1 Tuesday, 5 June 2007
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, good morning, Your Honour. This is
9 case number IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Today is the 5th of
11 June 2007. I'd like to greet all the people present in the courtroom, the
12 representatives from the Prosecution, Mr. Seselj, and I would also like to
13 welcome all the people present in the courtroom.
14 On the agenda for today's Status Conference, we have a number of
15 items which I'm about to address. One has to do with future schedule. I
16 have planned to have a Status Conference on the 4th of July at 9.00. As
17 you know, we will then have our summer recess, which means that there will
18 be no hearings in July and at the beginning of the month of August. I
19 shall resume with this trial on the 13th of August. This means that we
20 shall meet again in the last week of August.
21 So much for our schedule.
22 I would also like to very briefly address another item, which has
23 to do with the directive on the number of pages and the number of words.
24 As you know, because of translation problems, the directive has had to set
25 the number of pages and the number of words. This does lead to a number
1 of problems sometimes and it has happened that the motions of the accused
2 have been dismissed because the word count had been exceeded. In order to
3 avoid this occurring again, and I would like to thank Mr. Seselj and his
4 associates who have -- who are now in the habit when they are filing a
5 longer motion, to state from the outset that they seek leave to extend
6 their motion, which will go beyond the word and sentence limit. A motion
7 which is ten pages long will, of course, represent a considerable amount
8 of work for the translation unit, and this is why we did try to curtail
9 the number of pages. We all know that we have to make a special effort to
10 summarise what we wish to say, and sometimes it is possible to sum this up
11 in a small number of pages. In certain circumstances, of course, one does
12 need to have those extra pages.
13 The third item I wanted to address had to do with a protocol on
14 the registration of documents, protocol that has been recently adopted by
15 the Registry and both Prosecution and Mr. Seselj have been notified of
16 this. Why did this particular protocol come to life? When a motion is
17 being filed by Mr. Seselj, this motion is drafted in Cyrillic, and nobody
18 in the Registry can understand what this motion contains. In certain
19 cases, an urgent request may be filed by Mr. Seselj which substantiates an
20 immediate response. To avoid any malfunctioning, the procedure will be
21 adopted as follows: As soon as the motion reaches the Registry, this will
22 be notified and a date will be recorded. It will be specified that the
23 Registry has received a document from the Defence, with an acknowledgement
24 of receipt.
25 This motion is then sent off to the translation unit. This may
1 take several days, since you know that it takes one day for a translator
2 to translate four pages which means that if a motion is a 15-page motion,
3 this will take four days. When this kind of motion is filed, the
4 translation unit reviews the content of the motion very quickly, and then
5 sends a short summary of the content of the motion to the Chamber and to
6 the Prosecution. The motion is then translated and registered, and the
7 deadline starts running from the date on which the Registry has recorded
8 the translated motion. Likewise, when a motion is filed by the
9 Prosecution in English, the deadline only starts running once the motion
10 has been translated in the language of the accused. This is a working
11 principle, which means that we are all equal in these matters.
12 Therefore, Mr. Seselj, if you have an urgent motion to file, which
13 according to you calls for a very quick response, you should indicate this
14 on your motion and write the word "urgent" on your motion so that has to
15 be put on a priority list. Because if nothing is mentioned, there might
16 not be a swift response because one feels that that might just be a
17 standard motion. So it is important that you mention this because your
18 motion will then be a priority.
19 I also wanted to reassure you, during the summer recess in July
20 and August, if you have an urgent motion to file, the motion will be
21 processed either by me, because I will be permanently in contact with the
22 legal officer or with the duty judge, because this Tribunal is working 24
23 hours a day and there will be a duty judge there who can respond to an
24 urgent motion if need be. If that is the case, don't hesitate to
25 write "urgent" across the motion so that it can be processed as a priority
1 and that yet you don't have to suffer any adverse consequences.
2 Now, as far as this protocol on recording of the documents is
3 concerned, this was registered yesterday, and you will have a translation
4 of this protocol in your own language very shortly, because this is quite
5 a short protocol and it should not take too much time to translate.
6 So much for the registration protocol.
7 The fourth item I wish to address today has to do with the payment
8 of fees of your assistants. As I indicated to you last time, Mr. Seselj,
9 it is important that you prepare your motion and file your motion. I
10 have, as yet, not received anything, and before giving you the floor on
11 this matter, I would like to share with you the content of the letter
12 which has been sent by the legal adviser of the United Nations, a letter
13 that has been sent to the Registry on the 22nd of May. Let me read out
14 paragraph 5 to you, which is, as far as we are concerned, the key
15 paragraph. I shall read it out slowly so that you can hear it in your own
17 "The bureau of legal affairs would nonetheless like to insist on
18 the fact that an accused who would like his assistants, whether these be
19 legal assistants or investigators, be remunerated by the Tribunal should
20 prove that he does not have the means to pay them. Therefore, it is
21 appropriate to apply the method commonly used to assess the financial
22 means of the accused. This is done by the Registry.
