1 Wednesday, 4 April 2007
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the accused into the courtroom, please.
7 [The accused entered court]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
9 the case, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour. This is case number
11 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecution versus Vojislav Seselj.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today, Wednesday, the 4th of April, 2007, I'd like to greet the
14 Prosecution, Mr. Seselj who has just entered the courtroom, and everyone
15 else assisting us in our work, in particular the registrar, the usher,
16 and everyone else in and around the courtroom.
17 This is the second Status Conference since we met three weeks
18 ago, and I said on that occasion that we would have a meeting every two
19 or three weeks to prepare for the beginning of the trial in the best
20 possible conditions.
21 In the court, this hearing in the presence of the Prosecution and
22 Mr. Seselj, I intend to deal with all the pending motions, to take stock
23 of these motions, and this concerns in particular the problem of
24 translation and the responses of the parties concerned. But, first of
25 all, I would like to remind everyone of the fact that the main purpose of
1 a Status Conference is to allow the parties to communicate as best as
2 possible, in particular with regard to exhibits. And Judge, the
3 Pre-Trial Judge, must also ensure that the dialogue between the parties,
4 the Prosecution and the accused, runs as smoothly as possible. My main
5 concern is, therefore, to establish a permanent and fruitful dialogue
6 between the parties concerned.
7 I will now inform the parties, the Prosecution and Mr. Seselj, of
8 the administrative situation as far as the Trial Chamber is concerned.
9 First of all, I would like to inform Mr. Seselj of the following, because
10 there was a minor error in the motion that concerns contempt of court.
11 The President of the Chamber and Judge Robinson -- I'm just the Pre-Trial
12 Judge, and the third Judge is Judge Bonomy. This case has been assigned
13 to Trial Chamber III which is presided by Judge Robinson, which means
14 that in all the documents, all the motions must have in the heading
15 Judge Robinson as the Presiding Judge. I am just the Pre-Trial Judge.
16 The last Status Conference, I informed Mr. Seselj that I was
17 going to contact the President to deal with appointing the Chamber that
18 will be responsible for the Seselj case. For the moment, no decision has
19 been taken. So I'm not in a position to inform Mr. Seselj which
20 Trial Chamber will be dealing with his case, since this is a matter for
21 the President of the Tribunal to decide. He designates the Judges who
22 will take part in the trial.
23 As everyone is well aware, there are three Trial Chambers in this
24 Tribunal: Trial Chamber I, Trial Chamber II, and Trial Chamber III.
25 They are first-level Trial Chambers, and they deal with cases that are
1 assigned to them. They deal with the trials assigned to them. But given
2 the completion strategy and the need to complete the Tribunal's work as
3 expeditiously as possible, given the need to put all the accused on trial
4 expeditiously, ad hoc Trial Chambers may have to be established that
5 include Judges that are part of or members of other Trial Chambers.
6 As a general rule, a Trial Chamber is composed of a
7 Permanent Judge and of Ad Litem Judges; there can be a Permanent Judge
8 and two Ad Litem Judges, or two Permanent Judges and one Ad Litem Judge,
9 or we can have three Permanent Judges, but it's for the President of the
10 Tribunal to decide on such matters, on the composition of Trial Chambers.
11 At present, I'm not in a position to tell you, Mr. Seselj,
12 anything about the composition of the Trial Chamber that will be
13 responsible for your case.
14 And the second administrative matter I want to deal with and that
15 I would like to inform you of is the following: When there is a trial, a
16 trial requires a lot of administrative staff members: The registrar is
17 responsible for the exhibits of the case; it requires an usher, who
18 brings the witnesses into the courtroom; and the trial also requires
19 interpreters, as we are working in three languages: your own, English,
20 and French, it is necessary to have interpreters. And we also need
21 security officers, which means that a trial requires administrative
22 staff, but that's not the only thing. The Judges require assistants to
23 help them with their work, and they also need the assistance of
25 As far as assistants are concerned, the procedure in a trial is
1 as follows: There's a P5 assistant, who is the Legal Officer responsible
2 for the assistants; and below that person there is a P4 Legal Officer;
3 and there is the Trial Chamber's Legal Officer, whose grade is P3; and
4 the Judges have an assistant, whose grade is P2 as well. All trials are
5 automatically composed of such staff members.
6 Since I've been designated to be a member of Trial Chamber III, I
7 only have one assistant who's currently for me and assisting me; I have
8 no one else. And that, Mr. Seselj, means that once the Chamber has been
9 finally composed, all these assistants will be designated; for the
10 moment, that is not the case.
11 In addition, as you are well aware, we have three courtrooms in
12 this Tribunal. Today, we are in Courtroom I. We also have Courtroom II
13 and Courtroom III. These courtrooms are constantly functioning. This
14 morning in this courtroom, there was a hearing, an appeals hearing, and
15 this afternoon there will be another trial. So all the courtrooms are
16 fully occupied. And this means that there is an annual plan that is
17 established for the trials that are ongoing.
18 At the moment, there are three Chambers dealing with six trials
19 because there are hearings in the morning and then in the afternoon. And
20 the Tribunal is working even more intensively since -- or will be working
21 even more intensively since the seventh trial is being prepared. Yours
22 or your trial will be added to this total number of trials; that means
23 eight trials, we will have eight trials, and we have three courtrooms,
24 and this will make it necessary to adapt and manage the work of the
25 Tribunal so that we can deal with eight trials in three courtrooms.
1 I have spoken to the Registrar, who is the administrative
2 individual responsible for all such matters, and I will convey to you
3 what the Registrar told me. We have budgetary rules that make it
4 possible to fund the personnel, the trials, and I believe that funds have
5 been provided for six trials, not for eight. This causes a problem. How
6 can we finance eight trials, given that the budget we have at our
7 disposal is a budget for six trials?
8 Naturally, it might always be possible to ask everyone to make
9 additional efforts. I myself, as I told you last time, I myself am
10 involved in another trial. This afternoon, I will be sitting in another
11 trial, so one can also ask Judges to work more. We can ask their
12 assistants to work around-the-clock. All such things are possible.
13 Everything is possible, but at one point in time the funds will be
14 exhausted, and in that case we'll run into serious problems.
15 I would, nevertheless, like to re-assure you and tell you that
16 the Registrar said that he would do his utmost to deal with these
17 problems. And I believe that we will all do everything we can to ensure
18 the expeditious commencement of your trial in the best possible
19 conditions. So I wanted to explain all of these matters to you for you
20 to be aware of the fact that a trial requires certain logistics,
21 administrative logistics.
22 A minute ago, I mentioned interpretation. Interpretation is a
23 subject that I have to address with you, Mr. Seselj. I need to draw your
24 attention to the fact that from time to time, there might be some errors
25 with regard to what has actually been said by all the parties involved.
1 Recently I was informed of the fact that here we have the benefit of
2 simultaneous interpretation; whereas, there are other procedures that can
3 be followed. For example, interpretation can also be consecutive.
4 As you can see, what is being said here appears instantaneously
5 on the screen that you have before you at this speed and the fact that
6 the interpretation is simultaneous, according to very qualified
7 individuals, means that there can be a 20 per cent margin of error when
8 it comes to simultaneous interpretation. This also concerns the sense of
9 what is said -- in fact, as far as the sense is concerned, there is a 10
10 per cent margin of error, and this margin of error or these errors can be
11 corrected in two ways. We can follow the English version on the monitor,
12 and if we understand French or your language, corrections can be made;
13 but as you will be defending yourself and if you're not assisted by
14 anyone, you won't be focused or you won't be completely focused on the
15 screen. When I speak to you, I don't follow what appears on the screen
16 at the same time.
17 If we subsequently discover that what you said was erroneously
18 interpreted or interpreted in a rough manner, you can always say, Well, I
19 said such and such a thing, and I wanted to point out the fact that the
20 English word doesn't correctly reflect what I actually said. So you
21 always have the possibility of correcting such errors, but I wanted to
22 draw your attention to this factor, this difficulty. I have also noticed
23 that when I listen to answers of questions put to a witness -- well, I
24 can't always follow the interpretation.
25 I wanted to point out the fact that sometimes there can be
1 problems when it comes to interpretation, but it's always possible to
2 correct any errors made later on.
3 So, Mr. Seselj, before we deal with the subject of motions, I'd
4 like to say something else about administrative matters in conclusion.
5 The Registrar has provided me with information about the facilities that
6 you have at your disposal. The Registrar has informed me of the
7 following, and you will tell me whether this is correct or whether
8 anything needs to be clarified or corrected.
9 As far as administrative matters are concerned, I'll now tell you
10 about what has been done to make sure that you can defend yourself under
11 the best possible conditions. You have a special cell for your
12 confidential files, and this cell could also be used by you as an office.
13 You have a telephone line and a telecopier so that communications will be
14 protected by professional secret. I have also been told that in the
15 penitentiary area, you have a room reserved for meetings that you will
16 have with your legal advisors and with the assistant that will be
17 entrusted with the case.
18 The jurisprudence of the Tribunal is at your disposal in your own
19 language. The administration have provided you with a computer and a CD
20 and DVD device, as well as technical assistance for the use of those
21 instruments, but apparently you have refused these devices. The
22 administration is suggesting some basic training for the use of the
23 e-court system for your legal assistants, because there is an e-court
24 system which requires some knowledge of the system, and the
25 administration is ready to train your legal advisors in its use.
1 You may also obtain all the video-recordings of the hearings
2 through the assistance of the department for judicial assistance, and you
3 will be able to have a recorder so as to review all the hearings, and the
4 administration will provide you with all the necessary equipment.
5 The administration has also proposed a liaison officer for you,
6 but apparently you didn't want one. The administration tells me that a
7 monthly allowance had been envisaged for the assistant entrusted with the
8 case to help you with the preparations, to act as an intermediary between
9 you and the administration, et cetera, et cetera.
