. And that's a lengthy book; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Glamocanin. With
16 this, I have concluded my examination-in-chief.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
18 Yes, Mr. --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to bring to your
20 attention, Mr. Kwon, that I used exactly 20 minutes to examine this
21 witness. And I'm really taking very good care about court time, and that
22 should be done in the same way by everyone else.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
24 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
25 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
1 JUDGE KWON: Do you follow -- do you hear me, Mr. Glamocanin?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, now I can hear you.
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
4 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
5 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. MacFarlane:
7 Q. Sir, I'd like to show you two documents which have been marked as
8 an exhibit in these proceedings. For the record, the first is
9 Exhibit 55F, and the second is Exhibit 55G.
10 And with the assistance of the Court Usher, I'd like to direct
11 your attention to paragraphs near the beginning of both of those
13 A. I have to put my glasses on.
14 Q. Do you see, near the beginning of both of those documents, a
15 reference to your name?
16 A. Do I have to say my name? Yes, I have read it, this part that
17 you pointed to.
18 Q. Both documents? Do you see your name referred to in both
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you see other personal --
22 A. It's correct. I can see it.
23 Q. Do you see other personal information about yourself referred to
24 at the same location in both documents?
25 A. Yes, I can see my personal details.
1 Q. And are those details accurate?
2 A. Yes, they are. It's correct that my name is Jovan Glamocanin,
3 that I am a lawyer by profession, that I am a member of the Academy of
4 Sciences, that I live in Pancevo, Veljka Vlahovica number 11, that I was
5 born in Subotica, and that my ID card number is such and such, and so on.
6 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you. No further questions.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Do you have any redirect examination, Mr. Seselj?
9 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 That concludes your evidence, Mr. Glamocanin.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: I thank you for coming to The Hague to give it. Now
14 you're free to go.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break of five minutes to prepare for
18 the next witness.
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE KWON: I was advised that we don't need such preparatory
22 Then I would like to invite you to call your next witness,
23 Mr. Seselj.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, the fact that we do not
25 need any preparations, does that indicate that this witness is going to
1 testify in public? Shall I call him by saying his full name?
2 JUDGE KWON: No. He's given only a pseudonym, so we --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
4 Therefore, I call the seventh Defence witness, marked by you as
6 [The witness entered court]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Would the Prosecutor
8 please switch off his microphone. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. How are you today?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It will be better.
11 JUDGE KWON: Before you begin your testimony, I would like to
12 inform you that you will be called not by your name, but by a pseudonym,
13 due to an existing court order of protective measures. So you'll be
14 called today as "DS-3." Do you understand that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something?
17 Mr. Kwon, I believe that you should ask this witness if he wants
18 to testify in public under his full name.
19 This witness used to be on the Prosecution list, and the
20 Prosecution, themselves, decided not to call him. The Prosecution office
21 did not insist on his appearance in the main trial. Now, these
22 protective measures, are they going to be imposed and in place when this
23 witness is concerned for the rest of his life?
24 JUDGE KWON: I stopped you, Mr. Seselj.
25 If you wanted this witness to testify in public with his full
1 name, you should have applied to that Chamber to lift that protective
2 measure in advance. I think you know the Rule by now.
3 Please start your examination, Mr. Seselj.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, this witness had
5 protective measures granted for him for as long as somebody in the main
6 trial counted on his testimony. The moment he was removed from the
7 Prosecution witness list, and when the Trial Chamber gave up on him, what
8 kind of protective measures are still in place when this witness is
9 concerned? I'm not going to examine him whilst the protective measures
10 are being in place.
11 JUDGE KWON: Let's not waste time anymore.
12 So you are withdrawing this witness from your Defence -- from
13 your list of witnesses; is that it?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is impossible for me to examine
15 him as a Defence witness. He agreed to testify in public, without any
16 protective measures. He gave a number of statements in that respect. He
17 came here with the intention of doing so. However, if you insist on the
18 protective measures, I am not going to examine this witness under
20 You didn't even ask him if he wants to have protective measures
21 or not. Does that mean that if somebody in the main trial introduced
22 protective measures, they remain in place for eternity? The
23 Trial Chamber and the Prosecution have already forgotten all of this, and
24 I'm not going to write any applications to them, and you cannot make me
25 do so.
1 And this witness, if I give up on his testimony, once he leaves
2 this courtroom, he's going to talk to the media, and he will tell them
3 what happened in this courtroom.
4 Is that right, Witness?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's better for him to testify in
7 this courtroom, rather than in the newspapers.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 THE INTERPRETER: The Judge's microphone is on.
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, I take your submission to be withdrawing
11 this witness from your witness list. The Chamber does not see any point
12 of continuing the proceedings with this witness, then.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If that is your conclusion, that's
14 up to you, but I am not going to examine any Defence witness under
15 protective measures. I am preparing witnesses for the main trial, and I
16 am going to call all of them to come here and testify in public.
17 Otherwise, they will not testify at all, because there is a principle of
18 public testimony. Only people who have no clear conscience insist on
19 private testimony, and amongst my witnesses there is not a single person
20 who doesn't have a clear conscience.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, while I find this development to be
22 very unfortunate, I would like to thank you for your coming all the way
23 to The Hague to co-operate with this Tribunal. As you observed, since
24 Mr. Seselj withdrew you from his witness list, there is no further point
25 of keeping you here. Now you are free to go. Thank you very much,
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj, I want to check with you whether your
5 position is the same with the upcoming witnesses, Witnesses number 8, 9
6 and 10; i.e., you're not minded --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE KWON: You're not minded to call them unless the protective
9 measures are not lifted -- unless the protective measures are lifted?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, the eighth witness, whom
11 you marked as "DS-4," also did not appear in the main trial. The
12 Prosecution kept him on the list for a certain period of time, and then
13 they removed him from the list, themselves. And Witness number 10,
14 marked by you as "DS-6," the same applies to him. Only Witness number 9
15 appeared in the main trial, and he expressed his wish to testify here in
16 public. So number 8 and number 9 never appeared in the main trial.
17 Somebody put them on the Prosecution list.
18 The Trial Chamber introduced blanket protective measures without
19 going into any specifics, and then suddenly the Prosecution decided to
20 give up on protective measures in the case of these two. So what does
21 that mean? The protective measures do not exist anymore. The moment the
22 Prosecution gave up on them, it was all finished.
23 You can try and interpret this any way you like, but that is how
24 things stand.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Seselj, it strikes me that all of the things
1 that you've said are likely to be a strong basis for a successful
2 application to the Trial Chamber that made the protective measures to
3 withdraw them, as a matter of law and as a matter of logic. Wouldn't it
4 cut the Gordian knot, simply, to do that?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Morrison. I have no reason
6 to think ill of you. I think that your intentions are good. My goal is
7 not to cut the Gordian knot, but rather to get it entangled even more.
8 That's my right, and nobody can deny that right.
9 These witnesses that the Prosecution had planned initially for
10 them to appear in the main trial, and then gave up on them, I immediately
11 accepted as Defence witnesses. The ongoing proceedings has to do -- at
12 least some connection with the main trial, in the sense that an accused
13 cannot be tried for contempt of court. He can be punished by an
14 on-the-spot punishment; to be thrown out of the courtroom, to have his
15 microphone turned off, et cetera.
16 Mr. Morrison, I'm fully aware that you come from the legal system
17 that it is impossible for contempt of court proceedings to be conducted
18 against an accused. This is something that was made up here, because
19 they cannot find any other way of dealing with me.
20 And I am not backing off an inch, because I decided, if
21 necessary, let's have 10 contempt of court proceedings. This is the
22 second one, the third one has already been announced, and we have another
23 seven coming up in the future.
24 I want to demonstrate to you here that things are being done here
25 that have no foundation in either system, Anglo-Saxon or the Continental
2 JUDGE MORRISON: I think you can take it from me -- I hope you
3 can take it from me, Mr. Seselj, that you can, in fact, bring contempt of
4 court proceedings in the common-law system, although I agree it's very
5 rarely done, and only in extreme circumstances.
6 JUDGE KWON: I'd like to confirm with you, finally, that you are
7 not minded to examine the remaining three witnesses with protective
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to
10 respond to Judge Morrison.
11 It is true that in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, there is a
12 notion of criminal liability for contempt of court, but please cite at
13 least a single case that this was conducted against an accused. You can
14 do that if somebody is exerting pressure on witnesses, or trying to
15 intimidate witnesses, et cetera, but do you know of any single case that
16 court contempt proceedings were conducted against a defendant who had
17 already been accused and charged with the most serious crime? I don't
18 think that that exists in your jurisprudence.
19 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, tempting though it is to engage in a legal
20 debate, we don't have the time for it, Mr. Seselj.
