1 Wednesday, 8 November 2006

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.

7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

9 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. To keep matters short, for

11 the record, I see appearances for the Prosecution are Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff,

12 accompanied by Mr. Saxon, and by Ms. Katalinic. I also see another new

13 face. Could you please introduce the new member of the team?

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. You see here with us Ms.

15 Melissa Pack. You know her already from submissions. She is now a trial

16 attorney in this case.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

18 Mr. Seselj, I see that you are present, you are representing

19 yourself and I also see present as standby counsel, Mr. Hooper, assisted

20 by co-stand-by counsel, Mr. O'Shea, and accompanied by ...

21 MR. HOOPER: Accompanied by our case manager, Lea Kulinowski and

22 Ms. Nassira Hayaty who sits behind, who is from The Hague, and who has

23 joined us as an intern.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for introducing these team

25 members, Mr. Hooper.

1 I would like to start this Status Conference with inviting the

2 registrar to report to the Chamber whether any progress has been made in

3 terms of practical facilities to be provided to you, Mr. Seselj, when you

4 asked at the last Status Conference, be provided with the same facilities

5 as the late Mr. Milosevic had at the time.

6 So therefore, could I invite you, Mister representative of the

7 Registry, to inform the Chamber and the parties about any progress made.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours.

9 Upon the request of the Presiding Judge and following the Status

10 Conference of the 3rd of November, 2006, during which Mr. Seselj made

11 several oral requests for facilities to be provided to him to facilitate

12 the preparation of his defence, the Registry would like to inform both the

13 Chamber and the accused as follows.

14 To date, the Registry has provided the following facilities to Mr.

15 Seselj at the United Nations Detention Unit.

16 Number one, a cell in addition to his residential cell, where Mr.

17 Seselj is able to store case-related material; number 2, a video player in

18 Mr. Seselj's residential cell; 3, a back-up video player; and four, an

19 audio tape player in Mr. Seselj's residential cell.

20 In addition, the Registry has offered or otherwise made available

21 to Mr. Seselj the following facilities, of which, to date, he has refused

22 to avail himself.

23 Number one, the services of a technical or administrative

24 assistant from the Registry to provide support to the accused. Number

25 two, a desktop computer in Mr. Seselj's cell at the UNDU. Three, the

1 assistance of stand-by counsel as per the deputy registrar's decision of

2 30th October 2006.

3 The registrar is currently considering the oral requests made by

4 Mr. Seselj at the Status Conference of the 3rd of November, 2006, and

5 which include the following facilities:

6 1, a second cell with adjoining access to his residential cell,

7 which Mr. Seselj would use as an office and whose key Mr. Seselj wants to

8 keep in his pocket.

9 2, a privileged telephone and fax within the said office.

10 3, the appointment by the Registry of Mr. Seselj's legal

11 associates. In this regard, the registrar notes that the accused has

12 previously requested this facility but has failed to comply with the

13 conditions for the recognition of his legal associates by the registrar.

14 The matter has been litigated before the president who affirmed the

15 registrar's approach.

16 4, privileged access to Mr. Seselj's legal associates by using the

17 above-mentioned facilities.

18 5, privileged access to his investigators and potential witnesses

19 by using the above-mentioned facilities.

20 The registrar is currently considering the accused's oral requests

21 made at the 3rd November, 2006 Status Conference. A written decision is

22 expected to be issued next week. In his decision, the registrar will

23 inform Mr. Seselj of which of the requested facilities, if any, can be

24 provided to him. In addition, the registrar will inform Mr. Seselj of the

25 legal criteria applied in assessing his requests. These criteria will be

1 applied when considering any future requests for facilities made by the

2 accused.

3 A copy of the registrar's decision will be provided to the Trial

4 Chamber for information.

5 Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

7 Mr. Seselj, this updates you on what the Registry is preparing at

8 this moment, and as you may have heard, a decision on all of your requests

9 is expected to be issued next week.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something to say too in

11 relation to that, Mr. Orie.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may do so, Mr. Seselj. Could you inform us

13 about what kind of things would you like to further explain your requests

14 so that it can be taken into consideration or is there -- because if the

15 decision will be issued in the beginning of next week, of course it would

16 be important to know what that decision is before commenting on it. But

17 if it would contribute to the quality of the decision, then you have an

18 opportunity to speak at this moment, Mr. Seselj. Please do so.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to draw

20 your attention to the fact that the representative of the Registry has for

21 the umpteenth time insisted on his opinion that my legal advisors do not

22 meet the criteria of the Registry. The Registry is trying to impose

23 defence counsel criteria on my associates and such criteria should not be

24 applied to my associates. I will never be able to meet those criteria

25 then.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, this sounds very repetitious to me. This

2 matter has been raised various times, and I think your position is

3 perfectly clear. If, in addition to decisions taken by the Trial Chamber

4 or by the Appeals Chamber, anything new should be introduced, then you are

5 invited to do so. But you are not invited to repeat positions that have

6 been expressed at various other occasions. Is there anything else you

7 would like to add?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then, Mr. Orie, you should caution

9 the Registry as well. They cannot go on repeating the same positions time

10 and again. For as long as they keep repeating their positions, I react to

11 them, because I simply cannot agree to that. There is no legal basis for

12 what they've been doing. In actual fact, they are trying to prevent me

13 from preparing my defence. That's the only reason.

14 An audio player was first referred to here and now. I don't need

15 an audio player. I never got one. If they offer me one, I'm not going to

16 take it because I don't need it. A video player I do need, for the video

17 cassettes from the court proceedings. So this is something that I had

18 already agreed upon at the time of pre-trial. Judge Schomburg, when I

19 asked for recordings of Status Conferences in the Serbian language, I was

20 offered video recordings. Then once the trial starts, that I receive

21 video recordings again. I saw that but now the Registry is trying to

22 impose something else on me, an audio player.

23 It is very important, Mr. Orie. Oh, you're so impatient. You

24 don't have time to listen to me, to hear me out and that's very important.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I would just like to say that the only

1 thing the representative of the Registry did is to tell the Chamber what

2 had been provided to you in the United Nations Detention Unit. As far as

3 an audio tape player is concerned, if the Chamber would decide that what

4 you might expect soon, certain material to be disclosed to you in audio

5 format, then you would need an audio player to listen to that material.

6 That's one -- I'm interested to know since you complained last

7 time about the video player not functioning, I now see at least the

8 representative of the registrar informed us that a video player was

9 provided to you in your residential cell and a back-up video player as

10 well. Are the complaints about the functioning of these video players,

11 are they dealt with?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about this

13 reserve video player. I got this other video player for the time being.

14 I haven't got any problems with it. But I insist, yet again, that I state

15 my views on the audio player. I think that is very important. And you're

16 not letting me do that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps at the end of the hearing, if that is -- if I

18 give you an opportunity to raise any additional matters.

19 Until now, we only heard that an audio tape player has been

20 provided to you. At a later stage, if there's any relevant issue to be

21 raised in that respect, you will get an opportunity to do so.

22 Anything else you'd like to add to it, Mr. Seselj?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Again, you didn't put it right, that

24 I got an audio player. I got a video player, Mr. Orie. Now you presented

25 an inaccurate fact. I only got a video player and nothing else.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I didn't say that you got an audio

2 player. I only said that the representative of the Registry informed us,

3 so that's his report, that you got an audio player. You will have an

4 opportunity at the end of this hearing to further comment on whether you

5 received it and what further comments you have.

6 I'd like then to move, unless there's anything else that, Mr.

7 Seselj, you'd like to raise at this moment, in relation to the report, the

8 progress report by the Registry. If not, then I'll move to the second

9 issue, that is, the reduction of the indictment.

10 The parties are hereby informed that prior to the start of this

11 Status Conference, I signed a decision by this Chamber reducing the scope

12 of the indictment. I take it that it has been filed, meanwhile, and I

13 will just set out, since it's -- you have not received it yet. No

14 translation is yet available, just to inform you, to update. I will

15 inform you about the content of that decision. The decision -- the

16 Chamber has issued its decision on the application of Rule 73 bis. The

17 Chamber will now inform you briefly of the content of its decision.

18 On the 31st of August of this year, the Chamber invited the

19 Prosecution to make proposals for the reduction of the indictment. This

20 invitation was initially declined, but led, ultimately, to the filing of

21 the Prosecution's submission on proposals to reduce the scope of the

22 indictment. In that submission, the Prosecution made a number of

23 suggestions, namely, the dropping of cumulative counts and the dropping of

24 charges relating to Western Slavonia, Brcko, Bijeljina, and one crime site

25 in the Nevesinje municipality set out in paragraph 27 of the indictment.

1 At the previous Status Conference, the accused was asked whether

2 he would like to make submissions on the matter, which he declined,

3 requesting only that he receives a full modified version of the indictment

4 when the process has been completed.

5 In its decision, the Trial Chamber accepts all of the proposals

6 made by the Prosecution in its submission on proposals to reduce the scope

7 of the indictment. Therefore, evidence will not be presented in respect

8 of the charges relating to the crime sites of western Slavonia, Brcko,

9 Bijeljina, and the crime site of Boracko Jezero or Mount Borasnica as

10 currently described in paragraph 27 of the indictment.

11 In addition, the Trial Chamber finds that evidence will not be

12 presented in respect of the charges relating to the crime site of Bosanski

13 Samac.

14 However, the Prosecution may present what the Trial Chamber has

15 termed, and I quote, "non-crime-base evidence" in respect of the crime

16 sites of Western Slavonia, Brcko, Bijeljina, Bosanski Samac, and the crime

17 site of Boracko Jezero/Mount Borasnica. The decision sets out what types

18 of evidence are considered non-crime-base evidence. Examples include,

19 pattern evidence and evidence that goes to proof of the purpose and

20 methods of the joint criminal enterprise charged in the indictment.

21 The Prosecution shall indicate the changes made to the indictment

22 in accordance with the Chamber's decision, by the substitution of the

23 relevant parts of the indictment with the words in square brackets and I

24 quote "Omitted pursuant to Rule 73 bis D of the Rules and the decision of

25 the Trial Chamber dated the 8th of November 2006."