10 The administration have also informed me that they are in the
11 process of assigning your legal advisors; therefore, from the point of
12 view of the administration, the relationship between you are protected by
13 confidential -- professional confidentiality. Therefore, your
14 assistants, being familiar with the confidential documents, are obliged
15 to respect this confidentiality.
16 Furthermore, I have been told that your assistants, when they
17 come to The Hague, their travelling expenses will be covered by the
18 Tribunal once per month. And to allow your advisors and the assistant to
19 help you in the most effective manner, an apartment will also be provided
20 and the costs covered by the Tribunal.
21 Finally, I have been told that all these facilities envisaged by
22 the Statute go beyond those that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic had at his
23 disposal, who, like you, provided his own defence. So that would be the
24 situation with regard to the position of the administration with respect
25 to the facilities which have been put at your disposal for your defence.
1 In the list I have gone through, there are two that you didn't
2 want. Perhaps you will tell me the reasons why, because I am totally
3 unaware of those reasons. This is what I wanted to say as a preliminary
4 introduction before we actually undertake the examination of various
5 pending motions to see where we stand with them and to discuss the
6 various problems.
7 So at this stage, Mr. Seselj, I give you the floor, if you wish
8 to comment on the points that I have just covered so that I can hear your
9 views and we can find out the points of disagreement and the points with
10 which you are satisfied. So I give you the floor, Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, first of all, I
12 should like to comment on the question of simultaneous interpretation,
13 which you have highlighted. Four years ago, I raised this problem at a
14 Status Conference, in view of the fact that at The Hague Tribunal when
15 talking about the total number of staff members from the territory of the
16 former Yugoslavia, a very large number of them are of Croatian ethnicity,
17 and this wouldn't bother me when it comes to interpreters, if some of
18 them did not frequently use newly fabricated words.
19 You know, Mr. Antonetti, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims all speak
20 Serbian, the Serbian language. The Croats accepted the Serbian language
21 150 years ago because they didn't have their own literary language, so
22 they neglected their own Kajkavian and Ekavian, which they took over from
23 the Slovenes. What happened then was that Croats started making up new
24 words so that their language should artificially be differentiated from
25 Serbian, and that is the only thing I am bothered by when I hear a new
1 word that I never heard of before.
2 This is not the case with the interpreter I am listening to just
3 now. I have noticed that she is Croat, but she's interpreting quite
4 correctly and I haven't noticed that she used any such invented words.
5 But there are some who do this on purpose, and often this can be
6 irritating, and especially in some cases I don't even know their meaning
7 if they were made up only a couple of days ago.
8 So this is a problem that should be borne in mind. It can be
9 resolved but with instructions to the interpreters not to use newly
10 compiled words, not a word that wasn't in the dictionary 20 or 30 years
11 ago and especially not a word that was made up after the dissolution of
12 Yugoslavia. Those are words that I simply do not know. 90 per cent of
13 Croats themselves are unable to use them, and at least 50 per cent don't
14 understand them.
15 I have been given a protection by decision of a Trial Chamber,
16 and that is that after every Status Conference, I get a video-recording
17 of that conference. This is to check what I myself have said and the
18 witnesses who may be testifying, who will mostly be speaking in Serbian.
19 So the problem is that your transcripts are English or French. So what
20 is necessary is for those transcripts to be reviewed and checked after
21 the hearings.
22 I'm unable to follow the English transcripts in the courtroom.
23 My knowledge of English is not sufficient for me to be able to rely on
24 it, nor can I because I have to concentrate in another direction. But in
25 any event, what I receive on a video-recording, my legal advisors will
1 take down on paper and then I can use it, and I can intervene later on if
2 somebody is incorrectly quoting in another document. So that is a
3 guarantee of some sort that I have.
4 Those recordings of Status Conferences would be given to me
5 immediately the next day - that was the decision - but it took a whole
6 week for me to receive the recording from the last Status Conference, and
7 I had to address a special request to remind them. But also, it was the
8 first time that the last Status Conference was not broadcast on the
9 internet because my assistants could follow on the internet, and then
10 they could take it down on paper even before they receive my videotapes
11 from me. The last Status Conference for vague reasons and
12 incomprehensible reasons were not broadcast. I can make my own
13 speculations as to why that is so, but I'll avoid -- refrain from doing
15 What the Registrar has informed you of with respect to the
16 facilities for my defence is partially true. I have been -- I have
17 received promises from the director, and I believe that he will fulfil
18 those promises, that I will have a telephone, a fax machine, a
19 photocopying machine, and that I will have another cell as an extension
20 to my own. It is simple to break -- to make a door in the partitioning
21 wall so that these two cells would be connected. If they're not
22 connected, then whenever I need to go to the cell with the documents, I
23 have to look for the guard to unlock it.
24 I got up today at 4.00. I usually get up between 4.00 and
25 5.00 a.m., that is when I work best; however, those cells are unlocked at
1 7.00 a.m. But you know when you're an intellectual and when an idea
2 occurs to you if you're able to work on it straight away, you can do so;
3 but if you have to look for the guard and to ask him to unlock the door,
4 the idea may evaporate. And I do hope that the warden will fulfil his
5 promises, and then I can use the offices that are used by any other
6 attorneys when consulting with their clients. I do not insist that this
7 should be just my own room if I am given this extended cell for my
9 The jurisdiction was never given to me. I have managed to get
10 only the first-instance and second-instance judgements, though some have
11 still not reached me even though they were handed down several months
12 ago, probably it's due to the translation problems. I have asked for the
13 entire case law, the pre-trial decisions and rulings, the appeals,
14 rulings, and et cetera. But the registry has regularly refused to give
15 me this.
16 I have also asked to be given in Serbian the decision of the
17 International Court regarding Rwanda because the Judges have frequently
18 referred to that case, especially in footnotes. The Registrar refused
19 this, and the Pre-Trial Judge said I had no right to have this, and I had
20 to find the funds to pay translators in Belgrade to translate the
21 judgements of The International Court for Rwanda, which for me were
22 important so as to be able to respond to the submissions of the
24 You know, Mr. Antonetti, that the International Court for
25 Yugoslavia and the one for Rwanda are closely linked, not by the nature
1 of their work, but they are organically linked because for a long time
2 they had a single Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber for Yugoslavia
3 was also the Appeals Chamber of the International Court for Rwanda, and
4 it was the duty of the Registrar to provide me with the translations of
5 all their judgements. They would not translate the judgements for the
6 Albanians, so that I had to have them translated myself; that is, to pay
7 for their translation in Belgrade. That is the Musliu and Limaj case and
8 Beqa Beqaj case. We have had two cases so far.
9 So these are problems involving a great deal of money and a lot
10 of work, and the Registrar should have done all this because the entire
11 case law of this Tribunal should exist in the Serbian language, of course
12 in French and in English, because all the people involved in the conflict
13 in Yugoslavia, with the exception of the Albanians, spoke Serbo-Croatian
14 regardless of how they call it. Some call it Croatian; some Bosnian, a
15 language that never existed; some are now calling it Montenegrin, but
16 according to linguistics, it is all one and the same language, the
17 Serbian language.
18 I have been offered a computer and a DVD; I refused those, first
19 of all because I don't know how to use a computer, and I never had any
20 necessity to learn. I used to be able to play a game of chess on the
21 computer, but for my legal work I had no need because I had a secretary
22 who would do that instead of me. So why should I spend time to gain
23 knowledge of this equipment when I have someone else to do it for me?
24 As for the DVD, I really don't need one. Why? Because when the
25 Prosecution gives transcripts from other trials in the file, they do so
1 on paper when they provide those documents to you, usually in English.
2 And what they would do for me would be on a computer disk, and then I
3 would have to listen to this. This would require an enormous amount of
4 time; whereas, 90 per cent of that time would be wasted. This must be on
5 paper because if it is on paper, then I can leaf through the document and
6 focus on the essential points. If I receive this on diskette, then I
7 literally have to listen to everything in the slow way in which it is
8 done in the courtroom. This is, in a sense, preventing the accused to
9 defend himself.
10 With regard to some disks that I was offered - I think I said
11 this on the 3rd of November at a Status Conference - I said that I would
12 need 400 days to hear all those disks if I were to work eight hours a
13 day, and that is simply impossible. Everything has to be on paper and
14 only on paper is this valid for me as a document because documents have
15 to be on paper by definition.
16 A computer is a technical appliance, as are the disks, and
17 scanning of documents, et cetera. But unless something is on paper, it
18 doesn't exist as a document. And if it's not on paper, I can't use it in
19 the preparation of my defence.
20 As far as my legal assistants are concerned, I appreciate the
21 Registrar's concern to train them, to ensure that they are capable of
22 having access to the electronic database so that they can find documents
23 in the courtroom, documents that are needed very rapidly. But you know
24 their status hasn't yet been regulated. Only one thing has been dealt
25 with, and that's the fact that their appointment as my legal assistants
1 has been accepted, but they are professionally involved in Belgrade, and
2 they work in Belgrade for me during their free time, after their work.
3 In order for them to come to The Hague, they have to resign from
4 their posts in Belgrade. And they then have to commit themselves to my
5 defence alone, and in that case they should be adequately paid on a
6 monthly basis. The Registrar persists in refusing to accept this.
7 I recently had three conversations with John Hocking, the Deputy
8 Registrar. We addressed all these matters, but we have failed to find a
9 common understanding so far. The registry refused to accept the fact
10 that it's their duty to finance my defence according to the Statute. He
11 says that is the case only if counsel is assigned to me, but that's not
12 what the Statute says, that's not the only way my defence can be funded.
13 I can't give up my fundamental right to defence myself because the
14 registry blackmails me and says that only if I have assigned counsel will
15 the defence be financed.
16 I'm saying I'm not going to make too many requests. If they
17 don't want to pay for my defence, I'll just appear in the courtroom and
18 defend myself. But then I'll be alone in the courtroom, no one will be
19 with me in The Hague, no one will come to see me, perhaps I'll have some
20 telephone conversations with people who might help me from Belgrade.