21 The sort of proceedings you anticipate against someone who
22 interferes with the course of justice are normally charged as an attempt
23 to pervert the course of justice, for instance, witness interference, but
24 individual accused can be indicted or summarily dealt with for contempt
25 of court in certain circumstances. But I have to say, in 40-odd years in
1 Great Britain, I never have personally had to deal with it, although I
2 know others that have.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Morrison, let's look at these
4 specific circumstances.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Seselj --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to continue this debate
7 in my closing argument. This is going to be one of the subjects of my
8 closing argument. You cannot prevent me from doing so.
9 But apparently we have finished with the witnesses, because
10 you're not allowing me to call the remaining three witnesses whilst the
11 protective measures are in force.
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Then I take it that you rested your
13 case. I take it there is no -- I'll leave it. Just I will consult my
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Seselj, although the Presiding Judge has asked
17 this question, I'm not sure that we got a direct answer from you, you
18 have elected to not examine the remaining witnesses, for the reasons you
19 indicated. That is your case, is it, in terms of calling witnesses? We
20 appreciate that you have a right to make a closing statement, but moving
21 along procedurally, we just want it clear for the record that you have no
22 more witnesses to call and that is the end of your case.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, and that was due to the fact
24 that the acts of the Trial Chamber were unlawful. You unlawfully
25 prevented me from examining these witnesses. The witnesses wanted to
1 testify in public, I wanted to question them in public. However, you
2 invoked protective measures introduced in a completely different
3 proceedings, irrespective of these proceedings, because what the
4 witnesses are testifying here about is nothing to do with what is going
5 to be discussed in the main trial. The only thing that the witnesses are
6 speaking about here are -- is how it happened that their statements were
7 published in my book. This is the crux of the matter and the essence of
8 these proceedings, and the only issue here is to establish whether this
9 was done with or without their consent. I think that is the essence of
10 their giving evidence.
11 And I'm honestly telling you that in the main trial, I'm not
12 going to accept any witnesses under protective measures. More than half
13 of the witnesses who have appeared were under the protective measures,
14 which constitutes a brutal violation of the rights of the accused.
15 Everybody must see how things are being conducted here.
16 We might have a situation that somebody can come here, give a
17 false testimony, people will recognise that, and then I will have at
18 least a dozen people coming back to me, saying, We have different
19 evidence to provide.
20 Judges, you are being judged by the public. You are judging me,
21 but you are being judged by the public.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 I wonder, Mr. MacFarlane, whether you are prepared to proceed
24 with the closing argument today.
25 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, I am prepared to proceed. I would
1 appreciate a break.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It's time to take a break.
3 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes.
4 JUDGE KWON: How much would you need to prepare? About half an
5 hour would be sufficient?
6 MR. MacFARLANE: Yes, that would be fine. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: And how long -- can I ask how long it will take?
8 MR. MacFARLANE: I expect it will be approximately an hour.
9 Maybe just a few minutes more than that, but around an hour.
10 JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Seselj, I wonder whether you also are --
11 you are also prepared to proceed with your closing argument today.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I am ready for my closing
13 argument, and my closing argument will definitely not be shorter than
14 Mr. MacFarlane's. If you allocate one hour to him, I expect you to give
15 me also one hour.
16 And I also insist on another thing as well. If Mr. MacFarlane
17 wants to take the floor after my closing argument, I request to have the
18 right to rejoinder, because in every proceedings it is the accused who is
19 entitled to have the last say with respect to the Prosecutor's Office.
20 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at 20
21 past 4.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
25 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 As I mentioned earlier, I expect I will be -- we will be an hour.
2 I propose to, in my initial comments that should run for a little bit
3 more than half an hour, to address the evidence that you've heard.
4 The Chamber will remember that there's two parts to this case.
5 One is a hard-copy book aspect, and then there's also an electronic
6 aspect to this, and my colleague, Ms. Wanlin, will deal with that, after
7 which, for probably no more than three or four minutes, I will do a
8 wrap-up with a recommendation.
9 I should also say, by way of preliminary comment, that some of
10 the detail -- a considerable amount of detail, in terms of the evidence,
11 is set out in the pre-trial brief that we filed before the trial. I've
12 reviewed that, and not much has changed in terms of the case for the
13 Prosecution, so that I would urge the Chamber to take a look at the
14 pre-trial brief because it provides a level of detail that I don't
15 propose to go through in my oral comments now.
16 It's my hope that I will be able to, in my portions of the
17 closing address, to continue in open session. It's difficult to do that
18 in a publication contempt case, because, of necessity, you're talking
19 about the breaches or alleged breaches of protective measures, but I've
20 endeavoured to tailor my comments in a more general way so the Chamber
21 can follow the general tenor of the case for the Prosecution without
22 getting into some of the sensitive areas.
23 That is how I propose to proceed this afternoon.
24 I'd open by a brief comment on Rule 77, noting that it provides
1 "The Tribunal, in the exercise of its inherent power, may hold in
2 contempt those who disclose information, in knowing violation of an order
3 of the Chamber."
4 On the facts in this case, I would like to comment on the
5 rationale underlying this provision.
6 In the context of a publication contempt, the danger or the harm
7 sought to be avoided has many different faces. In some cases, it
8 involves witnesses who are very frightened. In other cases, as I'll be
9 pointing out, it can involve individuals who, over the passage of time,
10 have had their concerns diminish somewhat. But the rationale, as I'll be
11 pointing to probably at the end of my submission, the rationale under
12 this -- in the context of this type of case, is that it is not up to an
13 individual party or an individual witness to say, Oh, I want to have
14 protective measures, or, Oh, I don't want to. The process at both ends,
15 that is, at the commencement of the process and at the end, is controlled
16 by the Chamber for good reason; so there is a judicial filtering of
17 whether either is appropriate, that is, whether it's appropriate to have
18 protective measures, because there needs to be evidence, and,
19 correspondingly, whether it is appropriate to terminate or rescind those
20 protective measures. That is clear, and there's good reason for that.
21 That's not just an arbitrary Rule. If that wasn't in place, if there was
22 no judicial filter or control, that could actually end up placing
23 witnesses in more danger because there would be, on the part of some
24 people, to attempt to intimidate them into having their protective
25 measures lifted. That is the role of the Chamber, is to ensure that that
1 sort of intimidation does not take place, and, therefore, it needs to be
2 filtered at both ends.
3 The core elements in the case have been the subject of some
4 discussion between the parties and the Chamber. It's my submission that
5 there are four core elements in this case: First of all, were there
6 protective measures in place; secondly, who was protected; thirdly, did
7 the accused objectively breach the protective measures in his book; and,
8 finally, was it deliberate, that is, was the breach deliberate, or was it
9 an accident.
10 And the Chamber will recall, at the beginning of the proceedings
11 when there was a discussion on what the case was all about and the scope
12 of the case, the Presiding Judge, Judge Kwon, said this:
13 "As I indicated, Mr. MacFarlane, the Chamber is of the view to
14 limit the scope of this case to the sole issue, whether he violated the
15 order of the Court by publishing that book in the way of revealing the
16 identity and the protected statements of those protected witnesses."
17 That's at page 70, lines 20 to 24. And that's still, in my
18 respectful submission, the case at the end of the proceedings.
19 The facts in the case are relatively straightforward.
20 [French interpretation on English channel]
21 JUDGE KWON: We are hearing French.
22 Could you repeat, Mr. MacFarlane, from "the facts in the case."
23 I think it's been resolved.
24 MR. MacFARLANE: The facts in this case are relatively
1 And as I mentioned earlier, I'll endeavour to paint the evidence
2 and describe the contours of the evidence in a fairly general way so that
3 I'm not moving from public to private.
4 But the foundation of the case rests on several orders of
5 Chambers that were obtained over a period of time. The first two were
6 all-embracing and non-specific to individual witnesses, and I'm referring
7 to Exhibits 23 and 24. The first one focused on the confidentiality of
8 disclosure, and the second focused again on confidentiality of disclosure
9 materials. So that was the starting point for the case.
10 Subsequently, the Trial Chamber ordered various protective
11 measures that were specific to the 11 witnesses named in the order in
12 lieu of indictment, and those orders were issued on the 1st of June,
13 2005 - that's Exhibit 25 - August 30th, 2007 - Exhibit 27 - and October
14 16, 2007 - Exhibit 29.
15 Dealing with the first of those specific orders, and I intend to
16 be as general as I can, under Exhibit 25, the Trial Chamber was unanimous
17 in granting protective measures. And it is important to note that the
18 order was issued on the basis of evidence, specific evidence that was
19 before the Chamber, and the orders were tailored to the individuals to be
20 protected and the evidence that was adduced. Pseudonyms were assigned on
21 the basis of the evidence that was provided, but there was a
22 consideration of specific evidence.