23 In addition, as the Appeals Chamber has indicated, the advisers
24 should only be designated if the Registry is convinced that they meet
25 those conditions set by it. This also applies to Defence counsel who are
1 entitled to work for the Tribunal. They should also be entitled to
2 control the expenses of the Defence, who is representing himself, before
3 reimbursing him. The provisions of the direction on the assignment of
4 Defence counsel, Directive number 1/14, and the Registry's policy with
5 regard to financial matters would apply mutatis mutandis to the counsels
6 of the accused who is representing himself."
7 New York has therefore taken a stance on this which is in your
8 favour, insofar as, in New York, they are saying that your counsel should
9 be remunerated by the Tribunal, but of course under the condition that you
10 are unable to pay them, in other words that you do not have such means
11 that would enable you to pay them, and in addition, your counsel should
12 meet the requirements and criteria adopted here, i.e., competence, ethical
13 code, the standard requirements for any lawyer. And in addition, the
14 registrar must then reimburse those expenses that have been incurred.
15 Things are not very clear when we get to this particular point
16 because we seem to be saying that if you don't have any money you should
17 pay your counsels and then you will be reimbursed afterwards. So I think
18 that this particular item is not really clear and requires further
19 investigation because I don't see how it is possible, if you can't pay
20 your counsels, how could you pay in advance unless you take out a loan
21 with a bank and get reimbursed afterwards. So this requires further
23 At the end of last week, I was informed of the content of this
24 document, but I have not been able to organise a meeting with the Registry
25 yet to see how we deal with this document in practical terms. This would
1 amount to instructions given by the Secretary-General to the Registry of
2 this Tribunal but notwithstanding that, I don't think this poses any
3 particular obstacle because you can still file a motion and according to
4 the Statute, be granted a number of facilities. I had strongly
5 recommended you pursue this at our last Status Conference, and as I told
6 you a while ago, I have not, as yet, received a motion from you or from
7 any of your associates.
8 I shall now give you the floor.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge, our legal advisers have
10 sent me the text of this motion to the Trial Chamber for a ruling binding
11 the Registry to co-finance my defence. This was on Monday last week,
12 which is eight days ago. This was sent by special mail, by DHL, as it's
13 called. It was supposed to arrive in The Hague by Wednesday, latest.
14 However, it was only submitted to me yesterday after I had pressed the
15 matter with the detention authorities. As soon as I had read it, I signed
16 the motion and I sent it back. It was sent to the Court from prison
17 yesterday. I didn't do it as quickly as I would have liked to, or as
18 perhaps you would have liked me to. However, there is an objective
19 problem at stake there that I'm unable to solve for the time being, at
20 least until my legal advisers move to The Hague and it's possible to send
21 special air shipments to them and then they can forward these shipments to
22 me in the Detention Unit the same day, and that is the only way I can
23 think of to solve this matter. So the motion was submitted to me
25 Secondly, it is quite obvious that the -- that legal service of
1 the United Nations has now reached the same position that I have been
2 advocating for at least the last four years and which you too have
3 confirmed as the right position, the correct position. The International
4 Tribunal must be involved in co-financing my defence, at least to the
5 extent that I'm unable to cover the costs. This is a final conclusion.
6 Secondly, as far as my legal advisers are concerned, they have been
7 rubber-stamped so to speak, registered by the Registry. They are
8 qualified experts, although formally none of them, save for one, are
9 lawyers. They have proven their qualifications by their work so far. You
10 can't -- you won't be able to find a single counsel acting before this
11 Tribunal who understands better the legal problems involved here and who
12 writes better motions than my legal advisers.
13 This fact is beyond dispute. I don't think there is any basis for
14 anyone any more now to challenge the qualifications of my legal advisers.
15 They are lawyers, graduate lawyers, some of them were practising lawyers,
16 some were not, but they are certainly far more able than most of the
17 lawyers and counsel acting before this Tribunal in other cases. The most
18 important thing being I'm very satisfied with their work and with their
20 As far as the way in which this money will be paid is concerned, I
21 wasn't quite clear about this myself after you had read the contribution
22 from the legal adviser of the United Nations but I have no way of first
23 paying my legal advisers and then later being refunded by the
24 International Tribunal. I have no money to do that with. I declared all
25 of my assets and all of my property back in 2003 when I filled all the
1 forms given to me by the Tribunal, by the Registry. The Registry never
2 challenged any of the information stated therein. They later wanted to
3 know about my mother's property and my entire family lives in the house
4 owned by my mother. I don't have a house of my own. My mother lives with
5 her sisters and my sister in a house owned by my wife. I have four sons,
6 two grandsons, one daughter-in-law. It's a huge family, so those two
7 families are now living in one house. So that is the only property
9 My wife and my mother refuse to cooperate with the investigators
10 of the ICTY. There is a man named Jovanovic, a Slovene person, who turned
11 up, he's from Valjevo. My mother told him from the balcony that he's a
12 disgusting person and she wasn't willing to cooperate. I could perhaps
13 try to force my wife to cooperate but she is not bound in any way to
14 follow any of my instructions. My mother does not wish to be involved.