21 They've said that I've been granted more facilities than
22 Slobodan Milosevic had been granted. Well, what have they granted me?
23 Once a month, they'll pay for an invited to come to The Hague. They'll
24 pay 1.500 euros to the case manager, and they'll provide me with a flat
25 that's worth 1.200 euros a month. And that's quite true, Mr. Milosevic
1 didn't have such facilities, but I'd like to remind you of the fact that
2 Mr. Milosevic never raised the issue of the finance of his defence and he
3 didn't request funds for his defence. He didn't ask for anything and
4 they didn't give him anything. He never wanted to write a single written
5 submission. He was consistent in his position that the Tribunal was
7 My position is somewhat different. I dispute the legality of the
8 court, but I have to accept the physical existence of this Tribunal. I
9 will still bring into question the legality of this court, but I will use
10 everything that I -- all the means I can to defend myself, even if the
11 Tribunal is not a legitimate one. So my position is significantly
12 different from that of Mr. Milosevic and comparison is out of place.
13 In this case, as far as -- as far as a liaison officer is
14 concerned, I don't see what his role would be. I just need someone from
15 the registry to provide documents. So far this hasn't been done. I was
16 provided with the amended Rules very belatedly. I don't know when these
17 Rules were last amended. The last amendment I have is dated the 13th of
18 September. Perhaps it was amended after that date, but I always received
19 the amended Rules several months late.
20 Sometimes I received the amended rules in Serbian after three or
21 four amendments had been made. The registry should have records showing
22 when I was provided with a given version of the Rules, and then this
23 matter will be clear. Because since I have been here, there have been 16
24 amendments of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and only on five or
25 six occasions was I provided with the new amended version of the Rules.
1 So you can see for yourself how conscientiously they performed
2 their duties. As far as an agreement with my legal officers are
3 concerned, it will be signed once I have the text of the agreement in the
4 Serbian language. My legal advisors have been shown that text or were
5 shown that text in English in December, and they couldn't sign the text
6 without my agreement, and I am requesting that I first be provided with
7 it in the Serbian language, and then I can authorise them to sign it.
8 The registry is still waiting, and they tell you that they are
9 ready to sign. They are far from ready to sign until I'm provided with
10 this in the Serbian language, and until I tell my legal advisors that
11 they can sign it. How am I to know what they will be signing for the
12 moment? The legal advisors have been allowed to come once a month. One
13 legal advisor every month. Second one, second month, and then the third
14 one on the third month, and then it's impossible to work systematically
15 with these advisors. And so I told them, all three of you will come once
16 every three months. John Hocking, at the last meeting said -- or,
17 rather, promised he would consider the issue and perhaps allow the three
18 of them to come once a month, but this has not yet been decided on.
19 As far as these legal advisors are concerned, they have to be
20 professionally engaged in my case, which means that the registry has to
21 assess on the basis of all the relevant information how much my defence
22 will cost in the pre-trial phase, in the trial phase while the
23 Prosecution calls its witnesses, when the defence calls its witnesses,
24 and during the appeals stage, and then they should say this is the total
25 cost for the defence, this is how much I can pay.
1 I provided them with information of my own property. They said I
2 didn't want to cooperate. I can't cooperate if the members of my -- or
3 if my close family or distant family members don't want to speak to
4 investigators from the registry, a certain Jovanovic appeared, a
5 Slovenian, who has origins in Valjevo. He arrived at the gate to my
6 house. My wife saw him from the balcony, told him she thought he was
7 disgusting and wouldn't let him enter the house. My mother didn't want
8 to speak to him. She said she didn't participate in any crimes I may
9 have committed, and she didn't want to suffer the consequences. But what
10 is a fact is that from the time these alleged crimes were committed, I
11 didn't transfer any property to anyone else, to members of my family, et
13 So how can one talk about a lack of cooperation? I am
14 cooperating. I said I had $70.000 in a bank in New York, and you know
15 what the consequences were? Someone from this Tribunal ordered that that
16 money should be blocked. I contacted the Serbian consul in The Hague, he
17 had contact with the American consulate, and he received in writing
18 information according to what someone had decided that that money over
19 there should be frozen and that all transactions had been banned unless
20 it concerned paying some American lawyer I might engage in order to
21 defend me before this Tribunal.
22 Naturally, I would rather lose that money than accept such
23 blackmail. That money has been in the account since 1989. It was
24 honestly won. It was before the war. I'm not a refugee from The Hague
25 Tribunal. I'm not fleeing from The Hague Tribunal, and I was prepared to
1 use that money.
2 This money should be transferred to Belgrade and then the
3 registry can say, Well, $70.000, that's the amount I'll give to
4 participate in my defence and the outstanding amount will be covered by
5 the registry. I'm not asking for the registry to pay money into my
6 account, but they should assess the cost of the defence and they should
7 say the main legal advisors, Zoran Tasic has such and such an amount, or
8 I should provide a list of 25 or 27 individuals and say such and such an
9 individual costs such and such an amount, these are their accounts, pay
11 But the registry refuses to consider paying for such defence.
12 They don't want to do that. I've continued to raise this issue, but even
13 without such funds I'll defend myself. But, Mr. Antonetti, you know that
14 this trial cannot be a fair trial if I do not have the adequate funds at
15 my disposal for my defence.
16 What are the correct criteria of which you use to assess the
17 costs? I made three requests. Firstly, that the registry should make
18 public how much money was paid to Aleksandar Lazarevic, the first
19 stand-by lawyer. Van der Spoel, the second stand-by lawyer and his team
20 because he formed an entire team in agreement with the registry. How
21 much money did Cooper and his team had been paid? This was all in the
22 pre-trial phase. This could provide certain guide-lines but they're
23 keeping this as kept a a secret. UN funds can't be kept secret, this has
24 to be made public, and I will not cease to make a request for this to be
25 made public.
1 And my second request is that I should be provided with
2 information as to the costs of the defence in all the other cases
3 financed by the International Tribunal. My case is a third-category
4 case. It's the most difficult case. My crimes are the most widespread
5 crimes. Everyone else has been charged with crimes in one or two states,
6 I've been charged with crimes in three states. That's the most
7 complicated case. So let's see what the objective criteria are.
8 A new crime has been invented in my case, a crime that never
9 existed before in international law, a hate speech. So it's not
10 incitement to commit crimes. There's public and direct incitement,
11 incitement to loot, rape, et cetera, or encouraging perpetrators to
12 perpetrate certain crimes through acts or omissions, but my passionate
13 speeches are supposed to have incited the desire in others to kill or to
14 rape. So this is what such hatred speech is supposed to mean.
15 This also has an effect on the funds I need for my defence. I
16 have to engage lawyers throughout the world. For example,
17 Jacques Verges, the well-known French lawyer; lawyer Levy; Noam Chomsky,
18 et cetera, et cetera. Because these incredible things in my indictment
19 has to be analysed into its component parts, and I have been preparing
20 myself psychologically and in professional terms as well. Without
21 professional assistance, it's probably impossible for me to analyse all
22 these matters. This is the main problem that has to be dealt with here.
23 My third request was that the Prosecution should provide
24 information as to how much money they spent in my case for investigators,
25 for administration, for typists. This would also indicate certain
2 Don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking that the same amount be
3 spent on my defence as was spent on the Prosecution when they were
4 preparing the indictment against me, but there should be some sort of
5 ratio. Perhaps they are more greedy, perhaps they like spending more,
6 they like money more, et cetera, et cetera. I understand all of that,
7 but that is an indication of the cost of my defence, if taken together
8 with other indicia.
9 I want to compare my case to the cost of the defence in other
10 cases; for example, in the Krajisnik case, in the Seferovic case -- I
11 apologise in the Sefer Halilovic case, and in other cases that have been
12 brought before this Tribunal, so that we can see what the situation is.
13 And I am saying this openly and I am using facts, but they are keeping
14 all of these matters secret, and they don't respond. It's futile for me
15 to write hundreds of submissions, and they remain silent and they repeat
16 the same story. They say I don't have such rights, and in my opinion I
17 have such rights.
18 If you come to the conclusion that I don't have the right to have
19 my defence financed, I'll agree. I'll accept that I should sit here on
20 my own, and that I should defend myself without the assistance of anyone.
21 If that is how you would like things to work, if that's the procedure you
22 would like us to follow, I'll accept that procedure and then we can start
23 with the trial tomorrow.
24 I will do nothing to postpone the beginning of the trial. I
25 haven't done anything to do that to date, but I'm fighting for my
1 procedural rights to the extent that I'm capable of doing that and in a
2 way that was not pleasant for the registry and the previous Pre-Trial
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At this stage, does the
6 Prosecution wish to intervene regarding various points raised by
7 Mr. Seselj? And I wish to say that I myself will make a few points of
8 clarification regarding a certain number of points raised.
9 Mr. Saxon, do you wish to intervene?
10 MR. SAXON: At this point, no, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 You have said a number of things, and as a Pre-Trial Judge, I
13 will respond to them but without speaking on behalf of the Chamber but
14 only in my own name within the framework of the authority vested in me by
15 the Rules.
16 Regarding the questions of interpretation, you noted that certain
17 new terms have been introduced, specifically by Croat interpreters. This
18 is something I was totally unaware of. I will certainly ask the service
19 in charge of the interpretation to tell me what their position is, and I
20 have taken note of this point which you have drawn my attention to.
21 Concerning the numerous motions and requests that you have made
22 with respect to the registry and to which you have not received replies,
23 according to you, you have asked to be informed of the amount spent for
24 certain trials and you named those trials. I personally don't know why
25 the registry has not responded - that is their responsibility - but only
1 with regard to the documents that are available to all regarding the
2 financing of the Tribunal. As you know, the UN General Assembly
3 determines the budget, and there are documents that are available to see
4 the various items in the budget. And on that basis you can gain
5 information. This may not be quite precise, regarding the distribution
6 among the various trials, and I quite understand that. But this is a
7 question of your relationship with the registry, and this is not
8 something I can deal with. It is their responsibility and not mine if
9 they do not reply to your request.