23 The second was issued and is in tab 27 -- Exhibit 27. This was
24 before the Pre-Trial Judge, and it gave a very detailed set of protective
25 measures involving individual assessments of whether there should be,
1 simply, pseudonyms until they give evidence. There were 22 such
2 witnesses. Ten of them are named in the order in lieu of indictment in
3 this case. In some instances, there was the assignment of a pseudonym
4 for use throughout the duration of the current proceedings. There are 36
5 such witnesses. And in some instances, delayed disclosure was
6 authorised, image distortion -- image and voice distortion, and
7 proceeding in closed session. Once again, there were very clear
8 distinctions made between the witnesses, based on a tailoring arising
9 from the evidence provided to the Chamber.
10 The third specific order was before the Pre-Trial Judge again,
11 concerning 19 witnesses. Some of those applications were, in fact,
12 refused. Some were granted, and two are relevant to these proceedings,
13 involving VS-014 and VS-032. Once again, the point is that there was a
14 very careful consideration of the evidence, based on what had been
15 presented to the Chamber.
16 So the position that the Tribunal and the Chamber found itself
17 in, in late 2007, was that specific protective measures were in place for
18 all 11 of our protected witnesses.
19 The evidence during the course of the trial demonstrated that,
20 through proces-verbal and submissions from the accused, that he knew that
21 the protective measures were in place and he knew that pseudonyms had
22 been assigned. Of that, there can be no doubt. He signed the
23 proces-verbal, and we have submissions, which have been tendered in
24 evidence, demonstrating his knowledge of the existence of the protective
25 measures and the witnesses that were affected.
1 The evidence also demonstrates that the accused was aware of the
2 fact that there was a prohibition against publishing the statements of
3 protected witnesses, and that he knew he had to go to the Chamber to have
4 protective measure orders rescinded or varied. I've made reference to
5 some of those decisions during the course of my submissions in the trial
6 today, and they are included as exhibits in the Bar Table motion and
7 before the Chamber. So there is no doubt that the accused knew that the
8 protective measures were in place and that the Chamber controlled the
9 process. That is critical, in my respectful submission, in terms of the
10 issues in this case.
11 By late 2007 and mid 2008, in other words, prior to the
12 publication of the book in question, which I'll, for purposes of my
13 submission, I'll simply refer to as the 2008 book, during that late 2007
14 to mid 2008 period, you've seen in the exhibits before you a fair bit of
15 evidence, not only demonstrating an understanding of the protected
16 witness framework in the Rules on the part of the accused, but that
17 during that period, he became quite litigious on the question of
18 protective measures and witnesses. His submissions detail the Rules and
19 detail the control exercised by the Chamber. And, in fact, with respect
20 to one aspect of his motions, where he had been unsuccessful, he
21 proceeded to the Appeals Chamber and continued to litigate the issue.
22 Through his submissions and the decisions that resulted, it is
23 quite evidence, in my submission, that the accused had actual knowledge
24 that the Chamber controlled the process, that the Chamber only could
25 rescind or vary, and, in fact, with respect to one witness, the accused
1 actually insisted on seeking a variation through a formal application to
2 the Chamber. And further than that, the accused actually brought a
3 Defence request for protective measures just before the book emerged.
4 His steps that followed in the book, in my respectful submission, there
5 is no other inference that can be drawn or conclusion that can be reached
6 but that the breaches were done knowingly, they were deliberate, and, in
7 my respectful submission, the evidence can only be interpreted as that
8 his position was one of defiance towards the Chamber. And that's exactly
9 what the contempt powers were intended to deal with.
10 If one was to fast-forward a bit to the fall of 2008, I won't
11 refer to the specific date, but the evidence before you demonstrates that
12 the 2008 book came out in the fall of that year. And, in fact, the
13 evidence is much more specific than that. It virtually pin-points a
15 The evidence before you, in terms of the transcripts that have
16 been tendered - some are in private session, some are in open - the
17 transcripts demonstrate that the accused is the author of the 2008 book.
18 And on the basis of the evidence as a whole, there doesn't appear to be
19 any dispute on that; that appears to be common ground, although there was
20 no formal admission in that respect.
21 The timing of the publication of the book is clear, in the way
22 that I've just described it, and the orders were all in place at the time
23 of publication, subject to VS-010, where the pseudonym was lifted, but
24 the rest of the protective measures remained in place.
25 It would be open to the Chamber to conclude that by virtue of the
1 litigation in which the accused engaged unsuccessfully with respect to
2 protective measures, in some fashion prompted the publication of the book
3 because, on the one hand, you have a clear understanding of the role of
4 the Chamber, and then later that same year, you have the situation where
5 the book starts to roll out in both hard copy and electronic.
6 The book breached the orders in two respects. First of all, it
7 disclosed information that enabled the reader to identify the 11
8 protected witnesses by publishing their full names, publishing their
9 address, publishing their identity card numbers. And you heard the
10 witnesses look at it and say, Yeah, that's me, that's my personal
11 information. And in several instances, the book went further than that
12 to include identifying information such as date of birth, place of birth,
13 occupation, and unique citizen numbers.
14 This is not a case where the identifying information tends to, or
15 is capable, or may identify a protected witness. This is a case where
16 the information published actually does identify the protected witness.
17 The 2008 book goes, actually, further than that. In addition to
18 focusing on identifying information, there is a second aspect to the
19 breaches, and that is the book reprints witness statements from
20 submissions to the Chamber that had been reclassified by Chambers as
22 So there's really two dimensions to the breaches, the information
23 and the submissions that the accused had filed, which have been
24 reclassified to his knowledge. And you have proces-verbal in the
25 evidence, and you also have the filing policy which was delivered to him
1 as evidence by proces-verbal. So there can be no doubt that there was
2 two aspects, and two aspects to his knowledge.
3 The submissions clearly originated from the accused, were
4 reclassified, and invariably, on the face of the first page, it is noted
5 that it was reclassified at the direction of the Chamber. So there was
6 formal notice to the accused that these were confidential and could not
7 be published, but they were.
8 Concerning the evidence as a whole and the 2008 book, it's my
9 submission that the evidence has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt
10 that the publication of the information was deliberate and defiant, and
11 certainly not accidental. The accused knew about the orders and decided
12 to publish identifying information in any event.
13 That's a quick overview of the case for the Prosecution. I would
14 like to provide the Chamber with my submissions concerning the evidence
15 adduced by the accused.
16 I think it's fair to say that certainly with respect to the first
17 two or three witnesses, we were all over the map, and almost all of the
18 evidence was not relevant to the issues as I identified them at the
19 beginning of my comments. So my overall submission is that the vast
20 majority of the evidence tendered by the accused is not responsive to the
21 true issues in the case and, for that reason, is largely irrelevant.
22 Perhaps the high-water mark for the case for the Defence was
23 evidence concerning some of the witnesses, who indicated that now they
24 didn't mind if the evidence was published. That's now and in recent
25 times. The law on that is quite clear.
1 The Jovic decision from the Appeals Chamber is, in my view, in my
2 respectful submission, virtually dispositive on this point. The
3 Appeals Chamber said:
4 "An order remains in force until a Chamber decides otherwise.
5 The fact that some portions of the witness's written statement or
6 closed-session testimony may have been disclosed by another third party
7 does not mean that this information was no longer protected, that the
8 court order had been, de facto, lifted, or that its violation would not
9 interfere with the Tribunal's administration of justice."
10 To a like effect and to take the matter even further, the
11 Appeals Chamber delivered a decision in Marijacic and Rebic. In that
12 particular case, significantly, the protective measures granted to the
13 witness were lifted after he had testified, but before charges were laid.
14 The accused was, nonetheless, found guilty at trial, and the conviction
15 was affirmed on appeal, with the Appeals Chamber saying as follows:
16 "A court order remains in force until a Chamber decides
17 otherwise. The Appeals Chamber, proprio motu, notes that the fact that
18 the aforementioned information today is no longer confidential does not
19 present an obstacle to a conviction for having published the information
20 at a time when it was still under protection."
21 Those two decisions, in my submission, are virtually dispositive
22 of this case.
23 I will, in my closing comments, have some remarks with respect to
24 the seriousness of the breach, as well as a recommendation with respect
25 to the sentence that would seem to be appropriate in the event of
1 conviction. But before I deal with that, and I'll deal with that in a
2 matter of perhaps four or five minutes, I would like to turn to my
3 colleague for a submission with respect to the electronic side of the
4 case, if I can call it that.