1 This completes the summary of our decision.

2 In relation to the indictment, and I am now addressing the

3 Prosecution, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, in relation to the indictment, the

4 Chamber has one question on -- what we consider to be a minor matter and

5 that's not raised in the Chamber's decision. The Prosecution is invited

6 to clarify and either now or at another occasion if you should require

7 further time to prepare, the significance, if it has any, of the phrase, I

8 quote, "the Dubrovnik Republic" which is found in paragraph 6 of the

9 indictment. But the reference to the Dubrovnik Republic is not found in

10 any other part of the indictment, so the Chamber wonders whether it is of

11 any consequence to your case. As I said before, it is -- we consider this

12 at this moment to be a minor point.

13 Do you want to respond to it right away or would you rather delay

14 your response.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I can actually right away

16 explain this express used and why it is only used in paragraph 6. In

17 paragraph 6 of the indictment, we address the purpose and the scope of the

18 joint criminal enterprise. We, in particular, list the territories that

19 were targeted by the joint criminal enterprise and that is the reason why

20 the term "Dubrovnik republic" is used in the indictment because the region

21 around Dubrovnik and Dubrovnik itself was targeted to become part of

22 Greater Serbia. The Prosecution will not lead any evidence related to

23 events in Dubrovnik because that's not the scope of this indictment. We

24 will only provide documents such as the programme of the Serbian Radical

25 Party or the programme of the Serbian Chetnik movement which actually

1 refers to Dubrovnik as to become part of Greater Serbia.

2 In addition, we will actually present the expert witness Tomic, a

3 historian, who will address the so-called Dubrovnik republic as being part

4 of the historical concept of Greater Serbia, pursued long before the

5 accused and that the accused then actually referred to himself again.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, you're now explaining what kind

7 of evidence you will lead on the matter. My question was not what

8 evidence we could expect but, mainly, on what the Dubrovnik republic, what

9 its role was in the indictment.

10 I do understand that, although it is the Prosecution's case that

11 the Dubrovnik republic was not outside the scope of the joint criminal

12 enterprise, that nevertheless, none of the crimes charged to Mr. Seselj

13 committed through the joint criminal enterprise is situated in the

14 Dubrovnik Republic.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's correct, Your Honour. And we mention

16 it basically for completeness purposes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 We have no further matters in relation to the indictment to be

19 raised.

20 Is there anything you, Mr. Seselj, or you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff,

21 would like to raise in relation to the indictment, that is, what we find

22 in the indictment, what now the scope of the indictment is?

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have a question. Have you

1 set a deadline, a time limit for the Prosecution by which they are

2 supposed to give me the amended indictment? It's very important for me to

3 have the proper text, the redacted text, so that at every point in time, I

4 know exactly what the indictment contains and what it doesn't contain.

5 That has to be very clear.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Seselj, you are talking about an amended

7 indictment, whether we should call it an amended indictment. Under Rule

8 73 bis is another matter, because under Rule 73 bis(F), there is a

9 possibility, although we are not envisioning at this moment that it will

10 be used, but you never know, that parts of the indictment on which no

11 evidence is led could later be varied again.

12 To be very practical, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, could you tell us

13 when -- how much time would you need, you think, to produce an indictment

14 with the relevant portions replaced by omitted pursuant to Rule, et

15 cetera.

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I think that can easily be done

17 in two days.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Can easily be done in two days. Then take it that

19 since not much text will change, that it's mainly taking out and

20 substituting the portions taken out by one line always the same, that even

21 before you are finished that, perhaps you could already apply for that

22 line to be translated so it can immediately be put in place in the B/C/S

23 version of the indictment as well.

24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we will do that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 Mr. Seselj, on the basis of the answer given by Madam

2 Uertz-Retzlaff, I take it that it will take not more than two or three

3 days for you to receive such -- the new indictment in its redacted format.

4 Anything else?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Orie, perhaps there was a

6 problem with the interpretation. I did not say amended indictment, I said

7 reduced indictment. Amended is in the broader sense, but reduced is

8 reduced. Basically, it was not amended, it was reduced. Maybe there was

9 a problem with the interpretation. I was very precise but the interpreter

10 was not.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: That was exactly what the

12 speaker said.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the interpreters confirm that at least

14 that's how I understood it, that he used the word reduced indictment.

15 There is no reason at this moment to further explore that matter. If you

16 find it of great importance, I couldn't see at this moment that it would

17 be of great importance, apart from the general point, of course,

18 translation should be as precise as possible, then of course you always

19 could have reviewed the original tapes, see what you said, see what the

20 interpreters said.

21 At this moment, there is no need to further explore that. You

22 have explained now what you meant to say and that's understood by the

23 Chamber.

24 Anything else?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, I think that at this

1 point in time, that's not really important, but it may happen during the

2 trial, that some things are really important and there may be a

3 misinterpretation. Since the Prosecution can submit within the course of

4 two days the text of the reduced indictment to me, I request that they

5 also give a text of the pre-trial brief. There are two reasons for that.

6 The pre-trial brief was already made in two parts. The first part was

7 made for the first indictment and the second part for the expanded

8 indictment, only for the parts for which the indictment was expanded.

9 Now, since the indictment has been reduced, I believe that all

10 conditions have been met for the Prosecution to stand duty-bound to

11 definitely redact the pre-trial brief. That their pre-trial brief should

12 be in a single body of text, so that on the basis of their pre-trial

13 brief, within the time limit that you set, I submit my own pre-trial

14 defence brief. I cannot do that before I have the single text of the

15 pre-trial brief of the Prosecution, which strictly pertains to what is

16 contained in the indictment.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, since you already made such a request at

19 the last Status Conference, the Chamber has given this request already

20 some thought and therefore, the Trial Chamber immediately decides on your

21 repeated request.

22 At the last Status Conference, you observed that if the indictment

23 is reduced, that the Prosecution should be ordered to amend its pre-trial

24 brief to take account of the changes made to the indictment. The Chamber

25 does not agree with you, as explained before, the indictment will be

1 reduced only to the extent of removing certain counts and factual

2 allegations. The indictment is the central instrument giving notice to an

3 accused about the allegations brought against them and that pre-trial

4 brief does not have a comparably important role. It should be clear to

5 you from the newly-amended indictment which parts of the Prosecution's

6 pre-trial brief have been rendered obsolete, therefore, your request that

7 the Prosecution be required to make changes to its pre-trial brief is

8 denied.

9 Mr. Seselj, we are talking about pre-trial briefs at this moment

10 and you have raised the issue of time limit to be set for you producing a

11 pre-trial brief. Before I continue with the pre-trial brief, you are,

12 being your own counsel, Mr. Seselj, you are entitled at the beginning of

13 the trial, to make an opening statement in accordance with Rule 84 and

14 moreover, as an accused, you may be allowed, at the Chamber's discretion,

15 to make an unsworn statement under the control of the Chamber. That would

16 be in accordance with Rule 84 bis.

17 Could you, to start with, inform the Chamber whether you wish to

18 make, first of all, an opening statement, and second, to make an unsworn

19 statement under Rule 84 bis.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have planned to make an opening

21 statement during the second part of the trial, after the OTP has presented

22 his case and called all his witnesses, and at the beginning of the

23 presentation of the Defence case. But immediately following the opening

24 statement of the Prosecutor, I should like to make an accused's statement,

25 if you inform me how much time I shall have at my disposal, and if I am

1 allocated approximately the same time as that allotted to Mr. Milosevic

2 for his statement as an accused.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you inform us how much time was allocated to

4 Mr. Milosevic and whether that was an unsworn statement under Rule 84 bis

5 or whether that was an opening statement? Of course we could check in the

6 public records, but since you seem to be aware of it, if you could inform

7 us, please do so.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The opening statement of the Defence

9 by Mr. Milosevic was made during the first part -- second part of the

10 trial, and his accused statement followed the opening statement of the

11 Prosecutor, and I have the transcripts of the trial of Mr. Milosevic which

12 were published in the magazine, the Serbian Free Thought.

13 In my estimation, I would require at least three hours for the

14 statement of the accused.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll consider your request to be granted three

16 hours to make a statement under Rule 84 bis, and I do understand that you

17 have now announced that you have elected to make an opening statement at

18 the beginning of the Defence case, if it ever comes to that.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What do you mean if it ever comes to

20 that? I sure hope I will not die too, Mr. Orie. I sure hope that I will

21 be able to endure this process throughout.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, this was an inappropriate remark, but

23 what I meant, and of course you could ask me, what I meant is to say that

24 if, after the presentation of the Prosecution's case, there would be a

25 judgement of acquittal, that there would be no need to make an opening

1 statement at the beginning of the Defence case which will then not follow.

2 That's what I had in mind, just for your information.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are right, Mr. Orie, but the

4 first thing which occurred to me is that perhaps I might die during the

5 trial. I'm sorry. I withdraw my statement.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's accepted.

7 This about opening statements and unsworn statements, the other

8 matter I'd like to raise is a submission that was filed by the Prosecution

9 yesterday in English. So therefore, you will not have seen that

10 submission yet, because it has not yet been translated. It relates to a

11 matter you raised during the last Status Conference, to the various

12 submissions you made to the Prosecution on what you called "special

13 defences" under Rule 67(A)(i).

14 I told you that we would return to that. And what I first would

15 like to do is invite the Prosecution to just summarily present the content

16 of your yesterday's notification so that Mr. Seselj is at least aware of

17 what it contains.

18 MR. SAXON: Before I begin, Your Honour, we have brought

19 additional copies of this submission, if you would like them to be

20 distributed. Excuse me.

21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Do you mean in English?