10 You also touched upon another point and that is the question of
11 remuneration of your assistants. You already said last time, and I
12 understood, that the three assistants were deputies in parliament in
13 Belgrade just now, and that they were waiting to learn how they would be
14 engaged here, so as to resign their positions there and come to your
16 You have told me just now that there is an agreement that is
17 about to be finalised but which has still not been translated into your
18 language, which is delaying things.
19 Regarding this financial aspect, the registry has told me the
20 following, the Registrar, and I personally have no response to give you.
21 The legal position is the following: Pursuant to Article 24(D) of the
22 Statute -- 21(4)(d) of the Statute, the accused has the right to have a
23 Defence counsel of his choice, a counsel assigned to him, or the
24 appointment of counsel if he has not -- doesn't have the funds to pay.
25 And the Tribunal relies on the provisions of 21(4)(d) of the Statute.
1 Again, the Registrar says: In order to benefit from such aid, the
2 accused must request the appointment of an assigned counsel and
3 demonstrate that he is partially indigent.
4 In view of this position of the Registrar and your position, I
5 note that there is, indeed, a problem there, which still has not been
6 regulated. I hope that the Registrar will find a solution. I have had
7 several working meetings with him, and for him to find a solution to this
8 legal problem between the Statute and the budgetary rules, he may have a
9 solution, and that would be to consult the legal counsel in the UN to see
10 whether this interpretation of aid can be interpreted in such a way that
11 your assistants' costs should be remunerated and covered. This is a
12 budgetary issue which really is quite beyond me, but I note on the basis
13 of what you have told me that, for the present, this question has not
14 been regulated at all.
15 You have also raised another point which was of interest to me,
16 because I quite agree with you, and that is the question of documents.
17 Like you, I believe that in order to work well, one must have documents
18 in paper, hard copy documents, not in electronic form. You have
19 explained why, and like you I am in agreement with you because I also can
20 only work on the basis of documents. As a jurist, the use of documents
21 with the help of computers is for me difficult. It does not allow one to
22 work under the best conditions.
23 Therefore, on this point I agree with you. But I wish to
24 underline that I am a member of a Trial Chamber and that my colleagues
25 may not agree with me. But as far as I am concerned, in my personal
1 opinion, I believe that one should be able to work on the basis of
2 documents. And I will be coming back to that in a moment when we examine
3 the question of motions.
4 You have also indicated something which seems to me to be common
5 sense, and that is a question of two cells that should be connected so as
6 to allow you to consult your documents whenever you need to do so without
7 looking for a guard to unlock the cell. This seems to me quite logical
8 that this should be done, the more so that you told me that it was done
9 in the case of Mr. Milosevic.
10 So there's no reason why you should not have two connected cells
11 so that you can move from one to another to work when you like. As you
12 have said, you like to work from 4.00 a.m., and I don't think that this
13 should be a problem. This can be resolved very quickly.
14 Last time, also, I told you that I personally intend to go to
15 visit the conditions that are available to you for preparing your defence
16 and the facilities that are made available to you in the Detention Unit.
17 Before touching upon the motions now, I should very briefly like
18 to cover what we are duty-bound to do at a Status Conference, and that is
19 the question of your state of health. And according to what the doctor
20 has told me, there are no particular problems which would prevent your
21 presence at trial, and therefore I have received a medical report, a
22 detailed one, dated the 13th of March, 2007, which tells me that you are
23 able to follow the proceedings without any problem.
24 Concerning now the issue of motions. There are two sources:
25 There are yours and those of the Prosecution. Let us first examine your
1 own motions. First of all, there is motion number 250 concerning a
2 request for an inquiry into the question of contempt of court. The
3 Prosecution has to respond, and now I turn to Mr. Saxon to see when the
4 Prosecution will file a response to the Chamber.
5 MR. SAXON: One moment, please, Your Honour.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon, we're not
9 touching upon the content. I'm just asking you the date when you will
11 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, we're having a
12 technical problem right now. Could the Legal Officer perhaps tell us the
13 date when this motion was filed?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The motion by Mr. Seselj is
15 dated the 8th of March, 2007. It's a motion that was registered with the
16 registry on the 23rd of March. So the motion was drafted in his language
17 on the 8th of March; then it was sent to the translation service, and it
18 was translated into English and registered on the 23rd of March. I have
19 a reference number here D17364. And according to the Rules, you have 14
20 days to respond and that would -- that deadline would expire on the
21 6th of April.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would ask for an extension of time
23 until Tuesday of next week to respond, because I have asked the
24 investigators in my office, who were mentioned in this motion, to review
25 their records that are related to the allegations, and as some of these
1 allegations relate to events that go back years, I would ask to have
2 until Tuesday of next week.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So I can grant you
4 an extension so that you may respond.
5 Once this response has been registered, together with my
6 colleagues in Chamber III, we will make our decision with respect to that
7 motion. That is one motion which is currently pending.
8 There's also a motion filed by Mr. Seselj, the number is 240,
9 filed on the 11th of January, 2007, and this motion is addressed --
10 addressed to the Chamber, asks the Chamber to order the Prosecution to
11 convey to the accused several filings with regard to several persons. It
12 relates mainly to experts. I have been told that Mr. Seselj should have
13 received these documents on the 13th of February.
14 Mr. Seselj, have you received a response to your request?
15 Because I have been told that you should have received a reply on the
16 13th of February.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, microphone.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not true, what the
20 Prosecution says, Mr. Antonetti. I asked to be given the expert reports
21 in paper and in the Serbian language, which the Prosecution tried to hand
22 over to me in electronic form in -- last summer, sometime in July.
23 Instead of that, the Prosecution has now given me only their
24 introductory filings, with an indication that the expert report can be
25 found on DVD such and such. I have not received those expert reports of
1 Davor Strinovic, Zoran Stankovic, Ewa Tabeau, and Ivan Grujic. This was
2 on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of July last year that an attempt was made to
3 give me these reports in the form of diskettes, and the responses reached
4 me on the 9th of February in the form of just the introduction written by
5 the Prosecution saying that the diskettes are the reports. So, according
6 to my records, it was not the 12th of February, but the 19th of -- the
7 9th of February, I'm sorry.
8 If it is up to the Prosecution to respond on my submissions on a
9 special defence, then I have received their response, so I am not sure
10 what specifically this relates to. I have received this, but I can only
11 comment on it because I absolutely disagree with them. It is very
12 superficial; they have translated only two. Sometimes they have done
13 summaries, sometimes there are no summaries even, and this is absolutely
14 unacceptable for a serious discussion, because in those 15 documents on
15 special defence, I intend to examine many Prosecution experts and I will
16 also be examining Defence experts on these issues as well.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe I've
18 identified the problem, and I believe that the Prosecution agrees with
19 you. The Prosecution sent you the documents on disk.
20 Is that correct, Mr. Saxon?
21 MR. SAXON: In general, yes, Your Honour. But I must make one
22 comment to flesh-out the information that is available to the Chamber, if
23 you allow me, and this is a matter that the Prosecution wanted to raise
24 today anyway.
25 The Prosecution is concerned about the status of materials that
1 were disclosed to assigned Defence counsel between last summer and
2 December of 2006, and the Prosecution believes that the materials that
3 Mr. Seselj has been discussing during the last few minutes fall within
4 this category. And the Prosecution would respectfully ask that perhaps
5 the Chamber, with the help of the registry to clarify this situation,
6 will this material that was provided to the then-assigned Defence counsel
7 be provided to the accused?
8 From the Prosecution's point of view, obviously that would be an
9 efficient way of addressing this problem, but we will leave that to the
10 Chamber and the registry.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Saxon. You've
12 put your finger on a problem that has not yet been addressed; namely,
13 certain documents were directly addressed to lawyers designated by the
14 previous Chamber, and we don't know what these lawyers did. What should
15 they do? Theoretically, they should return these documents to the
16 registry, who should then provide the Prosecution with the documents, who
17 should then provide Mr. Seselj with the documents.
18 That's the procedure, same as for the transcript, and I would
19 like to ask the registry to do what is necessary to deal with this
20 matter, to deal with the documents provided to the previous counsel. And
21 naturally, these documents should be returned, given the situation that
22 we now find ourselves in and the fact that Mr. Seselj is defending
24 But there is another problem that I should inform the parties of.
25 As far as electronic disclosure is concerned, last time I addressed the
1 issue, but I have to return to the subject now. Trial Chamber I, the
2 previous Trial Chamber, handed down a decision on the 4th of July, 2006,
3 according to which there should be electronic disclosure. This decision
4 is a decision that Mr. Seselj had filed an appeal against, and the
5 Appeals Chamber has to rule on the appeal because before it rules on the
6 appeal, no one can move forward. So the situation is frozen for the
7 moment. Mr. Seselj can't see these documents that were disclosed to him
8 electronically, and the Prosecution, basing itself on the 4th of July,
9 2006 decision maintains its position.
10 So it's now for the Appeals Chamber to decide. That is the only
11 solution to the matter. We can now move on to examining other motions.
12 Mr. Saxon, yes, I give you the floor.
13 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly, just one more
14 point of information that I would like to bring to the Chamber's
15 attention. The Prosecution has been informed that with respect to the
16 materials that were provided to the assigned Defence counsel during 2006,
17 the Prosecution is informed that the registry attempted to provide these
18 materials to the accused in February of this year, and the accused
19 refused to accept them.
20 That's all I wanted you to know, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 I assume that they were provided in electronic form. So that's
23 the same problem.