5 MS. WANLIN: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
6 In the event of a finding of guilt, the scope of the disclosure
7 is a factor that should be considered for sentencing.
8 And if I might, I would like to move into private session for a
9 moment, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 Please continue, Ms. Wanlin.
23 MS. WANLIN: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 The availability of the book in electronic format on the
25 accused's web site is a fundamentally different nature than his hard-copy
1 version. The fact that the web site is his own, and that he controls the
2 content on the web site, has been established in several documents,
3 including P8 through 13 and P14 through 17, as well as others. I don't
4 believe that issue is in dispute, but it's good to establish for the
6 The fact that the book has been published on-line can be seen
7 through Exhibits P58.1 and 59, which are both screenshots of the
8 publication in question.
9 The date of the publication on-line, although we can't establish
10 it directly, we can note that it is through the Exhibits P63 and P64,
11 that these are references to the book on a web forum. And if you look at
12 the arrows on those respective exhibits, you will note that there are
13 dates that those entries have been made. So other individuals have made
14 reference to the fact that this book has been published on the accused's
15 web site. I won't mention the dates, but they are identified quite
16 clearly on the exhibits.
17 The fact that the book remains on-line has been made clear
18 through the submissions of the accused at the last hearing on the 22nd of
19 February of this year, as well as we have a submission from December of
20 this year that sets the date there as well.
21 By making the book available in PDF format on his web site, the
22 accused is able to accomplish a number of things that he could not do in
23 the print format. I would turn your attention to P57.1, which it states
24 on the web site that it is available in PDF format and that it can be
25 downloaded free of charge. This ensures that he has unlimited and
1 immediate access to his existing readership. Readers don't have to go to
2 a bookstore, they don't have to order anything to be delivered. In the
3 matter of a few keystrokes, they can have the information that they are
4 seeking. He's not bound by costs associated with publication. He has an
5 unlimited number.
6 The second factor I would like to point out is that this web site
7 is indexed. And if you'll allow me to explain the importance of this
8 fact. It allows the accused to increase his readership. An individual
9 who might not know about the book, but is interested in the proceedings,
10 might hear a name, enter it into a search engine, and a number of entries
11 come up, including the book of the accused. And, therefore, someone who
12 might not necessarily know to look through a book that is several
13 hundreds of pages has found it again in a matter of a few clicks of a
14 mouse and a few keystrokes.
15 Typically, materials and information can be hidden in a book, and
16 when you pick up a book, you don't necessarily know which words are found
17 in it or which names, as is relevant in this circumstance. I would draw
18 your attention to P60, P61 and P62 for support for that premise.
19 What you will see in these exhibits is a key-word search of
20 the -- sorry, I'm referring to P60 at the moment. It's in Cyrillic, the
21 names of certain of the individuals who have been identified by the book.
22 And you'll note in each of these references that this is on the very
23 first page of a Google search. And for any of you who have done a
24 key-word search, the first hits are the ones that you usually will refer
25 to. So this is not hidden in the obscurity of pages and pages down.
1 This is the first hits that come up.
2 Another factor that I would like to point out is: Because the
3 book is available in PDF format, the reader doesn't have to sift through
4 pages and pages and pages to find what they're looking for. If they hear
5 a name being referred to in gossip or chatter at the cafe, they can
6 simply go to the PDF document, enter it in, and in a matter of seconds
7 they have found the information that they're looking for, unlike having
8 to go through a book of a hundred -- or several hundred pages, pardon me.
9 Therefore, finding the information, whether by accident or with intent,
10 is much easier through the electronic disclosure than it would be in the
11 hard-copy disclosure.
12 The next factor that should be considered is that once the
13 accused made this information available on his web site, individuals who
14 are interested might, as we have seen through the evidence, make a link
15 on another web site. And you'll note that Exhibits P63 and P67 are
16 examples of different web forums where individuals have posted links to
17 Mr. Seselj's web site, and specifically links to the book, in particular.
18 An individual who goes to that forum simply has to click on that link and
19 the book is available immediately.
20 Now, it's not simply these web forums, that might be somewhat
21 obscure, that refer to this book, but a quite well-known web site,
22 Wikipedia, I think that average users that might not have any interest in
23 the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the matters that we are dealing
24 with on a regular basis here in The Hague, might go to Wikipedia and come
25 across a link to this web site -- pardon me, to the book, specifically,
1 which adds a certain degree of credibility to the source. You can find
2 the references to that in Exhibit P68.
3 I will also point out that the URL for these last sections go
4 directly back to the web site of the accused. Therefore, removing the
5 book from the web site will effectively eliminate the fact that
6 references can be made back through these hyperlinks.
7 However, I would turn your attention to Exhibit P70, which is
8 another phenomena that results from electronic publication, and that is:
9 Once a document is made available, other sites might host it. So after
10 the accused made his book available on his web site, somebody who has one
11 of these file-sharing web sites simply can take a copy of the book and
12 uploads it on their site. If you notice Exhibit P71, what is happening
13 in that exhibit, somebody has clicked the link and it opens up the book.
14 The challenge that is faced by those wanting to reduce the scope of the
15 publication is that even removing the book from the web site at this
16 point will have no affect on those. The evidence has two different sites
17 that are currently hosting the book.
18 Therefore, my submission is that the scope of the disclosure is
19 significantly increased as a result of publication on-line.
20 Now, a second factor that should be considered is a fact that was
21 mentioned in the last hearing, and that is that the accused has
22 endeavoured to stay in front of the actions of the Registry to remove the
23 publications. He has moved his web site from place to place to place,
24 from web host to web host to web host, which suggests a defiance that
25 needs to be considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
1 And I will turn the microphone over to my colleague,
2 Mr. MacFarlane. Thank you.
3 MR. MacFARLANE: It appears that I will be able to complete
4 within -- well within the one-hour period, happily. I'll just take,
5 perhaps, four or five minutes to deal with the issue of aggravating
6 circumstances, because I do submit that that plays an important role in
7 this case.
8 The actions of the accused, I submit, can be summarised with
9 three descriptors, three words. His actions were deliberate, his actions
10 were disingenuous, and his actions were defiant. And I would like to
11 point to half a dozen aspects of the case in support for that
12 proposition. Number 1, the publications emerged after quite full and
13 vigorous litigation conducted by the accused. Number 2, the Chamber
14 afforded the accused an opportunity to remove the book from the web site
15 through a qualified order, give him a chance to deal with it, and he
16 didn't. An unqualified order resulted to remove the book from his web
17 site. The evidence also demonstrates that in terms of the electronic
18 side of the case, that the accused has engaged at least one relative to
19 assist him, and I submit that that is an aggravating feature of the case.
20 In Exhibit 4 of the Bar Table motion evidence that was tendered
21 in open session, the Presiding Judge in the main trial gave the accused a
22 very specific warning about not publishing protected witnesses. He did
23 that on the 3rd of April of 2008, several months before publication. The
24 Presiding Judge said:
25 "As you know, Mr. Seselj, you're a qualified lawyer, so you know,
1 like everyone here, the statements of protected witnesses are, by
2 definition, also protected, and it's absolutely banned to publish,
3 outside this legal arena, these kinds of comments."
4 The Presiding Judge also said that the consequences could be huge
5 for failing to abide by the law. So we have a warning specifically on
6 the record and public.
7 The accused's position overall, his broad position, in my
8 respectful submission, is quite disingenuous. He appears to say that if
9 a witness or he doesn't see a need for confidentiality, that they're
10 really not protected witnesses. Tab 5 -- Exhibit 5 is instructive in
11 that respect. It was in private session, so I will simply note the page
12 number so that it can be noted. It's page 10995. And in tab 11, a
13 similar demonstration by the accused that he's really the one that's
14 going to make the assessment of confidentiality. It's in private
15 session, so I'll simply note the page number, which is page 5831.
16 My colleague, Ms. Wanlin, alluded to a further aggravating
17 feature, but I'd like to take it a bit further.
18 The accused noted that -- in open session that he had sold 10.000
19 of the hard-copy books, but, significantly, he then moved it onto the web
20 site. So it was a compounding of the contemptuous act. His reference to
21 the 10.000 copies can be found in Exhibit 5.
22 The accused, in the next feature -- the second-last feature that
23 I'd like to comment on, seemed to be almost flippant in terms of removing
24 the book from the web site. His view was that, Well, we'll wait until
25 the proceedings are completed, and then I'll see. It's Exhibit 16,
1 page 14749, lines 15 and 16.
2 And, finally, with a touch of irony, the accused appears to
3 believe that with being charged with contempt, that actually increases
4 interest in his book, increases interest in his web site, and so, in a
5 bizarre sense, he almost appears to be welcoming being charged because it
6 advances his agenda; in open session, Exhibit 14.