22 MR. SAXON: One moment, please, Your Honour.

23 [Prosecution counsel confer]

24 MR. SAXON: If it would enlighten the parties present, we have

25 several copies of a document that summarises the submissions of the

1 accused. This is in -- which summarise the submissions and disclosures of

2 the accused under Rule 67. If this would further assist the parties and

3 the Chamber, I would be perfectly happy to turn these over right now.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Saxon, since Mr. Seselj can't read it at this

6 moment, you're invited to orally present in a summary which you would like

7 to bring to our attention.

8 MR. SAXON: Thank you. Very briefly, the Prosecution submission

9 filed yesterday summarised the disclosures pursuant to Rule 67 made by

10 this accused since 2003, two of which were actually filed with the

11 Registry. Those were submissions 103 and 104.

12 Very briefly, Your Honour. The Prosecution believes that none of

13 these disclosures or submissions fall within the scope of Rule 67(A),

14 rather, they address issues raised in the indictment and in the

15 Prosecution's pre-trial brief. They address substantive issues nor do

16 they address or name any potential witnesses that this accused might call

17 in support of any so-called special defence. They are more analogous,

18 Your Honour, to a defence pre-trial brief than any kind of notice

19 pertaining to a special defence.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give examples of -- just to focus any

21 argument on the matter, could you give us some examples where you

22 say "This is raised but this is a matter which is in our view not a

23 special defence" as we find it under Rule 67.

24 MR. SAXON: For example, Your Honour, submissions 103 and 104,

25 frankly, are attacks made against two potential Prosecution witnesses,

1 attacking their reliability and credibility. Submission number 136, Your

2 Honour, is a submission related to the issue of hate speech and whether

3 this accused could be convicted or not for using hate speech during the

4 war in the former Yugoslavia.

5 In the Prosecution's submission, Your Honour, these matters do not

6 fall within the scope of Rule 67. Submission 147 and 162 deal with the

7 crimes allegedly committed by John Paul I, the Roman Catholic Pope, as

8 well as the genocidal politics of the Vatican towards the Serbian people.

9 And it goes on and on and on, Your Honour. Some of them for hundreds, one

10 of them for over 2.000 pages. So in the Prosecution's submissions, Your

11 Honour, these materials do not properly fall within the scope of Rule

12 67(A).

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you seek any particular relief, Mr. Saxon?

14 MR. SAXON: No, we do not, Your Honour. We provided this

15 submission as a form of bringing more clarity to this issue for all the

16 parties.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

18 Mr. Seselj, where you said you had notified the Prosecution of

19 special defences, there seems to be some disagreement on whether these

20 notifications contain any special defences. I asked Mr. Saxon

21 specifically to give a few examples in order to make it possible, perhaps,

22 to focus, on the basis of these examples, to see what the disagreement

23 actually is. And I heard him saying that one of the notifications

24 explained that hate speech -- let me just look at what exactly he

25 said. "Hate speech and whether the accused could be convicted or not for

1 using hate speech during the war in the former Yugoslavia."

2 Now, I understand that hate speech is in the indictment presented

3 as one of the means of the contributions of the joint criminal enterprise.

4 MR. SAXON: Correct.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, Mr. Seselj, from what I now understand,

6 you seem to challenge or want to challenge that a hate speech could be a

7 way of contributing to a joint criminal enterprise, which could result in

8 criminal responsibility for crimes committed through such a joint criminal

9 enterprise.

10 The second example Mr. Saxon mentioned is that, in one of these

11 notifications, you have pointed at crimes allegedly committed by the Roman

12 Catholic Pope. Could you explain to us, perhaps, first of all, why you

13 consider this special defences under Rule 67?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, Mr. Saxon has not informed

15 properly you and your colleagues. Through these concepts of mine of a

16 special defence, and this is a single special defence concept, as part of

17 which I have submitted a number of notifications to the OTP, I'm not

18 primarily contesting hate speech as a form of a criminal offence. I will

19 be challenging it during the trial and in my pre-trial brief, but what I'm

20 doing is exhaustively informing the OTP in the form of a specific concept

21 of defence of the hate speech of Croatian officials, of Muslim officials

22 in Bosnia, of foreign, western statesmen, Jacques Chirac, Bill Clinton and

23 many others. And of course I'm not invoking any witnesses in that, but I

24 am invoking documents, namely, papers, books, et cetera. And all this is

25 marked and all the sources are properly indicated. So that Mr. Saxon has

1 actually misinterpreted the content of my specific special defence

2 concept.

3 Furthermore, within this concept, I challenge the very concepts of

4 a JCE, that is true, but within my concept of special defence, on the

5 basis of exerts from my public speeches, I show that not only did I not

6 spread hate speech and therefore spread propaganda in favour of the

7 commission of criminal offences, but rather on the contrary, opposed the

8 commission of criminal offences and pointed to the need to abide by the

9 provisions of international laws of war by all soldiers and by all our

10 troops, wherever the combat operations were.

11 As part of this concept, I informed the OTP that some potential

12 witnesses had been police confidantes of the communist police in

13 Yugoslavia at a certain point of time in the past. And it was on the

14 basis of police records about their activity, namely, some of them were

15 spies of western intelligence services, I submitted that information to

16 the OTP in advance as a special form of defence.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you are explaining to us what you are

18 setting out in these notifications. It all sounds, in my ears, very much

19 as just your defence. Therefore, I specifically asked you why you

20 consider what seems to be important matters for your defence, why they

21 would fall within the scope of the special defences under Rule

22 67(A)(i)(b). As an example -- would you, please, not interrupt me, Mr.

23 Seselj. One special defence is mentioned there, diminished or lack of

24 mental responsibility.

25 Just as with the other example given in 67(A) under (i)(a) where

1 it's called alibi, these are very special kind of defences which should be

2 known to the Prosecution in order to properly present its case.

3 What you just told us is legal argument, is challenging that the

4 Prosecution could ever prove that it's an evidentiary matter, but I have

5 heard nothing until now which would fall within the scope of special

6 defences.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I have thoroughly studied

8 Rule 67, in particular, item(1)(b). Here, there is a generic determinant

9 which then goes in specifying -- saying including a defence of diminished

10 mental responsibility. Not every special defence is defence invoking

11 diminished mental responsibility. It can be just one of the forms of

12 special defence. I do not intend to plead -- to defend myself by

13 diminished mental responsibility. That is quite clear to you, I hope.

14 But I do have special defence. Why is it special? And that is a crucial

15 question. Because you have not had such a special defence in any other

16 trial before this Court. It is ipso facto special because of that. No

17 one has had such a defence as yet.

18 And, fortunately, I have been here for four years, so I had

19 occasion to really diligently and thoroughly prepare myself. I worked

20 over these past four years and my associates, the entire team worked over

21 these past four years, whereas the OTP, until the last Status Conference,

22 failed to even examine the material which I submitted to them which you

23 could have seen from their reactions a few days ago.

24 JUDGE ORIE: So just to -- first of all, to avoid whatever

25 misunderstanding, Mr. Seselj, I think everyone agrees that special

1 defences under Rule 67(A)(i)(b) are not limited to the two that are

2 explicitly mentioned there. But listening to you, you said that the

3 defences were special because they were the first to be presented in any

4 case before this Tribunal.

5 May I then specifically ask you that, for example, factual

6 questions or legal argument on the role of a hate speech in the commission

7 of crimes, do you consider them by -- merely by presenting them for the

8 first time before this Tribunal special defences under Rule 67(A)?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I will certainly contest here

10 hate speech as a form of the commission of a crime, because that form of

11 the commission of a criminal offence is something which does not figure in

12 international humanitarian law until the moment of the outbreak of war in

13 the former Yugoslavia -- in the former Yugoslavia.

14 The form which exists is incitement which can be incitement of the

15 direct perpetrator or the direct and public instigation of people to

16 commit -- unidentified people to commit crimes. This is what the OTP

17 could not find and for failure to have such argumentation, it is actually

18 invoking something which international law did not actually have until the

19 outbreak of war in the former Yugoslavia.

20 This is something that I will constantly challenge during the

21 trial.

22 Now, what is a special form of defence? It is my intention to

23 show, through this, through it, that in Croatia, among the Muslims in

24 Bosnia, among the western politicians, leaders and public figures, there

25 were much more intensive, much more vitriolic forms of hate speech than

1 those ascribed to me. I'm trying to pipe down, but of course I cannot

2 always be successful in that. So I'm seeking to prove, through a special

3 form of defence, that the OTP has inappropriately pointed, singled out

4 just me from this whole group of people and events that I have just

5 described a moment ago.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you intend to prove and call that a special

7 defence that other leaders and western politicians and public figures,

8 that they used forms of hate speech that are far beyond what you have been

9 charged with. Is that a proper understanding of this special defence?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But this is just one segment of my

11 special form of defence because I bear in mind the practice of this

12 Tribunal of yours, according to which an accused -- if you will just allow

13 me to explain --

14 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Seselj. You earlier said that you

15 intended to bring the volume of your voice down but you would not always

16 succeed. I nevertheless urge you to try a bit harder and I accept that

17 you might not always succeed, but to just continue on the same level of

18 volume and saying that you will not always succeed doesn't help us out of

19 the problem that at a certain moment, we cannot hear the interpretation

20 anymore. Please proceed and try to do your best in this respect.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have tried to the best of my

22 ability, and have studied the former jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the

23 legal practice of it. And I have seen that in all other cases, an accused

24 cannot defend himself by saying others to have committed that crime,

25 others have killed, murdered, others have raped, others have looted,

1 others have destroyed, et cetera. That is your jurisprudence.

2 However, the specificity of my form of defence is based on the

3 fact that the OTP is trying to single out my words from a concrete

4 historical context showing, thereby, me to be some sort of an exception,

5 in actual fact, by making the wrong choice, by pointing to someone who, in

6 this verbal equalibristics, cannot be actually called most radical or the

7 most extreme.

8 So we have to observe this case within its historical context.

9 Through this special form of defence, I wish to emphasise this historical

10 context. If the French president, Jacques Chirac, can insult the Serbian

11 people by using the worst of insults and has no headache over it, it is

12 out of place for me to be put on trial here to be judged here for much

13 milder statements. That is the gist of my special defence concept.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will further deal with the special

16 defences issue after the break, after it has had an opportunity to discuss

17 among themselves the submissions you made, both Mr. Saxon and you, Mr.