24 Would you confirm that, Mr. Seselj?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, I received the
1 letter from the registry, in which they informed me of the fact that
2 there were 40 parcels of documents. Not binders, I'm talking about
3 boxes. These are documents gathered by Hooper and his team, and they
4 assumed that the documents among them that they received from the
5 Prosecution and also that they were confidential documents that they were
6 preparing for my supposed defence. I'm not at all interested in them.
7 Secondly, I assume that all the documents they received from the
8 Prosecution are documents in English. A while ago, you were quite
9 correct in saying which method we should follow. I never accepted Hooper
10 as my counsel, and I don't want to receive anything from him. But the
11 registry has to return this to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution has
12 to provide me with the documents in a correct manner. I never refused to
13 take over any documents if it was in a hard copy and in the Serbian
14 language. The Prosecution confirmed that. And what should I do? I'm
15 not someone to inherit Cooper's matters. I'm not someone who can say
16 that he acted in my case in a legal manner either.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, for the record at least some of the
19 documents that were offered to be provided to Mr. Seselj in this case,
20 that had been previously provided to assigned Defence counsel, were in
21 the language of the accused. He told the registry that he refused to
22 accept them because they had been provided to the assigned Defence
23 counsel; that was his reasoning given at the time. And some of these
24 materials were in hard copy, not in electronic form.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order to sum up, since we'll
1 now have to have a break for technical reasons. As far as this matter is
2 concerned, the situation is as follows. Mr. Seselj was informed of the
3 fact that he had --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, would you give me
5 the floor for one minute.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What Mr. Saxon has just said is not
8 correct. I said nothing to the registry with regard to their letter; I
9 ignored the letter. Each and every document which is in hard copy and in
10 the Serbian language is a document that I will receive. Let me repeat
11 this, but these documents should be provided to me. I can't say that
12 I'll receive Hooper's state and check to see whether such documents are
13 there. Any document that is marked as a Prosecution document or a
14 registry document that's on hard copy in Serbian language, well, I'll
15 receive such documents. What Mr. Saxon just said, his interpretation was
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 What you have said makes it easier for me to clarify what I
19 wanted to clarify. The situation is as follows: The registry informed
20 Mr. Seselj that there were 40 binders or boxes of documents at their
21 disposal. Mr. Seselj says that given that these were documents from
22 counsel Cooper, he didn't want to take charge of them because he never
23 felt concerned by the fact that this person had been assigned as counsel.
24 So he did not want to examine them. The Prosecution points out that
25 among these documents, there are some in the Serbian language, documents
1 from the Prosecution, that should be disclosed. So that is the
3 Perhaps there is a solution and Mr. Saxon could consider it. He
4 could liaise with the registry, he could contact the registry, but there
5 might be a problem concerning confidentiality. The solution should be as
6 follows: The registry, given its powers, should select documents from
7 these boxes that concern the work of counsel, keep them confidential
8 naturally, and it should also select Prosecution documents that were
9 translated into the Serbian language, documents that should be provided
10 to Mr. Seselj.
11 So the documents should be sorted in this manner. That would be
12 the solution, and I'll ask the registry to consider this so that
13 Mr. Seselj may have at his disposal documents from the Prosecution;
14 documents that the Prosecution had provided counsel with.
15 But there's another solution, and perhaps Mr. Saxon has found
16 this solution himself. Since the Prosecution is familiar with these
17 documents, you yourself could provide these documents to Mr. Seselj
18 directly, and this would help us save time.
19 MR. SAXON: Well, perhaps one preliminary step, Your Honour,
20 before a final decision is made as to how to proceed. I can only assume
21 that assigned Defence counsel, as professional counsel, before they left
22 their position here, I can only assume that they would have provided a
23 list or an inventory of the material that they left behind. And it might
24 be helpful if that inventory could be provided to the Chamber and to the
25 Prosecution as well, so we can review exactly what the material is. If
1 such an inventory does not exist, perhaps in their review process the
2 registry could create one.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Saxon, for that
4 information. It will make it possible for the registry to solve the
6 It's half past 10.00. As I've already said for technical
7 reasons, it's necessary to have a break. We will resume in 20 minutes'
9 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. I
12 shall continue discussing the motions. I would like us to go into
13 private session for a moment because I shall touch on certain
14 confidential motions about protection measures. I am sorry, but I'm
15 forced to ask you to go into private session.
16 [Private session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 The Prosecution has sent us several motions which I'm going to
20 discuss. There is one regarding Witness VS1051. The previous Chamber
21 agreed that this witness should testify under pseudonym, but my
22 understanding is that the Prosecution wishes to ask for fresh measures
23 and closed session.
24 Is that the case, Mr. Saxon, for Witness VS1051?
25 MR. SAXON: Yes, it is, Your Honour. That is correct.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
2 Mr. Saxon.
3 Mr. Seselj, in more general terms, when there are protective
4 measures requested by the Prosecution or vice versa by the Defence, when
5 you will be calling your witnesses, the parties may have objections for
6 the witnesses of the Prosecution. If the Prosecution wishes to call
7 witnesses under protective measures, you may not be in agreement. And in
8 that case, when you have -- when you receive this motion, you may say
9 that you agree or you disagree. And in that event, you have 14 days to
10 take a position. So I just wanted to inform you about this possibility
11 that you have regarding measures of protection.
12 I'm going to go quickly because there's another witness VS017 who
13 has also asked for protective measures, and this question was resolved on
14 the 22nd of November, 2006, at a Status Conference, but following a
15 decision of the Chamber of the 5th of January, 2007, the issue is still
16 on the agenda. Regarding witness VS017, where do we stand?
17 I would like to hear from the Prosecution.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, to the best of the Prosecution's
19 knowledge and belief, this witness will testify when he testifies in
20 public session with -- without the use of any protective measures.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Then that matter is
23 We can now go back into open session because what I am going to
24 discuss does not require any private hearing.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There have been motions
3 regarding video-conferencing. Witness VS1141 and Witness VS053, these
4 are witnesses -- I'm not going to go into the contents nor the reasons
5 regarding these witnesses -- for the coming of these witnesses, but just
6 with respect to -- to the video-conference, the Tribunal may organise
7 video-conference hearings usually for medical reasons, the witness cannot
8 be -- travel; and in that case this witness may be cross-examined
9 directly by means of a video-conference. But it is up to the Trial
10 Chamber to decide when the time comes because for a video-conference one
11 has to find a date, everyone has to be available for that date, and so
12 on. Therefore, this matter will be raised later by the Trial Chamber
14 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now we come to the motions
16 pursuant to Rule 94. I ask you, Mr. Seselj, to follow closely. There's
17 a motion of the 28th of November, 2006, in which the Prosecution asked
18 the Chamber to file judicial notice for the list 65 ter which were
19 admitted into evidence during other cases in the Tribunal. These are
20 exhibits connected to the Krajisnik and Milosevic cases, and the
21 translation of those exhibits was completed and disclosed on the 9th of
22 February, 2007.
23 Mr. Seselj, by this motion, the Prosecution is asking the
24 Chamber - not me, but the Trial Chamber as a whole - to admit into
25 evidence exhibits which were admitted during the Krajisnik and Milosevic
1 cases and trials. It is up to you to say whether you agree, whether you
2 disagree, and the reasons for your possible disagreement. Therefore,
3 this is something that you will have to do, together with your
4 assistants. Normally you should have responded within 40-day delay,
5 running from the date of the translation -- 14-day delay, and the
6 translation was conveyed to you on the 9th of February. So in principle,
7 your time has expired.
8 In view of the circumstances, I will give you additional time to
9 respond because you must respond. You cannot say anything if you like.
10 If you don't respond, the Chamber may come to the conclusion that you
11 agree or that you have nothing to say, and in that case the Chamber may
12 admit those exhibits. If on the other hand you contest such a request,
13 the Chamber will look into it. So I draw your attention to this motion
14 which requires a response on your part.
15 There's another motion of the 14th of July, 2006, when the
16 Prosecution also requested judicial notice to be taken of the documents
17 admitted in the Milosevic and Mrksic cases and Krajisnik. And these
18 exhibits are contained in Annex A. And hereto the translation was sent
19 to you on the 8th of September, 2006. Normally the time available has
20 expired, but once again, in view of the circumstances, I will grant you
21 additional time to respond to these motions.
22 And the third motion was filed the 23rd of May, 2006, and in an
23 attachment to this motion, you have a whole list of facts, an enormous
24 number of them. I have the motion in front of me, and there you will
25 find a list of all the facts. For your information, these are facts
1 which were mentioned in judgements in the Brdjanin, Blagojevic, Galic,
2 Kupreskic, Krnojelac, Krstic, Kunarac, Simic, Stakic, Strugar, Tadic, and
3 Vasiljevic cases. And proceeding from that, the Prosecutor has filed a
4 list and I will tell you the number of facts. There are exactly 418 of
5 these facts relating to locations contained in the indictment and facts
6 which may affect you.
7 So here again, you should have given your position, saying that
8 you agree with some of them, that you contest others, and so on. Because
9 I wish to tell you, Mr. Seselj, if a Chamber takes judicial notice of
10 these facts, what are the legal consequences? They are such that in the
11 judgement, the Chamber, in its explanation, may rely on the facts which
12 were admitted by another Chamber, which were adjudicated by another
14 I won't go into any detail, but I wish to draw your attention to
15 look closely at all this, because you may be affected and you need to
16 express your opinion about them. As you are defending yourself alone,
17 you have the possibility to respond, but this is an -- entails an
18 enormous amount of work.
19 I move on, now, to other motions.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, Mr. Antonetti, respond.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead, Mr. Seselj. I
22 give you the floor.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With respect to the three questions
24 that you have raised, perhaps it would be best for me to respond
25 immediately, which I can do now. Regarding these two motions of the
1 Prosecution regarding exhibits, my legal assistants are preparing our
2 responses and they will be ready in a few days. And if you remember,
3 Mr. Antonetti, I asked at the last Status Conference that I be given an
4 extension of time for one month for all my delayed responses to the
5 filings of the Prosecution. That deadline has still not expired. I
6 filed 14 submissions regarding 14 different submissions by the
7 Prosecution, and I will be completing this work by Monday or Tuesday next
8 week, when I will be able to file all these responses.