7 Given those aggravating circumstances, and given the fact of a
8 previous conviction for contempt of court, which is before the Court -
9 it's a matter of public record - for which he was sentenced to 15 months,
10 it's my respectful submission that in the event of a conviction on this
11 occasion, the appropriate sentence would be in the vicinity of three
12 years' imprisonment.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for 15 minutes and then hear from
15 you, Mr. Seselj.
16 We resume at 25 past.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.11 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 5.30 p.m.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Seselj.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Hague Tribunal is an illegal
21 court. That court was established by an organ of the United Nations, the
22 Security Council. That is, indeed, a high organ of the United Nations,
23 but according to the Charter, this organ does not have the right to
24 establish international courts of law. Therefore, the Security Council
25 abused Chapter 7 of the Charter that speaks of measures to be taken in
1 order to establish peace anywhere in the world. And as one of the
2 peacekeeping measures, they claim that the ad hoc tribunal of the former
3 Yugoslavia could be one.
4 Normal courts of law have the right to administer justice, to
5 establish justice, not peace. Justice and peace are two very different
6 interests. Sometimes they may be in concordance, but sometimes they are
7 in deep collision. Sometimes you face a dilemma. You are either going
8 to choose justice or peace.
9 This Tribunal always avoided initiating a discussion on its
10 legality. When this discussion started in the first proceedings here,
11 that is to say, the trial of Dusan Tadic, as an interesting irony of
12 history, the legality of this Tribunal was challenged by the current
13 Judge, Alphons Orie, together with Attorney Wladimiroff. At that time,
14 Orie was co-counsel in the Tadic case, and they, together, challenged the
15 legality of the Tribunal. The Trial Chamber that decided on that
16 inverted logic. They proved that the Tribunal was legal. They avoided a
17 debate on illegality.
18 An institutions whose legality is being challenged cannot decide
19 itself on its own legality. It has to be someone else who is above that
20 institution, and that could have been only the International Court of
21 Justice, which is, regrettably, also here in The Hague.
22 After this illegal Tribunal was established, and after its
23 Statute was proclaimed in a resolution of the Security Council, the
24 Judges of that Tribunal wrote the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The
25 Rules of Procedure and Evidence have to be fully in accordance with the
1 Statute, and each and every one of its provisions has to be derived from
2 the Statute. The Statute does not provide for a violation entitled
3 "Contempt of Court." That was invented by the Judges, themselves, and it
4 was incorporated in the Rules. It was first done on the 11th of
5 February, 1994, and then it was changed/amended in 1995, and then 1997
6 twice, and in 2001. In the first version, it was possible to impose a
7 maximum sentence of one year of imprisonment, then a year and a half, and
8 ultimately it came up to seven years. So that was not done through the
9 Statute. It was through the Rules that a new crime was brought in.
10 In the contempt proceedings that were conducted, when that
11 provision was challenged, the Trial Chambers of The Hague Tribunal
12 concluded that that is the inherent power of the Tribunal. It is. In
13 any court of law -- in any country in any court of law, it is the Court,
14 itself, that decides whether there is contempt. It can be disciplinary
15 measures. Sometimes, if there is witness intimidation, it can even be
16 treated as a crime; a separate one, at that. Yes, authority is inherent,
17 but the Court cannot, itself, prescribe the crime involved. The Court
18 could have addressed the Security Council, asking to have the Statute
19 amended. No one did that. It was the Judges, themselves, who willfully
20 did that, because they thought that they were smart enough and capable
21 enough to do that. That is how this new crime came into being, totally
22 unknown in the Statute, at that. Of course, there is a justification for
24 If certain sanctions can be imposed against a witness who refuses
25 to testify, in modern legislation the law prescribes what kind of
1 punishment can be meted out, and then the court of law, itself, says what
2 the range is going to be in each and every particular case. Also, who
3 refuses to appear before the Trial Chamber or who refuses to disclose
4 certain documents can also be subjected to sanctions, but those
5 prescribed by law, who intimidates witnesses, who tries to bribe a
6 witness, or anyone else who has to do with the proceedings; trying to
7 bribe a Judge, a Prosecutor, a lawyer, and so on. All of these crimes
8 can be sanctioned exclusively by law.
9 Now, what can the Court do? Just apply the law. Whereas here,
10 it is the Court that creates the law and applies the law. There is no
11 control over the judiciary here, even if it were a legal court, let alone
12 the fact that it is not a legal court.
13 As for the disclosure of information and the identity of
14 protected witnesses, even common law and civil law know of the institute
15 of witness protection. However, in your legal system, Mr. Morrison, or
16 in your legal system, Mr. Hall - I did not study the South Korean legal
17 system, so I don't know - there is no situation as follows: that the
18 identity of witnesses is protected during testimony, or, rather, the
19 public is never deprived of the right to know what the identity of a
20 witness is. In civilised countries, the public may be kept out of a
21 particular court case that have to do with marriage, rape, and other
22 sexual crimes, and also in many cases of espionage. Quite a few
23 countries in the world allow for that possibility, but the question
24 remains whether that can be accepted as part of international customary
25 law; that is to say, whether it has gone beyond that critical point of
1 application in many countries so that it can be considered as part of
2 international customary law.
3 In civilised countries, it is the police that protects the
4 sensitive witness, a witness who is in danger. It can be a witness who
5 is a collaborator, who took part in the commission of a crime and then
6 repented, or is part of a plea agreement in order to remain unpunished or
7 with lesser punishment. However, the public does know who that witness
8 is. The police protects that witness until the witness enters the
9 courtroom. The witness testifies under his full name, in the presence of
10 the public. Once that trial -- or, rather, once that testimony is over,
11 if it is assessed that there is a danger involved, and nothing can be
12 done without his consent, then his identity is changed, and his place of
13 residence, and even the identity of his entire family, and then he is
14 relocated so as to avoid the revenge of his former criminal friends or
15 the mafia, who wishes to take its revenge against a witness who testified
16 against them. It can also be a witness who was a victim, too, not
17 necessarily one of their companions. In the civilised world, that is
19 However, The Hague Tribunal is not part of the civilised world.
20 It is an institution that was established like the Inquisition in the
21 Roman Catholic Church many years ago. It has a task before it, and then
22 it is the duty of the Judges to discharge that task, and everything is
23 subordinated to that, the Office of the Prosecutor and many Defence
24 attorneys, almost all of those that are paid by the Tribunal, itself.
25 This is what has been happening.
1 In addition to resembling the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic
2 Church, this Court resembles the Star Chambers Court of England which is
3 several hundred years old. I think, Mr. Morrison, you know better than I
4 do about this Court. This Court created rules as they went along ad hoc.
5 So this is how the High Tribunal looks like.
6 I was unfortunate enough to spend years here and to have an
7 opportunity to study all of this, and I wrote a number of books. I'm not
8 talking about the books where I ridiculed Judges and Prosecutors,
9 et cetera. I'm talking about serious scientific books. And, that is,
10 The Hague Prosecutors are not a match for me; neither are these witnesses
11 brought here who just come here, and shine for a moment, and have no
12 chance of out-shining me.
13 What we have here is a proceedings for contempt of court, and
14 there were several such proceedings. Some were tried for intimidating
15 witnesses - I think his name was Beqaj, I think he was sentenced to five
16 or six months in prison. He did not launch an appeal because he had
17 already served that sentence. Some were tried for refusing to testify;
18 for example, Ljubisa Petkovic in my case; Dragan Jokic, in the Popovic
19 et al case. And also tried were people for unauthorised disclosure of
20 confidential information. For example, some Croatian journalists
21 published entire lists of witnesses from the Blaskic case and from other
22 cases as well. The sentences pronounced were either up to four months in
23 prison or token fines.
24 I'm not telling you this because I am afraid of your sentence.
25 You may easily sentence me to death. It is your right. You just get
1 together and you do it quickly. To me, that would be an ideal end to my
2 political and legal career. Therefore, I'm not interested whether you
3 are going to sentence me to 15, 20, or I don't know how many years. My
4 mission here is to disassemble The Hague Tribunal, and I have been doing
5 that successfully for eight and a half years. I may continue to do so
6 for another eight and a half years, until I have accomplished my mission,
7 because that is my mission and that is my life, because I want to show to
8 the world public that this is not the Court that operates according to
9 the law, but under the dictate of major powers such as the US, the
10 United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO. This is my objective, and I
11 am going to achieve it.