18 Seselj.

19 Mr. Seselj, at the last Status Conference, you observed that the

20 Chamber had not set a deadline for the submission of the defence pre-trial

21 brief in accordance with Rule 65 ter(F). As you correctly observed, Rule

22 65 ter(F) provides that the pre-trial Judge shall order the defence to

23 file a pre-trial brief addressing the factual and legal issues in the

24 case, the nature of the defence case, and other matters listed under the

25 Rule. The Rule also states that the defence pre-trial brief should be

1 filed no later than three weeks before the pre-trial conference.

2 For various reasons, including the assignment of counsel between

3 late August and late October 2006, the pre-trial Judge did not set a

4 deadline for the defence pre-trial brief.

5 Mr. Seselj, would you please clarify, first of all, whether you

6 wish to submit a pre-trial brief.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I assume that it's clear

8 to you on the basis of my entire conduct over these past four years, I

9 would not evade that at the cost of life itself. It never crossed my mind

10 to give up on that particular right and that obligation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then inform you, Mr. Seselj, that generally,

12 a -- the filing of a defence pre-trial brief is looked at, as a rule,

13 which invites the defence to already give a look into what it wants to

14 present and it is usually not looked at as something which is much in

15 favour of the defence. But, of course, if you take a different approach,

16 if you take the approach that it would be in your favour to already inform

17 the Prosecution and the Chamber about what your case will be, similarly,

18 for the same reason, you're not under an obligation to make an opening

19 statement, you want to defer that to a later stage and keep your cards

20 close until that moment, you have an opportunity to do so, and even you

21 already told us that you would use that opportunity.

22 But of course it's up to you. But it's just one observation where

23 you said that you would not give up that right, whereas some people would

24 see it as an obligation they wished not to be under rather than a right

25 one could exercise. But I leave it to you, Mr. Seselj.

1 Do I understand that you wish to file a pre-trial brief?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I feel so superior in

3 relation to the Prosecution that I am not worried at all that perhaps I am

4 going to disclose quite a few of my arguments to the Prosecution. I would

5 prefer to have a readier Prosecution, not those who have this lack of

6 readiness. For four years, they didn't read the material that I sent

7 them. I am informing them about everything so they would be as ready as

8 possible because this is a chance of a lifetime for me to prove my

9 superiority.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, this Chamber does not deal with superiority, Mr.

11 Seselj, but with other determinations to be made.

12 Mr. Seselj, you are aware that a pre-trial brief is limited to

13 15.000 words, are you?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I demand, Mr. Orie, that you rule

15 that my pre-trial brief can be of the same volume as the total pre-trial

16 brief of the OTP, and it's about 75 pages, if my memory doesn't fail me.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that request is on the record. We'll consider

18 it.

19 How long would you consider you would need to prepare your

20 pre-trial brief?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From the day when you notify me,

22 well, I think up until a month. That would be the maximum, because my

23 people are already working on the brief. They have the main elements, now

24 they have to put it all together nicely, and to compile it properly in

25 line with the new reduced indictment.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.

2 May I address the Prosecution? The three weeks' time limit

3 between the filing of the pre-trial brief and the Pre-Trial Conference is

4 considered by this Chamber, but please comment on it if you take a

5 different view. It's just a provisional position of the Chamber is mainly

6 there in order to give an opportunity to the Prosecution to study it and

7 to see whether it would like to deal with it in the opening statement.

8 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, does the Prosecution, first of all, take a

9 similar position? And second, if there would be less time between the

10 Pre-Trial Conference and the filing of the pre-trial brief, would that

11 bother you?

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we have studied the Rules and of

13 course 65 ter(F) is mandatory and there is these three weeks' period in

14 there, but we think according to Rule 54, the Trial Chamber is in a

15 position to override this time limit. This is actually the position that

16 we take. But from the purpose of the Rule 65 ter(F), which is actually to

17 enable everyone involved, including the Judges, to be aware of the

18 Defence, we think the time limit that is necessary to comply with is that

19 the pre-trial brief, the Defence pre-trial brief should be available to

20 everyone and the Judges before the trial starts.

21 We do not think it's necessarily to have to be three weeks, but

22 before the -- before the Pre-Trial Conference, but it needs to be

23 available at least at the moment when the taking of the evidence starts so

24 that the Judges and the Prosecution is fully aware what the Defence is and

25 can actually ask the appropriate questions to the witnesses that come up.

1 I have actually --

2 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you one question to start with.

3 You're referring to Rule 54, not to 127. Is there any specific reason for

4 that?

5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, yes, Your Honour. Because 127 refers

6 to -- it says here "Save as provided by paragraph (C), a Trial Chamber or

7 Pre-Trial Judge may, on good cause being shown by motion." We saw that

8 Rule 127 actually needs an action from one of the parties.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And therefore we thought Rule 54 would

11 actually be more appropriate when the action is actually coming from the

12 Bench itself. That's why I refer not to ...

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's clear why you have chosen to refer to Rule

14 54. Anything else?

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, I actually want to make a proposal

16 because I think that nobody in this courtroom, in particular not the

17 accused, would actually want to delay the trial. Everybody wants to

18 actually start the trial. And I was thinking how to facilitate both, that

19 is having a pre-trial brief in front of everyone before the evidence

20 starts, and having not a -- one-month delay of trial. And I actually --

21 and my colleagues agree to this. We felt it would be probably a solution

22 that to -- to set a deadline for filing of a pre-trial brief in relation

23 to Hrtkovci only because -- in most likely in this year, we will only hear

24 evidence on Hrtkovci. And if the accused will actually prepare a

25 pre-trial brief on Hrtkovci only, giving a page limit of perhaps 10, 15

1 pages, and that -- if that would be available before the trial starts,

2 let's say in a deadline of ten days preparing this document in relation to

3 Hrtkovci, and then taking into consideration the translation of the

4 document that needs to be done, we could actually start by the end of this

5 month with the trial.

6 The remainder of the pre-trial brief related to all other issues

7 that are here in the indictment and at stake could be filed during the

8 Christmas break, in January. That's actually a rather practical proposal.

9 Perhaps the situation could be solved without delaying the trial.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you heard the submissions made by Madam

11 Uertz-Retzlaff -- let me just finish, please. The submissions one -- I

12 would say, fundamentally, taking the position that a pre-trial brief

13 should be file before the start of the trial. I have not asked yet, but

14 we'll perhaps do that in the second trial, whether that would be the same

15 as well if the opening statement is delayed until the beginning of the

16 defence case. She further suggested that you would not want to delay the

17 start of the trial. She pointed at the fact that the evidence to be heard

18 in the very early stages of the trial would be limited to the events in

19 Hrtkovci which we find mainly in, I think, paragraph 33 of the indictment.

20 Would you please give your views on these practical, procedural,

21 and also to some extent, matters of principle, raised by Madam

22 Uertz-Retzlaff.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These are purely matters of

24 principle, Mr. Orie. And I will strictly adhere to the Rules of Procedure

25 and Evidence. That is where I see my chance to be, to strictly abide by

1 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Rules say at least three weeks

2 before the Pre-Trial Conference, not the beginning of the trial.

3 All of a sudden, the Prosecution is in a hurry. I've been waiting

4 for four years and I've been hurrying and now all of a sudden, they're in

5 a hurry. Out of this material that was submitted to me by the

6 Prosecution, I see that they still haven't translated into Serbian over

7 100.000 pages of documents that they handed over to Hooper, Van der Spoel

8 and whoever. They say this for each and every document. This doesn't

9 exist in the Serbian language. They still have to have this translated.

10 For four years, they have been hoping that I would be denied the right to

11 represent myself and ...

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the Appeals Chamber disappointed you, Mr.

13 Seselj. Is that what you said -- you said that you would be hoping that

14 you would be denied to represent yourself. Well, whatever the situation

15 is, you are representing yourself at this moment.

16 Mr. Seselj, you started to be a bit repetitious on complaints

17 about disclosed material not translated to you that has been dealt with at

18 an earlier stage. What kind of material should be disclosed to you, in

19 what language, and what format. There is no need at this moment to repeat

20 that. Is there anything else in response to --

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is something new, Mr. Orie.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I would appreciate if you would not

23 interrupt me.

24 Mr. Seselj, is there anything else in response to what Madam

25 Uertz-Retzlaff addressed that you would like to bring to our attention?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, there are two things. First

2 of all, I am going to submit a single pre-trial brief.

3 Secondly, I am going to appeal. I am going to seek certification

4 to appeal regarding your decision that the OTP can stick to their old text

5 of the pre-trial brief.

6 Thirdly, a very important matter. What I refer to is something

7 that I got yesterday, so I am not repeating myself. I got this only

8 yesterday and I found out that there is over 100.000 pages of documents

9 that they just kept in the English language, they didn't have it

10 translated into Serbian yet, hoping that I would not be able to represent

11 myself.

12 I'm not disappointed by the ruling of the Appeals Chamber but I

13 claim that it is an illegal decision because it was made on the basis of a

14 falsified appeal. They did not represent my wish. Whereas my right to

15 defend myself is a natural inalienable right and I fight for it to the

16 very end. It is not a right based on the ruling of the Appeals Chamber,

17 it is a natural right.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I misunderstood where you said "they

19 would be hoping." I understood "I would be hoping." It surprised me a

20 bit but it's now -- I have re-read it on the transcript and it's clear

21 what you said and also that my -- what I said after that is irrelevant.

22 Yes, Mr. Seselj, anything else you'd like to ...

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I renew my request. Since

24 last time, you refused me the explanation that my right to defend myself

25 had been taken away, do you remember? I asked for three working days per

1 week. I renew that, highlighting health concerns, because I had back

2 surgery, I have asthma, I'm being treated for high blood pressure, and now

3 I have ulcers in the upper part of my stomach, so that is a new reason.

4 And there is another reason. I represent myself, so I need a bit more

5 time during the course of one working week.