9 Of course, I oppose in principle the introduction of exhibits
10 from other cases, but the Prosecution has only given me a list of
11 exhibits. I would need to have the exhibits themselves if they are in
12 written form, unless they are photographs or knives, pistols, guns, and
13 other such instruments. So whatever is an exhibit that can be in paper
14 form and in Serbian, I need to have them to be able to react to them
15 because I cannot react on the basis of a list alone.
16 As for adjudicated facts, this is something I have looked into in
17 detail, and I asked the previous Trial Chamber to allow me to respond to
18 them. The Pre-Trial Judge said 50 pages, and my response was about 100
19 pages. I'm not sure of that. I filed this twice, and twice the registry
20 send these back to me because I overstepped the page limit. But this was
21 roughly of the same size as the submission of the Prosecution. I had to
22 explain why I disagreed with every single fact which they considered to
23 be an adjudicated fact, and the previous Pre-Trial Judge would not allow
25 This is an enormous amount of work invested in this. These were
1 my responses compiled by legal advisors point by point, and I think this
2 is a fundamental document, and it cannot be eliminated by simply
3 referring to instructions about the lengths of submissions because this
4 can rather be a recommendation than a legal rule that has to be observed
6 So I will file this once again, and at a previous Status
7 Conference I already orally expressed my disagreement and you can
8 probably find this in the transcript from last summer's Status
9 Conference, I think. I am not quite sure whether it was that date. So I
10 challenge all this and soon you will receive my written response.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 So we're clear as far as those three motions are concerned. I'll
13 move on.
14 There is also a motion that concerns the transcripts of the
15 testimony of a witness in the Milosevic case. You testified on the first
16 five -- 16th of September, 2005. The Prosecution wants to tender your
17 testimony into evidence, and I note that the translation was provided to
18 you on the 28th of March, 2007. I don't know what your position is. Do
19 you agree or not? Can you clarify this for me immediately?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll tell you what my position is
21 immediately. I would have a legal basis to oppose that suggestion
22 because the Prosecution didn't provide me with -- me with the entire text
23 of my testimony, but only certain extracts. But in order to show that my
24 approach is correct, that I'm treated with you and the Prosecution
25 fairly, I must say that I received video-cassettes of my testimony at my
1 own request. My advisors have transcribed the testimony and a book has
2 been published on that testimony. So I won't insist on having everything
3 provided to me in Serbian and in hard copies, and I won't object to this
4 being tendered into evidence because I'm proud of my testimony.
5 But I would like to be provided with a written explanation with
6 regard to the Prosecution comments that were made in relation to some of
7 the extracts from my testimony, and my advisors would soon state which
8 arguments of the Prosecution we would like to oppose or refute based on
9 that testimony. So I would accept the entire transcript being tendered
10 into evidence, not just extracts. I won't insist on having everything on
11 paper and in Serbian, not in this case, because I have the Serbian
12 version of my testimony. I compiled this myself.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have taken note
14 of what you have just said.
15 *There are two other matters I'll deal with, two other motions,
16 confidential ones. It's not necessary to go into private session. I
17 won't provide the names of the motions, just the numbers. 036 and 1008
18 are the numbers of the witnesses concerned. They are now deceased.
19 These are witnesses who testified, and the translation for number 36 was
20 sent to you, and for witness 108 -- 1008, you were provided with the
21 information on the 15th of March, 2007, and you also have to respond to
22 this motion.
23 I also need to deal with another motion. The Prosecution filed a
24 motion to reconsider the Trial Chamber's decision of the 22nd of
25 November, 2006.
1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In this motion -- yes,
3 Mr. Saxon.
4 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry to interrupt the Chamber. If we may
5 go back to Your Honour's previous comment. At line 20 of the current
6 page of the transcript, you make a description regarding the two
7 witnesses involved, about their present state. I'm wondering whether
8 that could be redacted from the transcript because it might serve to
9 identify these persons.
10 Thank you.
11 *JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You're quite right.
12 Mr. Registrar, prepare an order to redact the reference to the fact that
13 they were now deceased.
14 I'll deal with the motion from the Prosecution dated the 1st of
15 December, 2006 now, in which request is made for the Chamber to
16 reconsider its decision dated the 22nd of November.
17 Mr. Saxon, as far as this motion is concerned, could you provide
18 me with any information?
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. SAXON: One moment, please, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently, you already
22 responded. It -- it's about having admitted, pursuant to Rule 92 bis,
23 certain documents and there are also confidential annexes to these
24 documents. But if you are not in a position to respond right now, this
25 can be dealt with subsequently.
1 MR. SAXON: I believe that the Prosecution has responded in the
2 past months to the -- has made a more complete response to the
3 Trial Chamber's order, Your Honour, I believe. I can't give you the
4 exact date of our response, but it has been filed. It was a fairly
5 lengthy filing.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
7 I'd like to draw Mr. Seselj's attention to the fact that there is
8 this motion, but you'll be following this closely, too.
9 I will now move on to a motion which was filed on the 26th of
10 October, 2006. It concerns admission into evidence of a statement of
11 Witness 1119, pursuant to Article 92 ter. The translation was provided
12 on the 6th of November, 2006. Mr. Seselj hasn't yet responded.
13 For Witness VS017, there was a motion for this written statement
14 to be admitted pursuant to Rule 92 ter, and apparently the Prosecution,
15 or rather, the previous Trial Chamber informed the Prosecution that this
16 witness should be a viva voce witness. And I'm telling the Prosecution
17 that they should be aware of this.
18 Witness VS052 will no longer be called by the Prosecution. In a
19 motion dated -- there are, in fact, a number of motions with
20 corrigendums: The 6th of March, 2007; the 3rd of October, 2006; the 17th
21 of October, 2006; and the 30th of November, 2006. Very briefly, the
22 Prosecution is requesting that 32 transcripts be admitted into evidence,
23 and there are 220 previous statements and five statements of people who
24 are now deceased. It seems that the accused has responded to this.
25 Yes, Mr. Seselj, do you remember this motion?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but I have not fully
2 responded. It concerns five Prosecution witnesses who have died in the
3 meantime, and for each witness the Prosecution requested that previous
4 statements and previous testimony be filed. The Prosecution has a
5 possibility, according to Rule 92 quater, but under item 3(A) [as
6 interpreted] it says that if the testimony is to prove some of the acts
7 of the accused for which he has been charged in the indictment, well,
8 this can be a reason for not accepting the admission of such evidence.
9 I'll mention one of the witnesses, Milan Babic, you mentioned him
10 a moment ago, the other four, as far as I can remember, are still
11 protected witnesses, although some of them died a few years ago. For one
12 of them, the Prosecution requested that the protective measures be
13 removed so that his name could be publicly mentioned, but I think that
14 this could be decided for all four of them. There is absolutely no
15 reason to continue concealing their names. There was no reason while
16 they were alive, but now the situation is such as it is. I object to
17 having their testimony admitted.
18 I'm saying this orally now for the sake of the record, because
19 I'm officially objecting to this proposal, but to seriously respond to
20 this motion, the Prosecution has to provide me with the transcripts
21 because now the Prosecution is asking for the transcripts to be admitted.
22 But there are no transcripts, or rather, the Prosecution has them, you
23 have them, but I don't have them. I don't think a decision can be taken
24 about this until I'm provided with the transcripts so that I can see for
25 myself that they're not charging me with anything, because the
1 Prosecution says they're talking about general circumstances, that
2 they're not accusing me of anything, and so on. That concerns one of
3 them who has also died.
4 As you can see, none of these testimonies has been provided to
5 me, none of the five testimonies, not a single previous statement has
6 been provided to me. But I need to have the previous statements or the
7 transcripts of testimony given in other cases. I need to know about
8 their agreements with the Prosecution on the admission of guilt, because
9 that's one of my main arguments to object to their testimony because when
10 they're bargaining, they're bargaining. He suggests lying in turn for a
11 lighter sentence. So that's my main argument if it's not possible for me
12 cross-examine a dead person, and I don't think the Trial Chamber can take
13 a decision until I have all those transcripts at my disposal.
14 A minute ago, you said that it had been accepted that one of the
15 statements should be filed to according Rule 92 bis. As far as I can
16 remember, I never received such a decision. I don't know when the Trial
17 Chamber accepted this. As far as I know, there are many motions pursuant
18 to 92 bis, Rule 92 bis, and Rule 92 ter and Rule 92 quater but not a
19 single decision has yet been taken, or at least I haven't been informed
20 of any such decisions; I can't remember any of them. As a rule, I'm
21 opposed to all such decisions. As far as some of the motions are
22 concerned, I have already stated my position in writing, and in two or
23 three days I will also state what my position is in writing on other
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I've identified two
1 problems. The first one - I'm looking at the Prosecution now - the first
2 one is that the accused seems to be saying that as far as the admission
3 of transcripts is concerned and previous statements, he hasn't been
4 provided with these documents in his language. So that's the first
5 problem that the accused has raised.
6 Mr. Saxon, perhaps you can respond to that.
7 MR. SAXON: Very briefly, Your Honour. The only format that
8 exists for providing the prior testimonies of witnesses in this Tribunal
9 to an accused is the B/C/S audio format; in other words, a CD-ROM. We do
10 not in this Tribunal produce B/C/S transcripts of witness testimony; and
11 therefore, in each of these cases with respect to the motions that you
12 have raised, we have provided it in electronic form.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So here's another
14 problem which has been clearly identified now. Mr. Saxon has informed us
15 very precisely about the problem. At the Tribunal, the transcripts are
16 made in English and in French. We don't have no B/C/S transcript;
17 however, we do have a B/C/S audio-recording which is provided or can be
18 provided on a CD-ROM.