12 Now, in view of the proceedings conducted against me - actually,
13 one of them has been finalised - I was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
14 Why? Because in a book that contained 1200 pages, that had 2.400
15 journalistic pages, or columns, as journalists would call them, for
16 having mentioned witnesses under code, and for having allusion to certain
17 acts by certain people, so that someone who would read this book and
18 scrutinize it in detail could arrive at a conclusion that, in fact, the
19 man under a code-name is such-and-such person. In other words, I did not
20 openly publish the names of protected witnesses. This huge book was
21 perceived by the Trial Chamber as a puzzle that a smart and intelligent
22 person can read and then reach conclusions as to the identity of the
23 witnesses. Unlike those who were tried for divulging directly the lists
24 of protected witnesses in the Blaskic case, or in other cases as well,
25 and who received up to four months' sentences in prison or token fines, I
1 was sentenced to 15 months, and I'm happy for that, because in front of
2 the whole public -- world public, an unlawful act was committed, and a
3 proceedings that is totally inappropriate was conducted especially for
4 those who are jurists.
5 In 2005, when I was first tried for contempt of court,
6 proceedings were conducted simultaneously against Florence Hartmann. She
7 had been the Prosecution spokesperson for several years. She published a
8 book, and in that book she disclosed some strictly-confidential
9 information that The Hague Tribunal had received under certain conditions
10 from the pro-Western treacherous regime in Serbia, and that is to say,
11 that this information can be used only in the trial against
12 Slobodan Milosevic and that it should not be given to anyone else.
13 Florence Hartmann published this in her book, and she was punished by a
14 token fine imposed on her, even though her criminal offence is much more
15 serious than anything that happened in The Hague Tribunal in the sphere
16 of court contempt. She had abused her position that she held previously,
17 because that was the only way she could have obtained those documents.
18 Approximately at the same time, we both launched an appeal on
19 sentence. My appeal was about 67 pages, because the Rules provide that
20 appeals to first-instance judgement can contain up to 100 pages, whereas
21 the appeal of Florence Hartmann was 92 pages' long, and I have it here.
22 The Appeals Chamber accepted her appeal of 92 pages, whereas they
23 returned my appeal with the instruction that I should reduce it to up to
24 30 pages because there was an internal enactment passed by the Tribunal
25 President which provides that in case of court contempt, a number of
1 pages of appeal must be reduced. You can see how strong this
2 discrimination against me is.
3 Now, about a month or two ago, The Hague Tribunal decided that
4 all the documents that had been confidential and for which
5 Florence Hartmann was sentenced, would now become public. They were
6 first sent to the Muslim authorities in Sarajevo and then elsewhere.
7 Florence Hartmann's appeal proceedings is still pending. Her appeal was
8 launched on the 9th of October, 2009. After almost two years, the
9 second-instance judgement was not passed yet, whereas in my case
10 everything was done so expediently and expeditiously. Now, maybe,
11 waiting to have all these documents in the public domain, she will
12 receive even an even lesser punishment, which will amount, probably,
13 instead of a couple of thousand Euros to a couple of hundred Euros. Now,
14 this is what is undermining in this Tribunal in its very foundation, and
15 I am delighted that this has occurred.
16 Now, speaking about the subject of these proceedings: In 2009,
17 proceedings were initiated by a Trial Chamber, in which Mr. Kwon sat as
18 well, agreed to conduct these proceedings for this large book of 1200
19 pages, but they concluded that there were no sufficient conditions for
20 proceedings to be conducted against the so-called books which I'm not
21 going to mention by title in order to avoid the editing of the recording
22 and the redaction of the transcript. The Trial Chamber has dismissed the
23 application by the Prosecution for the lack of sufficient ground for
24 instituting proceedings against Vojislav Seselj, because in the third
25 book - and the third book is exactly this one, and Mr. Kwon knows
1 that - divulged information by disclosing the names of witnesses and as
2 the Prosecution requested. The Chamber had reason to believe that I knew
3 that protected witnesses were in question. And now I'm citing
4 paragraph 31:
5 "Information from book number 3 indicate the identity of these
6 persons only in terms of their being Defence witnesses. They are never
7 mentioned as Prosecution witnesses, nor are their pseudonyms
8 revealed ..."
9 So this is the conclusion reached by the Trial Chamber, and
10 I think that he was even the Presiding Judge. It seems that it is the
11 destiny of Mr. Kwon to always sit on the Bench in my proceedings, so it
12 seems that after all these proceedings, he is preparing to conduct the
13 next one, until we reach number 10. I tried to apply for
14 disqualification, I was not successful, and it seems that I cannot avoid
15 looking at Mr. Kwon in at least eight new proceedings.
16 I continue now with paragraph 31:
17 "Therefore, the Chamber has no sufficient grounds to suspect that
18 Seselj can be guilty of court contempt for having published, in his third
19 book, such information on the basis of which it would be possible to
20 identify these witnesses as protected witnesses for the Prosecution,
21 contrary to the orders issued by the Trial Chamber in the Seselj case."
22 Then the Prosecutor files an appeal with the Appeals Chamber.
23 And I have been clashing with them for eight years already. I have
24 mocked their names in public, through the titles of my books. So what
25 was their ruling? They annul the decision of the Trial Chamber from
1 2009, and they order the initiation of contempt proceedings for this
3 Mr. Morrison and Mr. Hall, I don't know what position you're
4 going to take here. No matter how much the two of us hate each other,
5 Mr. Kwon has to remain consistent with his decision from 2009. Nothing
6 new appeared here that changes the factual situation that was well known
7 in 2009, nothing new. The book was on an internet site then. Ten
8 thousand copies of the book had already been sold then. The price was
9 very low. I think it was 100 dinars per copy, because we didn't really
10 want to make any money at all. We wanted it to reach the masses of
11 people as soon as possible so that they would see what kind of
12 proceedings are underway here against me and that compromise -- that
13 actually give a bad name to the Tribunal and to the Trial Chambers who
14 are trying me.
15 We have a few other things involved here.
16 In the main trial against me, more than half of the witnesses
17 enjoyed protective measures. Some of them testified in completely closed
18 session. I proved, very effectively, that they were false witnesses.
19 Then, several months ago, I filed criminal complaints against 44 false
20 witnesses from my case, 44 witnesses who appeared in court, testified,
21 almost all of them under protective measures, some of them in closed
22 session, and 4 persons that the OTP gave up on.
23 The President of the Tribunal, Patrick Robinson, rejected my
24 motion. He said that he was not the organ in charge.
25 When I filed a criminal complaint against the former warden of
1 the prison, Timothy McFadden, because he disclosed confidential
2 information that had to do with the private life of Slobodan Milosevic,
3 then Patrick Robinson was in charge, and he established a Trial Chamber
4 that would look into the matter. That Trial Chamber was headed by
5 Alphons Orie. I think that Moloto was one of the members, and I can't
6 remember the third one. They haven't looked into the matter yet, but
7 this is what was done.
8 If, indeed, in this major case, involving 44 witnesses, it is
9 only the Trial Chamber that is trying me that is in charge, then, Judges,
10 what you are trying me for over these few days would also fall under that
11 Trial Chamber. And why not? They didn't want to try me. They said to
12 the President of the Tribunal that they would not be involved, so then
13 the President appointed the initial Trial Chamber from 2009, and now they
14 have appointed you. Sometimes it's like this, and sometimes it's like
16 If what Patrick Robinson says in his response is true, then it
17 wouldn't be Alphons Orie who would be in charge of McFadden, it would be
18 the Judges who tried Slobodan Milosevic, because in that trial there was
19 a breach of privacy. All the press wrote about that, and Wikileaks
20 carried this information. Timothy McFadden informed the American
21 ambassador in The Hague in writing about the private life and private
22 situation of Slobodan Milosevic, which is absolutely forbidden, and that
23 is much worse than all the things you refer to in Rule 77.
24 Now let us see how these proceedings will end. Let's see what
25 Alphons Orie is going to write in his report. I know in advance, but I
1 don't want to say it. Maybe it wouldn't be fair. Some day, he will have
2 to file that report.
3 What is the main problem that appears in The Hague Tribunal? It
4 is false witnesses. Proceedings take place here very easily because of
5 the disclosure of confidential information, but no one has been tried
6 because of false testimony.
7 Mr. Kwon was a member of the Trial Chamber of Slobodan Milosevic,
8 and he knows full well that it was established there that more than 50
9 witnesses, in their viva voce statements, completely denied the
10 preliminary statements that were written up for them by the Prosecution
11 after they were interviewed, over 50 of them. We had an example here as
12 well. That is why I had to be a bit more flexible with regard to my
13 basic principle not to question any witnesses who are testifying under
14 protective measures. The witness I did examine here confirmed to you
15 that he gave false testimony in the Milosevic case, and that he was
16 forced to do so by the Prosecution. I expected you, Mr. Kwon, to react.