6 So an optimum would be to have -- for me would be to have three

7 working days per week as in the Milosevic case.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever the long-term scheduling will be, Mr.

9 Seselj, you may be aware that although for other reasons a slower schedule

10 has been granted at the request of Mr. Hooper, at that time, that this

11 decision has not been reversed and that would go until Christmas. So

12 therefore, until such a decision would be referred, we would sit, if the

13 trial starts, as scheduled recently by the Trial Chamber which is a -- I

14 think it was two days a week November, and three days a week, December.

15 Second, you're talking about health concerns. It would certainly

16 assist the Chamber that if there are any health concerns not being dealt

17 with in the past yet, because I remember that we had some issues about

18 your asthma, et cetera. If there's any new information, the Chamber would

19 like to receive that, but preferably provided by qualified persons, that

20 is, doctors or nurses who specifically deal with it.

21 Then the last issue, you said you would seek a certificate to

22 appeal the decision the Chamber rendered -- let me just see, it was the

23 decision -- yes, that the Prosecution would not have to amend its

24 pre-trial brief on the basis of the meanwhile reduced indictment.

25 Do you apply for this orally and would you intend to give the

1 reasons at this moment, or would you prefer to do that in writing?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's much easier for me to do it

3 orally, Mr. Orie.

4 I believe that is a very important moment in these proceedings in

5 line with the appropriate Rule in the Rules and that the speed of the

6 trial and the fairness of the trial truly depends on that. That is what I

7 can say off the top of my head. If you want me to do this in writing, I

8 will do it even more thoroughly. So I am invoking the appropriate Rule in

9 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. I am convinced that all the

10 necessary requirements have been met.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the Chamber will consider whether your

13 preference to apply orally to such a certificate is the appropriate

14 procedure to be followed and we'll come back to that after the break.

15 Yes, I'm looking at the clock, and since the Chamber has a few

16 matters to consider at this moment, we'd like to have a break.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: And we will resume in half an hour. Well, let's say

19 a little bit more, quarter past 4.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will resume the hearing.

23 The Chamber has considered some of the issues that were raised

24 before the break.

25 First, Mr. Seselj, the Chamber would like to pay a bit more

1 attention to the special defences. The Chamber, on the basis of what we

2 heard from you, is not yet fully convinced that you make a clear

3 distinction between unique defences and special defences under Rule 67.

4 Also, the Chamber brings to your attention that the duty to notify the

5 Prosecution exists if there is a special defence, and that only such

6 notification of a truly special defence under Rule 67 would trigger an

7 obligation for the Prosecution to respond to that under Rule 67(A)(ii).

8 The Chamber invites you at this moment and -- to better inform us

9 about what your special defences are, just in one or two short lines. For

10 example, I give you two examples, one on the basis of the Rules. If, for

11 example, if you would want to raise a defence of alibi, then you could

12 briefly set that out by saying: My defence will be that I was not at

13 place X at time Y as charged in the indictment in paragraph 32. That

14 would clearly identify a special defence.

15 And just to give another example and referring to what you said

16 earlier, you said, and I tried to do it also in two lines, to show you how

17 you could inform the Chamber about your special defences, you would have

18 identified what you said before as to hate speech in the following way:

19 My special defence is that other political leaders both from the former

20 Yugoslavia and from Europe, United States, wherever you want to refer to,

21 used worse language than I ever did when they delivered their speeches.

22 That's just two lines of an indication of what then the special

23 defence would be.

24 The Chamber is inviting you to do so because, on the basis of what

25 you have submitted until now, the Chamber is not yet convinced that

1 defences you refer to constitute special defences and Rule 67(A).

2 Therefore, you are invited now to give us in such a short way what exactly

3 you define as being your special defences. You may do so.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try to explain that although

5 it's difficult to do in such a short period of time.

6 In terms of the translation or interpretation of your words, the

7 interpreter made a distinction between a unique and special defence. Did

8 you actually say that? Was that was said in the source language? I

9 believe that a distinction can be made between a regular and special

10 defence. A regular defence is a defence that is applied in all the cases

11 that you had until now before the International Tribunal. The Prosecutor

12 bears the burden of proof and the accused defends himself that he is not

13 guilty or not as guilty as the Prosecutor insists.

14 Now what I'm doing here is applying a special defence, namely,

15 something that is quite different from everything else you've had before

16 this Tribunal so far. Through it, I'm trying to prove that historical

17 circumstances, in which I operated, do not allow the Prosecution at all to

18 base their indictment on what they are basing it. That is the core of my

19 special defence, if you understood me better now.

20 So historical circumstances. From that context, the Prosecution

21 takes random statements of mine or fabricated statements of mine. They

22 even did that, and then they based the indictment on that. That is an

23 untenable method. That is why, as I investigated through my legal

24 advisors and professional team, these special historical circumstances, I

25 prove that the indictment is a total failure. It's amiss. That is as far

1 as hate speech is concerned.

2 As for portraying the causes of war and its consequences, that is

3 where the Vatican and the Roman Popes played the major role. It's not

4 something that accidentally took place in the Balkans between 1991 and

5 1993. That is the period of my indictment or up to 1995, or say 1999,

6 that other indictments include. But it is very clearly placed in a

7 certain historical context spanning a 1.000 years. That is what makes my

8 defence special and something -- and it is something that you did not have

9 before this Tribunal so far. That is the way I act in the case of some

10 presumed witnesses. I don't know whether these persons will actually

11 testify in my trial but they already have a subscription, so to speak, to

12 testify in different trials.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I invited you to identify one or more

14 special defences under Rule 67(A). You are now dwelling on issues as

15 whether witnesses will come up. That's not specifically what I asked you.

16 Are there any other -- you refer to the historical context in

17 general terms. You also specifically refer to the Roman -- the Vatican

18 and Roman Popes. Is there any other special defence you would like to

19 identify so that we are better able to understand whether the Prosecution

20 would be under any obligation to respond.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I'll do my best to explain

22 it to you, that this concept of mine, of a special defence, is a unique

23 one. It consists of several elaborates and several topics. One of the

24 topics is the role of the Pope and of the Vatican within the unique

25 concept of a special defence.

1 Second topic is an analysis of hate speech in the western press,

2 in the western public, by western politicians, by Muslim politicians in

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croat politicians in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is

4 to say that all of this is within a unique concept of a special defence of

5 refuting the portrayal of general historical circumstances that the

6 Prosecution has resorted to in my case and in all cases before that

7 starting with Dusko Tadic. I am challenging their approach to the history

8 of the Balkans from 1991 until 1993.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you said one topic was the context, the

10 second one was the hate speech in the western press. Is there a third

11 topic you would specifically want to draw attention to?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The third topic is joint criminal

13 enterprise. The fourth topic are my public speeches about the war and

14 telling volunteers and Serbs in general that they have to abide by

15 international laws of war, that they have to fight in a chivalrous manner

16 on the front line, how they should treat prisoners of war.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, is that topic that you challenge that

18 this could be proven; is that what your defence would be?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I really don't know how we

20 cannot be on the same wavelength here. I am trying to challenge the

21 indictment through a concept of a special defence and I'm challenging the

22 indictment in a way that was never done by anyone before this Tribunal.

23 I am challenging the approach of the Prosecution to the problem

24 through my special defence. As for my regular defence, to do that ...

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, it's just not clear. You say the fourth

1 topic are my public speeches. There are a few opportunities. You say I

2 want to address this public speeches in their historical context and

3 that's my special defence. Or you say, I want to challenge that I ever

4 gave such speeches and that's my special defence, or whatever. But I'd

5 like you to explain to me in one or two lines what, exactly, in relation

6 to your public speeches, your special defence would be?

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The first study, the first segment

8 which I submitted to the OTP concerned excerpts from my public speeches.

9 This was about 300 pages. With that study, I submit I -- here to the OTP,

10 here in the courtroom, 80 of my published books which contained the

11 former -- the point is --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Again, I'm going to interrupt you. I did not invite

13 you to say how many pages you submitted to the Prosecution. I invited you

14 to identify what your special defence in relation to, as you said, your

15 fourth topic, public speech, was. I gave you a few of the possible

16 examples. I invite you now to explain not the whole of the special

17 defence, but to identify what your special defence is. You challenge that

18 it happened or you say I want to put that in historical context or you

19 want to say it happened, but others did it. Everything is fine, but

20 please tell us what your special defence is in relation to your public

21 speech.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As regards my public speeches, my

23 special defence is that in the context of those speeches, which I portray

24 in integral form, everything which the OTP ascribes to me on the basis of

25 those witnesses is untenable because my public speeches testify to one

1 thing, several false witnesses of the Prosecution say something else.

2 My regular defence will be to challenge these statements of those

3 witnesses once they appear here. My special defence is to contest the

4 possibility for such statements of mine to have been made at all, the

5 statements that are ascribed to me by false witnesses. I hope that I was

6 clear now.

7 So from what I have submitted, it's quite obvious that what the

8 false witnesses are saying is impossible. Once I submit my regular

9 defence, I will adduce argumentation to prove that the false witnesses are

10 wrong, the argumentation which I have at my disposal. My special concept

11 demonstrates that what is in the indictment and in the fabricated

12 witnesses statements is completely untenable.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber has listened to you, Mr. Seselj.

15 What you have told us until now is that a comprehensive statement of what

16 your special defence will be.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That cannot be an exhaustive

18 description. This is a very simplified description in order for you to

19 understand me much more easily, Mr. Orie. It is too complex for me to be

20 able to put it in a nutshell. What I'm trying to do is to illustrate the

21 point of special defence for you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll consider that, Mr. Seselj.

23 Yes. Another matter which the Chamber would like to deal with is

24 the certificate you applied for, the certificate to appeal the decision of

25 this Trial Chamber not to order the Prosecution to amend its pre-trial

1 brief. You have given us the reasons. As you certainly are aware of, the

2 application of the -- of Rule 73, the test to -- the test for obtaining a

3 certificate being that the decision involves a issue that would

4 significantly affect a fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or

5 the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Trial

6 Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially

7 advanced the proceedings.