19 The accused is saying - and he has already said this before - he
20 is saying that he wants to be able to read the documents themselves. So
21 this is a real problem for the Trial Chamber. I have my own personal
22 position, but it might not be shared by others. My position is no
23 secret. I've already informed you of what my position is. In this case,
24 the accused should have the translation of the CD in a hard copy and in
25 his own language. But other Judges might not share my point of view.
1 It's for the Trial Chamber to rule. I have taken note of Mr. Seselj's
2 position and of Mr. Saxon's position.
3 As far as the expert reports are concerned --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I take the floor again?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, but I believe
6 you have already informed us of your position, but you may take the
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly with regard to the
9 previous issue, in order not to have to return to it later. The only way
10 of being provided with these transcripts is to have an official
11 translation from English or French. It's not sufficient to have just a
12 translation. We need an official translation, and that's a guarantee of
13 the preciseness of the translation. The Prosecution has to prove that it
14 used the same resources for my criminal prosecution as it did for finding
15 exculpatory material. The Prosecution has not been trying to prove this.
16 It hasn't taken any steps to prove this.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, you have told
18 us of your position but you added something else which needs examination,
19 because you said that you wanted a translation, an official translation.
20 Let's take an example. There's a witness, let's say a Spanish witness,
21 who says something. This is interpreted into English and into French in
22 the course of the hearing and it's interpreted into B/C/S and this is
23 recorded on the CD. You are provided with an audio-recording, but the
24 translation, according to what you say, is just a translation of the
25 interpretation, it's not an official translation. And I believe that in
1 your opinion, an official translation should be a translation done by the
2 translation services. That in fact is what you are trying to say?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, at the beginning of
4 the Status Conference, you, yourself, said that the reliability of
5 simultaneous interpretation was 80 per cent. I need 100 per cent
6 reliable translation, if we're talking about transcripts that are being
7 admitted, transcripts from other cases. So I don't want a 20 per cent
8 margin of error which results from the fact that simultaneous
9 interpretation is used. This means that someone has to take the
10 transcript in English or in French, which is an official transcript.
11 They have to use the recording in Serbian language, make a comparison,
12 and then have an official translation done. Because if I have the
13 simultaneous interpretation on paper and it's only 80 per cent reliable,
14 well what does that -- where does that leave me? There's a 20 per cent
15 margin of error, so I need an official translation. The transcript is in
16 French or English, the person translating it into Serbian consults the
17 transcript, and recording of the testimony, of the cross-examination, et
18 cetera, and then I'm provided with an official translation so that I can
19 be a hundred per cent sure that this is all authentic.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have understood
21 what you have said a while ago, and now you have further explained that
22 very clearly.
23 Mr. Saxon, as far as this is concerned, what is your position?
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I simply want to clarify a point that I
25 see in the transcript that perhaps could be interpreted more than one
1 way. The accused is not provided with a translation of the prior
2 testimony of witnesses in his language; the accused is provided with an
3 audio-recording of the original testimony so he can listen to the
4 original testimony in his own language. That's all, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I shall move on
6 now -- yes, Mr. Seselj. Yes, yes, I give you the floor again,
7 Mr. Seselj.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A component part of the testimony
9 are the questions put to that witness, they are an inseparable part of
10 the testimony, and the translation of those questions has to be authentic
11 and a hundred per cent accurate. And I am underlining the importance of
12 this. It's not just a question of the witness, what the witness said, if
13 he testified in Serbian, but also what the Prosecutor asked him, what the
14 Trial Chamber asked him, what the Defence counsel ask him, who may be
15 speaking English, French, or who knows what language.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Everyone has
17 commented on this issue, which is now quite clear. But for the moment it
18 doesn't have a solution.
19 The expert reports now. There were several motions and I shall
20 very quickly refer to them. One motion dated the 19th of February, 2007,
21 but the accused did not have a translation, which explains why this has
22 not been ruled upon. The expert Grujic dated the 14th of July, 2006,
23 that is a motion -- the date of the motion. The translation was conveyed
24 on the 13th of February, 2007, but again we come across the same problem
25 and that is that this was given on a CD and Mr. Seselj wants to have the
1 document in hard copy.
2 Then the expert Tabeau, the same problem we have with him. The
3 translation was disclosed on the 13th of February, 2007, but again in CD
4 form. The expert Strinovic, motion dated the 13th of February, 2006 [as
5 interpreted]. The translation was given in CD form on the 13th of
6 February, the same position of Mr. Seselj. Then Stankovic, the 12th of
7 July, 2006, a translation handed over on the 13th of February, 2007. No
8 reaction by Mr. Seselj except for saying that he doesn't want to have
9 CDs. Another motion with respect to Osman Kadic, the 12th of July, 2006,
10 the translation handed over the 13th of February. No response from the
11 accused. And a report by Mr. Andras Riedlmayer, 23rd of May, 2006, that
12 is the oldest, it is almost nine months ago, and the translation was
13 addressed on the 10th of October. No response from Mr. Seselj.
14 Therefore, to summarise, regarding all the expert reports, with
15 the exception of Oberschall, which has no translation, all the others
16 have been translated, there's a blockade because Mr. Seselj has not taken
17 note of them and he cannot convey his position as a result.
18 Mr. Seselj, will you confirm that that is your position?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Antonetti. I believe that
20 I did file a number of submissions in this set of 14 that relate to
21 expert reports that have not been disclosed to me in response to
22 introductory submissions by the Prosecution. This is obviously evidence
23 of ill-will and ill-intentions because this is easiest for them to put on
24 paper. They have the translations, the originals, either in Serbian or
25 in English or French.
1 In any event, they have the translations, but all this is on CDs,
2 and they find it difficult to put this on paper, and this entails the job
3 of one day. These are not audio-recordings requiring more time; it is
4 simply a question of printing them out and handing them to me. They
5 could have done this almost a year ago, and they still haven't. Because,
6 again, they hope that someone may rule to impose Defence counsel, to
7 impose electronic documents, to impose documents in English. I don't
8 know what they're expecting, but in any event they're not doing anything
9 about it.
10 I wish to contest all the expert reports and to prepare a
11 counter-report with the main thesis for my contesting those submissions,
12 and I would like to cross-examine all those experts, although they
13 requested 92 bis for Ivan Grujic, that is his expert report, in another
15 I insist that I have the opportunity to cross-examine each of
16 those experts, and I will challenge the expert reports, of course, as
17 soon as I receive those reports.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, the question of
19 these reports has been more clearly clarified on page 49 onwards. You
20 have told us that your intention is to cross-examine all the experts.
21 All this is very clear now.
22 I will give you the floor, Mr. Saxon, but just a technical
23 detail, Mr. Seselj. I have understood the question of CDs, CD-ROMs. You
24 are telling us: I do wish to examine the content of the reports, but I
25 need to have them in hard copy. Very well. But my understanding was
1 that the registrar gave you a person, a case manager, precisely to deal
2 with these specific concrete problems.
3 Could it not be a solution for the person who has been assigned
4 to this job to receive this CD-ROM, to put it in his or her computer,
5 press a button, and print out the document, and then you have it in hard
6 copy. Would it not be possible to work in this way?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This person, Mr. Antonetti,
8 does not exist. You have been misinformed. If you held in mind the case
9 manager, as he is known here, he does not have this as part of his
10 duties. And I know this with certainty because I personally compiled his
11 work assignments and handed it to the registry, and they can confirm
12 this. This is really a very small job that the Prosecution or a member
13 of the registry can do, rather than a member of my Defence. This is an
14 additional burden on the Defence, which has incomparably less facilities
15 than the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, are you telling me
17 that you haven't yet met the case manager? You haven't seen him?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that. You must
19 have a bad translation. Of course, I've seen this person. I know this
20 person for 10 or 15 years, and I have full confidence in her, and that is
21 why I appointed her, but that is not part of her duties. It is not part
22 of the job she has. She does an enormous amount of work for me currently
23 in Belgrade because she cannot live on the small salary she has been
24 given here, and she cannot give up her job in Belgrade. She is also a
25 member of parliament there.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. I understand now.
2 I will discuss this again with the registrar, but regardless of this
3 assignment that you gave to this case manager and who's working with you,
4 as you have known her for many years, I thought that someone has been put
5 at your disposal to fulfil these simple concrete tasks, and I now realise
6 that that is not the case.
7 Thank you anyway for the clarifications you have given, which
8 makes it easier for us to get a full grasp of the problem.
9 Mr. Saxon, on expert reports or anything else, you have the
11 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Just very briefly with
12 regard to the subject of expert reports, the Prosecution would like to
13 inform the Chamber that it expects to provide an addendum to the expert
14 report of military analyst Reynaud Theunens, because the Prosecution has
15 received additional material related to Mr. Theunens' original report
16 recently that require additional discussion in his report.
17 It is also possible, Your Honour, that the Prosecution may submit
18 an addendum to the expert report of Mr. Yves Tomic.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have now
21 informed Mr. Seselj and the Chamber of these additional addendums. I
22 think -- yes.
23 Yes, Mr. Seselj. For the addendums to the expert reports, about
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as addendums are concerned,
1 I have received the report of Yvo Tomic or Yves Tomic. I presume he's a
2 Frenchman, so I'm not quite sure how to pronounce his name. I have
3 prepared a response by my legal assistants and I have tried to hand it
4 over, and they returned it twice. I will hand it in a third time. But I
5 hear for the first time about a report by a Mr. Theunens, and now I hear
6 that there will be an addendum to his report. They haven't even tried to
7 inform me yet about such an expert report. In -- I have been informed
8 about these five, that they exist, but I haven't received them because
9 they are in electronic form, but I hear about Theunens for the first
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Just for the record, Your Honour, the redacted
13 version of the expert report of Mr. Theunens was filed on the 31st of
14 March, 2006.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, since
16 the 31st of March, 2006, that's almost for a year, you must have had this
18 MR. SAXON: And if I may, Your Honour, a decision was issued by
19 the former Trial Chamber on the 2nd of October, 2006, to provide this
20 material to the accused.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But why hasn't this been handed
22 over to me? Why haven't I received it?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently, Mr. Seselj hasn't
24 received the decision of the 2nd of October, 2006. In that case, I will
25 look into this matter and refer to it next time.