17 I expected you to initiate proceedings because of that.
18 Do you not agree that false testimony is a far more serious crime
19 than disclosing protected information? There is no comparison between
20 the two, in terms of the danger that threatens society. Draconic
21 punishment is handed out by The Hague Tribunal primarily because of these
22 false witnesses and false testimony; Milan Martic, Stanislav Galic,
23 Dragomir Milosevic, Stakic, Brdjanin, and many others, Momcilo Krajisnik,
24 and so on. I cannot even enumerate all of them, although I am familiar
25 with all the cases. I have studied them all very thoroughly. They were
1 sentenced to very high sentences because of false testimony, and no one
2 was ever held responsible, none of these false witnesses.
3 You know what the usual wording is when that happens? In the
4 judgements, the Judges write and say, Well, yes, he did provide false
5 testimony, he provided some unreliable information, but the rest is true.
6 You have that particular wording in many, many judgements. Why? Because
7 everyone here is aware of the fact that this is a mass occurrence, this
8 false testimony, and nobody reacts to it.
9 On the basis of my criminal complaint, a friend of the Court was
10 established for the very first time. The 7th of October is the dead-line
11 for him to look into the complaints that I filed against the Prosecution;
12 that is to say, making people provide false testimony.
13 Look at another thing that's very important here. The
14 Trial Chamber in the main trial, the Trial Chamber that is presided over
15 by Judge Antonetti and whose members are Flavia Lattanzi and
16 Frederik Harhoff, they, themselves, provide this wording:
17 "Every witness can ultimately decide whether he is going to
18 testify before the Chamber without protective measures."
19 That is their own principle of the 3rd of March, 2008. And then
20 already in 2009 or 2010, they, themselves, violate that principle, and
21 this very same witness, the first one that you sent back from here
22 because he did not want to testify under protective measures, that's
23 exactly how he fared during the main trial. What do these principles
24 mean, then?
25 What happened was that Zoran Drazilovic did not find this order
1 sufficient, so with the assistance of his lawyer, he sent a request to
2 the Trial Chamber that he be provided additional guarantees that once he
3 came to The Hague, no one would impose protective measures on him. So on
4 the 14th of March, an additional order was issued, stating guarantees to
5 Zoran Drazilovic that no protective measures would be imposed upon him
6 and that only the Chamber and the Registry and VWS would be the only ones
7 to contact him while he is in The Hague. I assume that "VWS" stands for
8 Victim and Witness Protection. Once I received this decision, there was
9 no doubt in my mind to the effect that each and every one of these
10 witnesses could decide to do away with his own protective measures. That
11 is how I published the book. That does not mean that I would not have
12 had the book published otherwise. I would have published that book one
13 way or the other. However, I was relaxed because of this position taken
14 by the Trial Chamber. That I was quite right was confirmed by the first
15 Trial Chamber that made a decision on this, and Mr. Kwon was in that
16 Trial Chamber too.
17 Why did the Appeals Chamber do this? You see, in 2009, the
18 Trial Chamber accepted the motion regarding three books, so the third one
19 is the one that you are trying me for right now. Actually, had they
20 agreed to that, then the proceedings would have been simultaneous with
21 those for the book of 1200 pages. It would have to be the same. It's
22 the same three books, plus one. However, first this draconic judgement
23 is passed with regard to one book, and then two years later then
24 proceedings are instituted with regard to another book. That can only
25 happen in The Hague Tribunal. In the civilised world, that could not
1 happen anywhere.
2 Since no one wants to try false witnesses here, then I have to
3 deal with them in public. The public is my only weapon.
4 You see that no one who testified in proceedings against accused
5 Serbs - it's not only me, all the Serbs here - no matter how much false
6 testimony they provided, they had no problems whatsoever. People close
7 to them could have despised them for it, could have stopped communicating
8 with them, but their life was not at risk in any way. They were not
9 facing any security risks, so there is no such danger involved. There is
10 another danger, though, and in my case it is the danger of the
11 Trial Chamber strangling me in the dark. Well, I'm not going to let them
12 strangle me in the dark. My only protection before the Judges of
13 The Hague Tribunal is the public, because I'm being tried by these
14 Judges. It became obvious that they very rarely adjudicate on the basis
15 of the law.
16 It has been proven that this is a markedly anti-Serb tribunal.
17 Look at the indictments here. Over 80 per cent of them were issued
18 against Serbs. Less than 20 per cent are against Croats, Muslims,
19 Albanians and Macedonians. It's an anti-Serb tribunal. They are trying
20 to break the backbone of the Serb people.
21 I'm not being tried here on account of any war crimes. I'm being
22 tried here for ideology.
23 Pursuant to Rule 98, although there was a very significant
24 disagreement among members of the Trial Chamber and Judge Antonetti
25 dissented, everything boils down to hate speech as a form of persecution.
1 You know that incitement must be direct and must lead directly to the
2 commission of a crime. Otherwise, if you do that in the media, it
3 doesn't count. And, anyway, a hate speech does not figure as a crime in
4 international law. You know that in Rwanda, there was incitement to
5 genocide, which was depicted as hate speech. And on the basis of that,
6 it was included in the Statute, only on the basis of public incitement to
7 genocide. It is obvious that in the main trial, they have no grounds to
8 convict me.
9 Now, there is a whole series of proceedings for court contempt,
10 in which I intend to participate very actively, and I will do that in a
11 very patient way. I might seem to you as a nervous person, but I can
12 tell you that I am very thorough and very patient. Once one proceedings
13 is completed, I'm going to create conditions for the next one. As soon
14 as we finish the next one, I'm going to prepare myself for the next one
15 and the next one, up to 10. That's what I decided. And it's not my
16 problem; it is your problem, how you're going to get away from that.
17 What are you going to do if all the aggregate sentences for contempt of
18 court in my case reach 10 years?
19 I am a defiant person, and Mr. MacFarlane concluded that
20 correctly, and I am proud of that characteristic of mine. As the great
21 leader of the whole Korean people, Kim Jong-Il, said, Who fights for the
22 truth, freedom and justice sincerely must be ready to sacrifice
23 themselves. Now, as a follower of this thought of Kim Jong-Il, I am
24 prepared to sacrifice myself. I am going to win. Even if I die, I will
25 be the winner.
1 Here, Mr. MacFarlane enumerated some six or eight submissions or
2 theses, and I'm going to tackle a number of them. He mentioned
3 aggravating circumstances, and he said that I did it on purpose. Of
4 course I did. He said that that was a spiteful act. Of course it was,
5 because I knew it was going to deliver a heavy blow on
6 The Hague Tribunal, because this book is a testimony to what kind of
7 court proceedings are being conducted in this Tribunal.
8 Then he said that I was pretending the whole time. I never
9 pretended. I always speak openly, and I speak my mind, and I am playing
10 with my cards on the table. Why? Because I feel superior. I feel
11 superior to all of you. You cannot suppress my feeling of superiority.
12 No one can do that. You will have to find someone more intelligent than
13 me, someone more educated than me, a better lawyer, and I never met such
14 a person in my life.
15 Okay, let's move on.
16 Mr. MacFarlane also said, and that hurt a bit, that I engaged at
17 least one of my relatives to run my internet site. That is not true.
18 The chief editor of my internet site is my oldest son, Nikola Seselj, and
19 I am proud of that. I am proud of his name and his participation in
20 that, and that is the guarantee that no one will do anything there
21 against my will. All the Tribunal orders would be in vain, and it cannot
22 be shut down. First, they have tracked the provider in Sweden, and there
23 was an order issued for the web site to be closed. I managed to find a
24 provider in Germany. Then I found another one in Serbia. So my site was
25 never shut down for more than 24 hours. Now I have a provider in
1 California that ignores all kinds of orders. It seems that the State of
2 California has a modern democratic order, and no courts in California
3 will abide by any orders issued to them. And, therefore, my internet
4 site is safe. The Tribunal cannot do anything against the State of
5 California. They cannot even declare war on them. Therefore, my
6 internet site will survive me, and everything posted there would never be
8 Mr. MacFarlane is talking some rubbish. He said that I was
9 disingenuous. I don't know where he got this from. I have always been
10 completely candid, even if that was to my disadvantage. He also said
11 that I was arrogant and defiant. Yes, I am defiant, and I'm also
12 arrogant. Why not? Anyone who is superior has the right to be arrogant.
13 Only stupid people, it doesn't suit them to act arrogantly. As for those
14 who are superior are fully entitled to act arrogantly. That is what is
15 expected of them until someone more superior emerges. Try to find
16 someone more superior to me. I think that you, yourselves, are
17 disappointed in the capabilities of Mr. MacFarlane, and I hope that for
18 the future proceedings, you're going to find a different friend of the
19 Court, because I don't think it is appropriate, and it is very awkward to
20 keep looking at Mr. MacFarlane getting entangled in his own words. And I
21 hope you will find someone who would be a match for me as an adversary in
22 this courtroom.