8 That test is of a highly legal technical nature, although you've

9 given already reasons for your oral application for a certificate. The

10 Chamber wanted to stress again the technical character of this test. I

11 would like to give you an opportunity to reconsider whether the reasons

12 you had given already would need any -- whether anything should be added

13 to that or whether you are satisfied with the reasons, or that you would

14 say: Give me an opportunity after the next break so that I can better

15 inform you whether I gave the complete reasons for my application or not.

16 We'll leave that to you, but the Chamber wanted to draw your

17 attention to this technical character of the test to be applied which, of

18 course, would require a similar technical approach in the application to

19 be made.

20 I don't know whether you want -- would like to respond to it right

21 away and say, no, what I've said is sufficient or you would say, no, give

22 me until after the next break and then I'll give you an answer. It's up

23 to you, Mr. Seselj.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should be very brief, Mr. Orie.

25 My view, the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution is, in terms of

1 importance, the second-most important legal act of the Prosecution in the

2 pre-trial stage. It is upon the content of the pre-trial brief of the

3 Prosecution that the very good measure, not as important as the

4 indictment, but in a very good measure, depends my concept of defence, my

5 own pre-trial brief, my accused's statement, and my conduct of the

6 questioning of the Prosecution witnesses. So that I have to bear in mind

7 not only the indictment but also the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution in

8 that entire process.

9 If the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution remains as it was, I can

10 face a dilemma to have to appraise something which does not exist in the

11 indictment but does exist in the OTP's pre-trial brief in terms whether I

12 should pay sufficient attention or not or any attention, and the

13 expeditiousness of the trial depends on that. So my own pre-trial brief

14 shall be much more precise if it is based on a single and revised text of

15 the OTP's pre-trial brief.

16 After all, Mr. Orie, the minute the modified amended indictment

17 was confirmed, the OTP immediately had to produce a new pre-trial brief in

18 accordance with the Rules, rather than submit an addition to its original

19 or old pre-trial brief.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything else you would like to raise under

21 Rule 73 as far as the reasons for the request for certification are

22 concerned?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I should like to voice my

24 conviction that it is upon the affirmative resolution of my appeal that

25 the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial depends.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you consider this to be then the complete

2 reasons or would you like to have an opportunity later today to add

3 anything to that?

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, these are general reasons

5 in principle. If I were to address you in written form, I would go into

6 more detail, but right now, I'm trying to exercise -- to express myself as

7 concisely as possible and I believe that I have been quite clear. If you

8 consider it necessary for me to state these things in writing, I can do so

9 but I believe that it would be better for us to stick to the oral

10 procedure because in that case, you can bring a decision faster, which

11 decision, I believe, will be the same whether I state my request orally or

12 in writing. But if there are any quandaries in respect of my request, I

13 am prepared to make a written submission within an appropriate period,

14 namely, within seven days.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not insist on you making this

16 request or giving the reasons in writing, and follows your suggestion to

17 deal with the matter orally, and informs you that if you would like to add

18 anything, you have an opportunity to do so today during this hearing.

19 Another matter, Mr. Seselj, you raised was about the audio

20 equipment. I told you that you would have an opportunity to further

21 explain to us what was on your mind.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is a very

23 important question and that you will have the patience to hear me out, Mr.

24 Orie.

25 The Prosecution, yesterday, informed, and I haven't quite added

1 this up, but this is over 100.000 pages of documents. This was submitted

2 this summer. This is 66 ter, 65(A) evidential material to Hooper, Van der

3 Spoel et cetera. So over 100.000 pages in all. Now, I feel, since now

4 the audio tapes and the audio player have become current, that the OTP is

5 actually not prepared to translate all this into the Serbian language for

6 me so that they are going to shower me with audio material. I don't know

7 what that concerns. It's probably hearing of witnesses in other cases,

8 statements of witnesses, what have you, et cetera. Of course you can

9 decide that that be submitted to me in audio form, but 100.000 pages of

10 audio material is at least 200.000 minutes because, of course, you know

11 how the examination of witnesses goes with the simultaneous interpretation

12 and so on and so forth.

13 So you want me to listen in my prison cell to 200.000 minutes of

14 material, that equals to 6.000 hours -- no, 3.000 hours, rather. 3.000

15 hours. Now you can calculate how many days that would be, about 400 days.

16 Now you find me a psychiatrist who will tell you if I listen to

17 that for eight hours a day, if we presume that, can one remain in his

18 right mind if one listens to audio cassettes for eight hours a day for 400

19 days. That is absolutely impossible. That's one thing.

20 Then another thing, we have over 2.000.000 pages of documents

21 which they tried to serve on me in electronic form. Now they have to give

22 it to me in hard copy, on paper. It goes without saying that will not

23 take 400 days. If they try hard enough, it can be resolved within 10 or

24 15 days.

25 Then again, there is another problem. If I receive all that

1 material on paper, you know, it is property of intelligent people to be

2 able to distinguish between the material from the immaterial, so I will

3 try to be intelligent. I will leaf through that material and try to

4 separate what I believe is of consequence.

5 So I'm leafing through these papers and I come across things, I

6 note things down and I prepare myself. That is, if I receive 100.000

7 pages of paper. If, however, I receive 100.000 pages on audio cassettes,

8 then I cannot proceed in this way to make the proper selection. I have to

9 listen to it all. How? How? Explain it to me. Of course I can do it

10 for 25 hours a day if I get up an hour earlier, but can one preserve one's

11 mental health in that way? I don't think so.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the whole issue started with the progress

13 report made by the registrar on the availability of equipment that would

14 allow you to listen to audio recordings. I now do understand, and that's

15 perhaps a related issue, although not exactly the same, that you are

16 strongly opposed against receiving or having disclosed to you any material

17 in audio because it would be an impossible task for you to listen to it

18 all. That is a bit beside the facilities given to you, but at least it's

19 now on the record what objections you are raising in respect of this in

20 general terms, referring to numbers of pages that were, as you said,

21 recently disclosed.

22 Any other matter in relation to the audio?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, a priori, I do not object

24 to being given some material in audio form as well but it should be

25 something which I can manage physically speaking. I'm not categorically

1 against. I can receive it all in audio and video form, but to the extent

2 that I can manage and handle it up to a maximum of 8 hours a day because

3 one cannot concentrate more than that. If it is on paper, I can proceed

4 much more quickly, I can work much more quickly.

5 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that you prefer to receive the material on

6 paper. You do not categorically say I would not receive material in audio

7 format but you are especially complaining about the bulk of the material

8 which would be too much to digest.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, is there anything you'd like to

11 add or to submit in respect of this? And I'm not seeking new debate on

12 the form of disclosure.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just one point. You have

14 received from the Prosecution the tables that we provided. Mr. Seselj has

15 them also in the Serbian language.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that about witness --

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's about the total number of pages of

18 transcript and associated exhibits. That is one table where we list

19 actually the witnesses and their materials, and also we have provided --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Has that been made available to Mr. Seselj?

21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, in the Serbian language and at a time

22 also, our disclosure log that we also provided in both languages. And as

23 you -- I just refer you to these two documents and I -- when I look at

24 them, I cannot arrive at the number of pages that actually the accused

25 just mentioned. I just refer you to the table and see for yourself.

1 It's -- I can't get -- I don't understand how he gets these numbers.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We will carefully look at the size of the material

3 disclosed either recently or in the past and what it would take to prepare

4 for the examination of witnesses. In the beginning, Prosecution

5 witnesses, what it takes to prepare for the cross-examination of

6 witnesses. Of course, it should all be looked at in its context but thank

7 you for referring us to the information you have provided in this respect.

8 Then Mr. Seselj, are there any other matters you'd like to have

9 put on the agenda for today? Because what the Chamber has in mind is to

10 take a little bit more time to deliberate on the issue of pre-trial

11 briefs, if possible, reach a decision and pronounce that decision today

12 after a bit of a longer break than usual, then dependent on whether we can

13 reach a decision or not, also to possibly deliver decisions on protective

14 measures. And then at the end, of course, we would like to know whether

15 there are any other matters that we should discuss during this Status

16 Conference.

17 What I would like to know is whether there are any such other

18 matters you would like to raise or Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, you would like

19 to raise. So if you would like to add anything to what I just mentioned

20 as being on the agenda today.

21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to agenda items, I

22 would actually like your opinion on our filings 89(F), 92 ter because we

23 have made these substantial filings quite sometime in advance but of

24 course we are aware that in other Trial Chambers, such filings are either

25 done immediately before a witness testifies or actually orally only and we

1 would like to hear guidelines from the Trial Chamber how they would like

2 to proceed in this regard. That's the one point. And the other one is

3 actually a question of whether you would like us to address the

4 certification issue because Mr. Saxon is actually in a position to do that

5 orally.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course -- well, if I may take it that Mr.

7 Seselj has preferred to deal with it orally and that he has, by now, given

8 the reasons he wanted to give.

9 Mr. Saxon, you have an opportunity to respond to that. At the

10 same time, if Mr. Seselj later today, would like to add something to the

11 reasons, then of course you would have an opportunity to respond to that

12 again.

13 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly, I'd like to

14 correct one comment made a few moments ago by the accused. The accused

15 suggested that after the Prosecution filed its modified amended

16 indictment, it had to produce immediately a new pre-trial brief. That is

17 incorrect. What the Prosecution produced was an addendum to its original

18 pre-trial brief and that was only because there were allegations that had

19 been added to the indictment in the modified amended indictment and so

20 there were allegations added and only those allegations that were added

21 were addressed in the addendum to the pre-trial brief.

22 This situation is very --

23 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. Saxon, you are now going to the substance of

24 the matter rather than to the criteria for a certificate, isn't it? I

25 have read the criteria for the certificate and -- unless you say it has a

1 direct impact on those criteria, but then please explain to us.