1 I will close with the last motion. It is a motion of a
2 third party, two accused in another case wish to have access to the
3 testimony and documents of this case. There was a motion on the 10th of
4 January, 2007. The Prosecution has responded to it. The translation was
5 transmitted to Mr. Seselj on the 11th of January, 2007, and the position
6 of the Prosecution also to the -- on the 22nd of January, 2007.
7 So, Mr. Seselj, you also need to respond to these motions and
8 express your opinion about them.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I can recollect, this is
10 a request of the Prosecution for the Defence of Gotovina, Markac, Cermak
11 have insight into the file of my case. Can Mr. Saxon confirm this or
12 deny it? Am I right? Am I right, that that is what is involved before I
13 state an opinion?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, it's not a motion from the
15 Prosecution. It is a motion from the Defence of Cermak and Markac who
16 wish to have access to the file, and the Prosecution has asked for this
17 to be rejected. So we are talking about the same cases. Yes.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps I didn't get it right. I
19 just wanted to hear whether we are talking about this case. I have
20 received this motion and the response of the Prosecution, but I'm quite
21 indifferent. I do not oppose or accept it. I have no interest in it
22 either way. My interests are not in jeopardy in any way if their Defence
23 has insight into the case before me, into my trial in other case.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. So your position has
25 been registered, recorded.
1 We will shortly be adjourning. First of all, I wish to say to
2 the Prosecution, who have given us an indictment which is in agreement
3 with a ruling, and the request of Mr. Seselj, when he said there were
4 lots of blackened out paragraphs. So this has been corrected, and the
5 Prosecution has also provided a list of witnesses, an updated list.
6 Isn't that so, Mr. Saxon? I am not mistaken on these two points,
7 am I?
8 MR. SAXON: That's correct, Your Honour.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I still haven't received this,
12 unfortunately. I probably will if it's ready, but I have something very
13 important to raise in some detail today.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As we are now under
15 miscellaneous, I give you the floor. You may raise the issue you wanted
16 to raise.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I can't change the Rules of
18 Procedure and Evidence, but I hope I can express the fact that I don't
19 agree with Rule 92 quater, a recently introduced rule, which makes it
20 possible for the dead to testify before this court. That probably
21 tallies with Western legal practice. I know that Western legal practice
22 also recognises the possibility of putting the dead on trial. So the
23 dead can also be accused. In 897, the Pope, Steven the VII, ordered that
24 his predecessor the Pope Formosus, should be excavated, should be dug out
25 of his grave, he should be put on trial and sentenced to death at the
1 stake. Recently an illegal Irish court sentenced the dead Slobodan
2 Milosevic to 30 years in prison. Amicus curiae, Stephen Kay participated
3 in the case. He was later imposed as counsel for Milosevic and there was
4 also a lawyer from Belgrade, et cetera. So such a legal practice exists
5 in the West, but something has happened in my case, something that I
6 haven't come across in Western legal practice that I reject in disgust.
7 On the 16th of March of this year, I received a Prosecution's
8 submission with an up-to-date list of exhibits and an annex. It's
9 partially confidential. Whatever is confidential, I will not mention. I
10 would like to point that out so you don't feel the need to move into
11 private session. The Prosecution filed it on the 17th of November, 2006.
12 3.349 exhibits were listed on 375 pages. Almost 10 per cent of the
13 exhibits, exhibits the Prosecution wants to have admitted through the
14 deceased Milan Babic and his testimony. 334 -- 335 exhibits in total. I
15 apologise. They're not all in the same place. I had gathered this
16 information together.
17 The Prosecution from the death -- the time when Milan Babic died
18 up until the 17th of November had a lot of time to introduce these
19 exhibits through some other witnesses. There are many exhibits that they
20 wanted to tender through other dead witnesses who are protected, so I
21 won't even mention their names. I think this has never been seen in a
22 Western legal practice to date. Trials of the dead are allowed and it's
23 possible to use the testimony of the dead. How are they going to use the
24 deceased Milan Babic to have over 305 exhibits tendered into evidence? I
25 believe you have this document before you. You can see this for
2 In this pre-trial phase, I think that it's important for you as
3 the Pre-Trial Judge to adopt a position as far as this matter is
4 concerned and for the Trial Chamber to do so, too. And if possible, if
5 you accept this, allow me to file an appeal because this can't be
6 accepted. You can't have 305 exhibits tendered through the testimony of
7 the deceased Milan Babic and how do you intend to do this? Could you
8 explain that to me.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Mr. Saxon, you will respond, but before you do so, I'd like to
11 clarify something for Mr. Seselj. 92 bis or quater allows for the
12 written statement of someone to be admitted even if he is dead, but there
13 is a paragraph (B) that I will read out to you slowly now. It reads as
15 "If the evidence goes to proof of acts and conduct of an accused
16 as charged in the indictment, this may be a factor against the admission
17 of such evidence or that part of it."
18 So the Rule that was drafted provides for the admission of the
19 written statements of people who now are deceased, but the Chamber that
20 has to rule on a Prosecution motion must examine the case and see whether
21 the testimony concerns acts and conduct of an individual. And if that is
22 the case, the Chamber will decide whether such testimony should be
23 admitted or not. So that is what is provided for by Article 92 quater.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, may I add something?
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are quite right, but we are
2 talking about tendering documents into evidence through the testimony of
3 a dead witness, because the Prosecution quite clearly states in this
4 document, the documents are being tendered through the testimony of
5 Milan Babic, so the testimony of Milan Babic in other cases is one
6 matter, his previous statements and his plea agreement is one matter.
7 But tendering exhibits into evidence in this way is another matter,
8 because 305 exhibits represents 10 per cent of the exhibits that the
9 Prosecution has in mind. These exhibits involve various documents that
10 in principle have nothing to do with Milan Babic. So how can these 305
11 documents be tendered through his testimony? This is what is not clear
12 to me, and this is something that is not provided for in the Rules.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 Mr. Saxon, you have the floor.
15 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution's position is that
16 exhibits that were tendered through -- discussed by a witness, such as
17 the witness in question, Milan Babic, are part of that witness's prior
18 testimony. The accused may not be aware that on the 12th of March, the
19 Prosecution filed a motion under Rule 92 quater seeking the admission of
20 the prior testimony and number of exhibits that were discussed by the
21 witness during his prior testimony. It may be that the Prosecution's
22 motion has not been translated yet into the accused's language, but when
23 it is I assume it will be formally filed, and then the accused will have
24 an opportunity to respond.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Mr. Seselj, apparently there is a Prosecution document dated the
2 12th of March that it appears you have not yet received or you have not
3 yet received the translation of that document. When you do, you'll be in
4 a better position to respond. But I have taken note of the legal
5 arguments you made on page 56, the arguments that concern the problem as
6 to whether this procedure allows for the 305 documents to be admitted
7 into evidence.
8 It is now time to adjourn. Mr. Seselj, are there any other
9 issues you would like to address? If not, I have to put certain
10 questions to you --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one sentence, if I may.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon hasn't responded to your
14 question. I received requests from the Prosecution to have Milan Babic's
15 testimony admitted pursuant to 92 quater, but the Prosecution's request
16 to have exhibits from other cases admitted is one thing, and a list of
17 exhibits from my case is another thing. I'm referring to the list of
18 exhibits from my case, a list that the Prosecution provided on over 300
19 pages. In this case, I didn't mention taking over exhibits from other
20 cases. It seems that the Prosecution needs a lesson in elementary law.
21 You have understood my objection, but the Prosecution didn't want to
22 respond to it. They've mentioned something else, some other problems.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But perhaps the
24 Prosecution, by not responding, reserved for itself the possibility of
25 providing a more detailed response or perhaps they believe that the
1 written submissions show that a Chamber can admit these 305 documents.
2 But the Trial Chamber will rule on this. I cannot now tell you what the
3 Chamber's position will be.
4 Mr. Seselj, I believe you have no other issues to address.
5 According to the Rules, I must put the following question to you. Are
6 the detention conditions fine? Do you have any complaints to make? Or
7 is everything all right?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, nothing is wrong.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, is there anything
10 else you would like to raise?
11 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now adjourn. I would
13 like to thank everyone. You have all participated in the dialogue I'm
14 trying to establish. Both parties have expressed their positions.
15 Mr. Seselj, you were very clear and precise in what you said, and
16 I'm happy with the atmosphere that has prevailed during the course of
17 this hearing. I hope that the atmosphere will be the same in the
18 upcoming hearings, and once I have taken stock of certain problems with
19 the Registrar, certain problems that have already been mentioned and
20 certain issues raised, I will see you again, certainly within two or
21 three weeks' time.
22 So we will meet again in the very near future, and I think that
23 next time we'll perhaps examine the motions because I think that many
24 solutions will have been found to certain issues. Next time I would like
25 to address the subject of the witnesses who will be called. I would like
1 to see what the schedule is, what we are planning for, and what problems
2 we feel we might encounter. If we can make a precise list of the
3 problems that exist, it will be possible to start with the trial under
4 the best possible conditions. Given that Mr. Seselj is defending himself
5 on his own, there might be certain technical or practical issues to deal
6 with, and I would like to deal with these issues next time we meet.
7 So we will meet each other in the very near future, and I thank
8 you for your participation and for the positive atmosphere that prevailed
9 in the courtroom.
10 Thank you, and I will see you in the very near future.
11 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
12 adjourned at 12.04 p.m.