23 Ms. Wanlin spoke about my web site. I am, as I said, proud of my
24 son, Nikola Seselj, and his collaborators. He's not doing this himself,
25 but he's my editor-in-chief. We have a developed network of links with
1 other sites. Everything is delivered and distributed at lightning speed,
2 and no one can shut us down.
3 He also said that I pre-empted any bans that the Registry wanted
4 to impose. That is true. Whatever the Registry tried to do, I already
5 had a ready-made response, thanks to my son, Nikola, and his
6 collaborator; immediately, automatically. And, of course, everything can
7 be downloaded free of charge. I do not want to charge anyone for my
8 struggle against The Hague Tribunal. I am fighting against this Tribunal
9 to destroy it and raze it to the ground so that no one would ever decide
10 again to establish such ad-hoc tribunals.
11 I'm not concerned about my survival, but I do have ideals, I have
12 my objectives. One of my political objectives is to destroy The Hague
13 Tribunal with strong arguments. If you see the Tribunal as a tank, I'm
14 going to jump in front of the caterpillar of that tank with an explosive,
15 and that is my intention. I managed to do that to a great extent
16 already, because nobody in the world believes that the proceedings, the
17 main proceedings conducted against me are based on the law and the legal
19 All jurists worldwide realise my basic human rights have been
20 violated. Nobody in the world can justify these court contempt
21 proceedings. Nobody can justify the secrecy of proceedings. Various
22 methods of manipulation have been developed in this Tribunal. These
23 proceedings are very expensive, and none of the Serbs have so far been
24 able to afford their own defence. And they say, Well, the Tribunal will
25 cover the expenses. Yes, they will do so, but provided you choose a
1 counsel from their own list, in which case the counsel works for the
2 Tribunal, not for the defendant. We have the example of the first
3 appearance -- initial appearance of the famous Serbian general,
4 Ratko Mladic. Ratko Mladic stated that he hadn't seen the indictment,
5 and then Judge Alphons Orie asked the standby counsel, appointed without
6 the consent of Ratko Mladic, whether he read the indictment, and the
7 counsel stood up and said, yes, he did. They're still keeping
8 General Ratko Mladic in isolation in a darkened room, and I don't know
9 who is going there to interview him, whether it's people from the
10 Registry or from the Prosecution, but we see that something is going on.
11 They are trying to achieve something while he is in isolation. But you
12 will see how long it will take for him to create his Defence team. That
13 is what they tried to do with me.
14 As soon as I came here, Judge Schomburg imposed on me a standby
15 Defence counsel. It took me four years to get rid of that standby
16 counsel. First it was a Serb, then a Dutchman, and then immediately
17 prior to the beginning of the trial, an Englishman was appointed as my
18 Defence counsel, against my will. And I made so much effort to challenge
19 and to reject that, so eventually they accepted all my requests. They
20 changed the Trial Chamber, they dismissed all the standby counsel, that
21 they allowed the visit of my spouse, Jadranka, and that I received all
22 the papers and documents exclusively in the Serbian language. So all my
23 requests have been granted. Once that was accomplished, I could hardly
24 wait for the trial to begin. The trial is still in progress, because
25 they're really finding it difficult to find what to charge me with.
1 You will see for yourselves that you have nothing to find me
2 guilty of.
3 Now, this is a test of your conscience, whether you're going to
4 pass a conviction and, in this way, deserve to take part in some other
5 proceedings in the future, or whether you're going to acquit me and, in
6 this way, have the Americans, NATO, the European Union, and many others
7 put you in their bad books. So it's for you to decide. Mr. Kwon already
8 gave himself a bad name in the previous proceedings. Mr. Morrison,
9 Mr. Hall, are you going to do that? It is up to you.
10 Now, what is it that matters to me? What I find important in
11 these proceedings as well is to say whatever I had to say before the
12 public. I'm pleased because of that. I just abhor the secrecy of any
13 proceedings. As soon as I can say things in public, everything in
14 public, I am quite satisfied, and I'm not interested in your judgement at
16 Don't listen to Mr. MacFarlane. You don't want that kind of a
17 pittance of a judgement. Give me a 30-year imprisonment or something
18 like that.
19 There were some judgements where the laws of Spain from the days
20 of Franco, and the laws of South Africa in the days of apartheid, were
21 referred to. You can find support for whatever you want to do anywhere,
22 with Idi Amin, or Jean Bedel Bokassa I, or the Communist dictator, Tito,
23 or Hitler, or Stalin. You know, Hitler may be the greatest criminal in
24 the history of mankind; not maybe, but that is for sure. But
25 Georgi Dimitrov was acquitted, even under Hitler, because he was found
1 not guilty. That is not possible here. Only two Serbs were acquitted
2 here just so that people could see that the Tribunal is capable of
3 acquitting some Serb. That was the case of Major Radic, because they
4 didn't manage to prove anything. They didn't manage to prove anything in
5 the case of some others, but they were found guilty, nevertheless. Also,
6 they acquitted Milan Milutinovic because, poor him, he was proving
7 throughout the proceedings that he was clashing with Slobodan Milosevic
8 at the relevant time, and the Trial Chamber accepted that. I read that
9 in the judgement against the Serbian political and military leaders who
10 were charged with alleged crimes in Kosovo and Metohija. That's it,
11 that's the kind of tribunal this is.
12 Is my hour about to expire now? Can somebody help me with this?
13 Do I have any more time left? Do I have a little bit of time left?
14 JUDGE KWON: If necessary, please carry on. You passed -- or
15 it's almost an hour, but it's up to you. I'm not limiting your time.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. This is the first time
17 that I have had a favourable surprise coming from your side, Mr. Kwon.
18 However, I'm not going to abuse that. I am going to finish within three
19 or four minutes.
20 So these proceedings are being brought to an end, and these
21 proceedings remain in history. One day, when someone impartial assesses
22 all of these proceedings, then these people will be judging both you and
23 me. That is the judgement of history or of science. That's what it's
24 called. I am pleased by the fact that in the future, there will not be a
25 single serious textbook in the field of law that will be written without
1 referring to the proceedings against me here, and part of these criminal
2 proceedings are these many contempt proceedings, some of which have
3 already taken place, and others are yet to take place.
4 In this case, the procedure is quite simple. Once a decision was
5 made, and then it was sent back for a review - nothing happened in the
6 meantime - all the witnesses explicitly said that they had revealed their
7 own identity, there is no proof of me revealing the identity of protected
8 witnesses, and so on and so forth.
9 Now, what will the judgement of the public be? There are people
10 who don't care about what the judgement of the public is. These are
11 people who are usually considered to be anti-social, dishonourable,
12 dishonest, et cetera. All honourable people set great store by their
13 reputation, the judgement of the public, their morality. All honourable
14 people set great store by their own dignity. My very personal feeling of
15 dignity makes it incumbent on me to fight the new international order by
16 all means; the American domination, NATO, the European Union, and
17 The Hague Tribunal that is one of their criminal instruments. I'm going
18 to do that at any cost, even my life, and you do whatever you please.
19 To be quite frank, I'm not even interested in your judgement.
20 The judgement that you are going to pass will some day be a judgement for
21 you. Bear that in mind.
22 That is what I had to say.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
24 Do you have anything in rebuttal, Mr. MacFarlane?
25 MR. MacFARLANE: No, I don't. Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Just one short question, to which I hope there
4 can be a short answer, Mr. Seselj. It's an entirely academic
5 proposition, really.
6 If the Tribunal, itself, can't create its jurisprudence, would
7 you be suggesting that that was a function of the Security Council? And
8 if so, would you be suggesting that the Security Council had a
9 parliamentary function?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It pretended and acted as if it had
11 a legislative role. But according to the Charter, it cannot have that
12 kind of role, in terms of establishing institutions. It does have a
13 certain legislative role, but that is strictly defined in the Charter.
14 This legislative role of the Security Chamber is based on binding
15 resolutions in order to establish peace, preserve peace, et cetera.
16 However, there is no legislative role in the establishment of
17 international courts, ad-hoc ones or permanent ones. The establishment
18 of a real international criminal court, and the Rome Statutes, and the
19 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, demonstrated how this Court was supposed
20 to be established, had it been done properly. The greatest negation of
21 The Hague Tribunal is the permanent International Criminal Court.
22 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: We'll rise, and we'll set the date for the delivery
24 of the judgement in due course.
25 The hearing is now adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.34 p.m.,
2 sine die.