2 MR. SAXON: Well, in the Prosecution's submission, Your Honour,

3 the accused has not met the criteria for certification under Rule 73(B).

4 He has not established how the Chamber's decision would affect the fair

5 and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial,

6 and how an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber would advance these

7 proceedings.

8 Rule 73 bis (D), which was the basis of the decision by the Trial

9 Chamber, says nothing regarding the -- a submission of additional brief

10 and that is because this Rule applies to the scope and quantity of the

11 evidence, not the quantity of the evidence or the allegations. Therefore,

12 Your Honour, fairness in this case does not require additional explanation

13 in the form of an additional pre-trial brief.

14 That's all I have, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

16 Then any other matter you would like to raise, apart from the 92

17 ter and now the response to the certificate request? Anything other ...

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.

20 Mr. Seselj, is there anything you would like to have added to --

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I should like to add

24 something that I haven't said before. According to the directive on the

25 length of briefs, you caution me that the pre-trial brief could have

1 15.000 words. The OTP's -- the first pre-trial brief had around 15.000

2 words or so, don't take my word for it, I can't be quite sure or precise,

3 but the additional OTP's brief was about 7.500 words, counting the pages,

4 and they never asked for your leave to allow them to exceed that number.

5 And now they don't want to integrate that text. I want them to integrate

6 it to reduce it to 50 pages. Or if you should allow them to increase the

7 number of pages, I should like to be given a like permission to increase

8 my number of pages. And another thing which I should like to draw your

9 attention to --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I just notice at this moment that the

11 request to have a total number of pages the same as the Prosecution used

12 both in its pre-trial brief and the supplement to it is already on the

13 record, so there was no need to repeat that.

14 Then the second issue, whether they have to reduce it to 50 pages,

15 the Chamber ruled that there was no need at this moment to file a new

16 pre-trial brief. So that matter has been dealt with and your request for

17 a certificate is pending.

18 Please, any other matter for the agenda?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Orie, I do have something,

20 but if you will allow me, I should like to go back to what Ms.

21 Uertz-Retzlaff has stated. She tried to deny my statement that we are

22 talking about 200.000 pages or so. But take a look at this document, item

23 10 of this document disclosed by Vojislav Seselj. You will see that it

24 indicates 207.000 pages, that is just one document, just one dispatch from

25 the OTP to me.

1 I was actually very conservative when I said I refused to

2 accept -- to receive 200.000 pages in electronic form, not including those

3 that were -- that were actually submitted to Mr. Van der Spoel. So you

4 can see that this is 207.210 pages. So it seems that I am better

5 acquainted with the documents that the OTP submitted to me yesterday than

6 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff. I'm really amazed.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think perhaps some distinction should be made

8 between disclosure under Rule 66 and disclosure under Rule 68, but it

9 seems that that might explain the difference of view, Madam

10 Uertz-Retzlaff.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I was actually

12 concentrating on the material that was in English because that's what Mr.

13 Seselj had referred to. And I was actually under the impression he was

14 referring to transcripts and the like, but what he is now mentioning is

15 B/C/S material that was provided on DVDs related to Rule 68.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's on the record, your position, and Mr.

17 Seselj, your response is now on the record as well.

18 Is there any other matter you'd like to add to the agenda?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I address another question, Mr.

20 Orie? Please look at items 24 and 26. This was disclosed under 65(A) and

21 65 ter. Item 24, 12.150 pages of transcript in the English language or

22 232 audio tapes in the Serbian, which I should be given to listen to.

23 Item 26, 40.000 pages in English. So we are not talking only

24 about 68 -- Rule 68 materials, but we are talking about all the Rules on

25 the basis of which the OTP submits material to me. So far, on paper, and

1 in the Serbian, this is all that I have received from the survey made by

2 the OTP and I never refused it, except in one case, when they just

3 submitted a batch of documents without even a title as to what it

4 contained. So that one I refused. I sent them a letter asking them to

5 indicate precisely what was in the batch and to put the documents in

6 order.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, any need to respond to the last

8 remarks by Mr. Seselj?

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this reference to receipt number

10 24, that's correct, that's actually what I was referring to. That's the

11 English transcript and the audio files in Serbian language.

12 In relation to receipt number 26, just this point, the 40 pages of

13 English are actually the translation of the 34 pages in B/C/S. English is

14 usually --

15 JUDGE ORIE: It says 40.000. Is that what you are referring to?

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, 40.000 pages of English and 34.000 pages

17 of B/C/S. That's actually the translation -- referring to the original

18 and the translation. It's not that you have to add those to come up with

19 something like 70.000.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's still 34.000 pages.

21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, that's correct.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But the Chamber will -- Mr. Seselj, the Chamber will

23 certainly not ignore the issue of what it takes to prepare for the

24 cross-examination of witnesses during the presentation of the

25 Prosecution's case and what material will be used, and what it takes to

1 prepare for cross-examination. And the Chamber will not -- will also

2 include in its considerations the number of pages and the amount of the

3 material that is relevant for those witnesses and for their testimony.

4 Any other issue, Mr. Seselj?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Orie. You see, these

6 40.000 pages in English or 34.000 pages in Serbian, the Prosecutor never

7 tried to serve that on me. It was only given to Hooper, never to me.

8 As for item 24, they tried to serve on me 232 audio recordings on

9 computer disks and that is why I refused it. And you should do the math.

10 For 12 and a half thousand pages, even if they did have audio tapes, how

11 much time would be necessary to hear all of that?

12 Then another thing that's also important. The Trial Chamber

13 receives all documents on paper, in hard copy.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, before we continue, you said you refused

15 to receive that because it was in electronic format. If you would persist

16 in that, then the whole issue seems to not be very relevant. I mean what

17 you say: I've got no time to listen to the material which I refuse to

18 accept.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that you are willing to accept audio

21 files and -- because on the table, it reads that you refused and returned

22 it. If that's not correct, please tell us. If it is correct ...

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll tell you everything, Mr. Orie.

24 We really have to clarify this. Electronic recordings are one thing and

25 audio recordings are a different thing. I am refusing to receive anything

1 in electronic format, but I did not refuse audio recordings if these are

2 cassettes that are used on a cassette player. I am refusing everything

3 that has to do with computers because I refuse to use a computer and I am

4 fully clear on that.

5 I want to receive audio recordings but you should assess how much

6 a normal person can take and how much time it takes to hear all of that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, audio means you can listen to it. Video

8 means you can listen to it and you can view it, whether it's on a tape or

9 whether it's on a DVD or on a CD. I then think I perfectly understood

10 that you are not willing to accept audio material if it is provided to you

11 in such a way that you should put a disc in a computer or any player that

12 could reproduce that and then listen to it. Is that correct? And you

13 insist on receiving those audio in, I would say, the classical tape

14 format. Is that a correct understanding; yes or no?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only agree to classical format

16 because everything that has to do with a computer is something that I

17 categorically refuse and I stick to that. I am not going to receive

18 anything that's related to computers.

19 JUDGE ORIE: That means that you are not behaving -- or at least

20 that the acceptable format of disclosure in the 4th of July decision of

21 this Chamber is not accepted by you and that you will not seek to access

22 any material that is disclosed to you in any other format than the

23 classical audio or the classical video, that is, tape format. Is that

24 correctly understood?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You were very precise. Yes.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Any other matter for the agenda, Mr.

2 Seselj?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have one more brief

4 question. I have problems with studying the jurisprudence of this

5 Tribunal and this problem is caused by the Registry. I asked the Registry

6 several times to familiarise me with the jurisprudence and I requested

7 different kinds of documents from the jurisprudence.

8 So far, the Registry submitted to me only decisions, first and

9 second instance, and very rarely some other decisions in addition to

10 judgements.

11 However, when I asked for the Limaj, Bala, Musliu judgement, the

12 Registry told me that existed only in the English or Albanian languages.

13 Before that, I asked for judgements of the Rwanda Tribunal, first and

14 second instance, I was refused on that too, so I had to pay myself for

15 translations from English of some judgements that I was interested in.

16 But now since I'm asking about judgements of this Tribunal only, I ask

17 from you that you instruct the Registry to provide me with copies. Limaj,

18 Bala, Musliu case is one of the more important cases before this Tribunal

19 and I really want to familiarise myself with that judgement of first

20 instance in its Serbian translation.

21 JUDGE ORIE: From what I remember, this is a new episode in a

22 matter that has been decided upon before, but we'll consider the matter.

23 Your request is on the record.

24 Any other matter to be raised for the agenda, Mr. Seselj?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Orie, this is not a new

1 episode, because so far, I have received practically all judgements of

2 this Tribunal. Perhaps I haven't got a few of the latest ones.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I did not invite you to further expound

4 on the matter, but I asked you whether there was any other matter you

5 would like to raise for the agenda.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.

8 Then we will adjourn and the Chamber might need a bit more time to

9 see whether it can reach decisions mainly on the pre-trial brief matter.

10 That could easily take us another 40 to 60 minutes and then we'll have a

11 short last session in which we'll deliver decisions to the extent that we

12 have reached such decisions. I -- therefore everyone is asked to remain

13 on standby, at least on from five minutes past 6.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 5.23 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 6.42 p.m.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the Chamber will deliver a few decisions.

17 Mr. Seselj, the Chamber has decided to allow you to file a

18 pre-trial brief by the 23rd of November, 2006. The word limit you are

19 granted is 38.500 typed words, which is just above the total number of

20 words used by the Prosecution for its pre-trial brief and the supplement

21 to that brief.

22 Your pre-trial brief should deal with the Hrtkovci allegations, if

23 you have any submissions to make in relation to these allegations. It

24 should also deal with the main aspects of the Defence case, and as many

25 other specific matters as you are able to manage within the time frame.

1 You will be entitled to supplement your pre-trial brief by a

2 submission to be filed by Monday, the 8th of January, 2007. The

3 supplement, if any, should not repeat any material that you will include

4 in your pre-trial brief. The supplement should not have the effect of

5 extending the total word limit. This means that if you would use 30.000

6 words for your pre-trial brief, you will have a maximum of only 8.500

7 words left for any supplement. A written decision giving the full reasons

8 will follow in due course.

9 There will be another Status Conference on the 22nd of November,

10 2006, and we are scheduled on the 22nd of November in the morning hours,

11 so that would be at 9.00 in the morning.

12 The Pre-Trial Conference will be held on the 27th of November,

13 2006, to be followed immediately by the start of the trial and therefore

14 the opening statement of the Prosecution. The Prosecution should not take

15 more than two and a half hours for its opening statement.

16 Mr. Seselj, you will have the same amount of time to make your

17 delayed opening statement pursuant to Rule 84 at the beginning of the

18 Defence case, if it ever comes to that.

19 Mr. Seselj, you will be allowed to make an unsworn statement under

20 Rule 84 bis on the 28th of November, 2006. We are then sitting in the

21 morning hours. The Chamber will allow you two hours for this statement to

22 be given under the control of the Chamber as provided for by Rule 84 bis.

23 The hearing of Prosecution witnesses will commence on the 6th of

24 December, 2006. There will then be six consecutive days following that

25 date to hear Prosecution witnesses before the winter recess. This, as far

1 as pre-trial briefs and scheduling is concerned.

2 There are a few more matters, some of them relating to witness

3 protection, I'd like to deal with.

4 Mr. Seselj, at the last Status Conference, you said, and I

5 quote: "A few moments ago, when we referred to the question of sending

6 out confidential material, your decisions contained that question, too,

7 and you were blaming me for things like that and that is why you were

8 imposing counsel on me.

9 "The case that you referred to from last year was the case when I

10 telephoned a friend of mine, a party member, who is an official of the

11 city government in Novi Sad, and told him the name of a person who is a

12 criminal and a war profiteer. And I heard through the grapevine that he

13 should appear as a protected witness in some of the trials in The Hague.

14 I had no idea that he was meant to be a witness in my own trial, too."

15 That's the end of the quote.

16 Mr. Registrar, I'd like to go into closed session for a short

17 period of time, which will mean that the public gallery should be empty as

18 well.

19 [Closed session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 766-768 redacted. Closed session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

21 The Chamber has been informed that the Prosecution is able to

22 commence the presentation of its case with the witnesses for Hrtkovci as

23 well as with witness VS-017. This is a total of 10 witnesses, although we

24 understand that the witnesses VS-1137 and VS-1138 may not be called, due

25 to illness or other reasons.

1 We have received motions for protective measures in relation to

2 three of these witnesses.

3 VS-017 was assigned a pseudonym for these proceedings by a

4 decision dated the 16th of December, 2004. In the Prosecutor's eighth

5 motion for protective measures, dated the 7th of July, 2006, the

6 Prosecution additionally requested delayed disclosure of the witness's

7 identity and unredacted statements until 30 days before the scheduled date

8 of the witness's testimony. The latter request, if you would call that

9 witness in December, is now moot. It's approximately 30 days, and the

10 Chamber hereby orders the Prosecution to immediately disclose to the

11 accused, in unredacted format, the material related to witness VS-017.

12 In its eighth motion, the Prosecution also requested that VS-017

13 be granted face and voice distortion during testimony. The eighth motion

14 was received in translation by the accused on the 27th of July, 2006. A

15 reply from the accused has not been received by the Chamber. According to

16 information provided by the Prosecution, VS-017 and his family live in an

17 area where the risk of retaliation for cooperation with the Tribunal is

18 very high. VS-017 is expected to give evidence of the involvement of the

19 accused and a number of his alleged associates in crimes. VS-017 is very

20 fearful that he or his family will be harmed if it becomes known that he

21 appeared as a witness before the Tribunal. These circumstances justify

22 the grounds of face and voice distortion during testimony, as requested by

23 the Prosecution.

24 I am requesting the indulgence of the interpreters and the

25 technicians. I have another approximately two and a half page to be read

1 and remaining issues we'll deal with at the Status Conference next week,

2 but these are decisions which are important to be delivered.

3 I see nodding yes. Thank you for your understanding.

4 VS-053 was assigned a pseudonym for these proceedings by a

5 decision dated the 27th of May, 2005. In the Prosecutor's eighth motion

6 for protective measures, the Prosecution additionally requested face and

7 voice distortion during testimony. As the Chamber mentioned before, a

8 reply from the accused to the eighth motion has not been received by the

9 Chamber. According to information provided by the Prosecution, VS-053 is

10 expected to testify about crimes committed by an alleged associate of the

11 accused. VS-053 and his family live in an area where the risk of

12 retaliation for cooperation with this Tribunal is high. These

13 circumstances justify the grant of face and voice distortion during

14 testimony.

15 VS-054 was assigned a pseudonym for these proceedings by a

16 decision dated the 6th of July, 2005. The same decision granted delayed

17 disclosure of the witness's identifying information until 30 days prior to

18 the commencement of trial. In the Prosecutor's eighth motion for

19 protective measures, the Prosecution requested that the delayed disclosure

20 take place not later than 30 days prior to the commencement of trial,

21 but -- no, I did -- I misread. The Prosecution requested that the delayed

22 disclosure take place not 30 days prior to the commencement of trial, but

23 rather, 30 days prior to the scheduled date of the witness's testimony.

24 The latter request now is moot as well, if this witness will be called in

25 the month of December during the first six days. And the Chamber

1 therefore hereby orders the Prosecution to immediately disclose to the

2 accused, in unredacted format, the material related to Witness VS-054.

3 In its eighth motion, the Prosecution also requested that VS-054

4 be granted face and voice distortion during testimony. According to

5 information provided by the Prosecution, VS-054 frequently travels for

6 work-related reasons to an area where the risk of retaliation for

7 cooperation with the Tribunal is high. VS-054 is expected to testify

8 about crimes committed by an alleged associate of the accused who

9 continues to live in the area. The witness has raised concerns for his

10 personal security and is fearful that his public testimony at the Tribunal

11 will jeopardise his safety when travelling to the relevant area. These

12 circumstances justify the grant of face and voice distortion during

13 testimony.

14 The three witnesses with protective measures should be scheduled

15 by the Prosecution to appear in December.

16 In the interests of the smooth commencement of the trial, the

17 Chamber has decided ...

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: In the interests of the smooth commencement of the

20 trial, the Chamber has decided to order the Prosecution to immediately

21 provide the accused with the material relating to the Hrtkovci witnesses

22 whom the Prosecution intends to call, as well as with the material

23 relating to VS-017. The Chamber exceptionally invites the Prosecution to

24 consider providing this material to the accused in hard copy and in a

25 language the accused understands.

1 The Chamber wishes to emphasise, that in accordance with our

2 decision on the form of disclosure, dated the 4th of July, the Prosecution

3 is not obliged to provide any material to the accused in hard copy. The

4 decision does require that the accused be provided with equipment and

5 technical support to make effective use of material disclosed to him in

6 electronic format.

7 In the future, if the accused does not avail himself of this

8 equipment and technical support which is offered to him, he will be

9 choosing to deprive himself of access to disclosed material. In the

10 present instance, however, in order to prevent any further delays to the

11 start of the trial, we exceptionally invite the Prosecution to accept this

12 burden, to the benefit of the accused.

13 The Prosecution is required to arrange for the testimony of the

14 accused in the Milosevic case to be provided to the accused in audio

15 format. This is material which might be used in the examination of one of

16 these witnesses to be called in December. The testimony of the expert

17 witness Ewa Tabeau, also from the Milosevic case, must also be provided to

18 the accused in audio format.

19 The Registry is requested to ensure that the accused is provided

20 with reasonable assistance for the purpose of effectively utilising

21 material disclosed in audio format.

22 As to the admission into evidence of the material relating to the

23 aforementioned witnesses, decisions on this matter will be deferred to the

24 time when the witnesses appear to testify.

25 The Chamber is aware that the Prosecution has filed a motion,

1 dated the 13th of October, 2006, for Witness VS-053 to testify through

2 videolink, due to health reasons. As far as the Chamber knows, this

3 motion has not yet been translated or served upon the accused. The

4 Chamber kindly requests the Registry to inform the legal staff of this

5 Chamber as soon as the document has been translated and served upon the

6 accused.

7 Finally, the Chamber informs the parties, that in cases where a

8 rapid decision is required of the Chamber, and where it is appropriate, it

9 may be more efficient to make motions orally before the Chamber, having

10 requested permission to do so.

11 These were the decisions the Chamber wanted to deliver. There are

12 no other matters at this moment on the agenda the Chamber would like to

13 deal with. Where I earlier said the Status Conference of next week, of

14 course, I wanted to refer to the Status Conference scheduled for the 22nd

15 of November, 2006, which is, of course, two weeks from now and not next

16 week.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: There being no further items on the agenda, and

19 announcing that if Mr. Seselj -- I was just saying that I would announce

20 that if there is any further matter that should be discussed, it should be

21 done at the next Status Conference. Of course, I wouldn't -- I do not

22 know what you intended to say, but if you -- you have 30 seconds to

23 explain to me what you wanted to raise, not to raise it as such, because

24 then the Chamber will decide whether it's really urgent enough to ask for

25 the further indulgence of the interpreters and the technicians or whether

1 we could deal with the matter on the next Status Conference.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to do it in 20 seconds.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you're invited to use the microphone.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You have just now trampled on your

6 earlier decisions to have all the protected witnesses named disclosed to

7 me a month before the trial. So none -- in none of the cases, it will be

8 a month.

9 Second, you are cautioning me of something which happened prior to

10 the appellate decision, which actually -- since the decision waiving my

11 right to representation. You have already experienced a fiasco with your

12 decision with the decision of the Appeals Chamber.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you've used your 20 seconds. Nothing you

14 said in these 20 seconds causes me to not delay any further matter to the

15 next Status Conference. We stand adjourned.

16 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

17 7.15 p.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25