15 She says she was not involved in any crimes that I may have committed.
16 She says she doesn't mind me committing possible crimes but she minds me
17 not being better able to conceal them so no one is able to prosecute me.
18 This may strike you a bit strange however cynicism is the only weapon I
19 still have at my disposal, by way of a reaction to the actions of the
20 Registry. The legal advisers of the UN only speak about me, about my
21 rights and about my obligations but they don't dwell on my family and
22 their responsibilities and obligations. There is no such right and no one
23 else can be held accountable of my legal obligations, the legal
24 obligations incumbent upon me, not even my children. No one else can be
25 made responsible or held to account.
1 Secondly, I have absolutely no option of taking out a loan with
2 any bank. In order to do that I should be gainfully employed on a
3 permanent basis, which I haven't been for the last five years so I have
4 not been receiving a regular salary.
5 As for my pension fund, money is being paid into it all the time
6 because of the books being published all the time written by me, by the
7 Serbian Radical Party. That is as much as they have been able to do for
8 me. They have been paying money into my pension fund on a monthly basis
9 because of these books being sold, and that's all. But based on that
10 alone, I am still unable to take out a loan. I have no assets that I
11 could use towards taking out this loan, and it is impossible for me to get
12 any money from any bank. My legal advisers, therefore, have so far
13 continued to work in the expectation that one day they would eventually be
14 paid and so many years have gone by already.
15 Assuming I had paid them already, the Registry should have given
16 the money back to me. However, if I'd had the money to begin with, the
17 Registry would never have had to be involved financially in my defence.
18 As soon as I laid my hands on some money, the International Criminal
19 Tribunal would no longer be under this obligation. Nothing would please
20 me better than that. I wish there was some sort of a windfall, me ending
21 up with a lot of money and not having to ask for this money from the
22 International Tribunal. However that is just not an option. It is simply
23 not possible. The only possibility is for the Registry to calculate the
24 costs of my defence, stage by stage, starting with the pre-trial stage as
25 it has evolved so far; the next pre-trial stage before the trial finally
1 begins; the Prosecution case; the Defence case; and finally the appeals
2 stage. This would be the only normal thing to do, the only normal course
3 of action to take.
4 In order for them to be able to do that, the Registry would first
5 have to disclose information such as the following: What the costs have
6 been of all the other Defences in all the other cases. That can be the
7 only objective criterion that can be applied to my case. Let's see how
8 complicated those cases were in relation to mine or as compared to mine.
9 Save for the late Slobodan Milosevic, I'm the only accused being held to
10 account for crimes possibly committed in three different countries. No
11 one else is left facing a situation like that, which would seem to me that
12 this is the most complicated case and thus the most expensive one in terms
13 of setting up a defence. However the Registry seemed to be keeping secret
14 information concerning the finances of defence teams in other cases, and
15 if that is the case, there is nothing for us to discuss. If the Registry
16 said, for example, we have rules and this is our calculation, but I refuse
17 to talk to them like that until they disclose to me how they reached these
19 For example, if you have American lawyers acting in a case, their
20 fees are different from those of Serbian lawyers, and they are paid
21 earlier. That seems to be the established practice before this Tribunal.
22 And this is just one of the many things that we have been made to face
23 here in this so-called legal practice, and the procedures used by the
24 Registry as a body of judicial administration which is under the authority
25 of the judicial authorities which is the Trial Chamber. The Registry is
1 not a judicial power, so to speak, they are a body of judicial
2 administration, they are an executive body, they don't make the policies,
3 only the Chambers do. The first instance Chambers, the Appellate Chamber,
4 and the bureau of judges.
5 The Registry must first say how much all the other defences have
6 cost, how much the engagement of defence counsel Lazarevic has cost them,
7 who was appointed to my case, how much van der Spoel has cost them, who
8 picked for himself a team of assistants, and then also Hooper with his
9 entire team, the counsel that was imposed on me. And then we can
10 establish a set of criteria to see how the Defence has so far has been
11 paid for. My legal advisers cannot be paid less money than van der Spoel
12 or Hooper. This is simply impossible; I cannot allow for that. Hooper
13 and O'Shea, who was his co-counsel, what they got per month, the sum total
14 of what they got per month, should be given to my three associates and
15 then split up between them. We must have these objective indicators. If
16 we don't, nothing can be resolved.
17 Therefore, the only way to go forward is for the Registry to use
18 objective criteria, establish a certain sum, a sum that is deemed
19 objective by any reasonable lawyer or legal expert, something that is
20 reasonably acceptable, and then for this sum to be split up based on the
21 involvement of certain members of the legal team or rather based on their
22 expenses. What I would do in this case would be this alone. I would tell
23 the Registry, this and that person, this and that sum is to be paid to
24 this and that person into this or that account. Therefore, I would not be
25 receiving any money at all in any of these situations. The money would be
1 received directly by whoever was in charge of accomplishing a certain
2 task. Once my legal advisers are involved in a permanent basis they would
3 be paid a monthly salary here in The Hague and they would resign as far as
4 their positions in Belgrade are concerned. They would leave their jobs
5 and come here to work for me on a permanent basis and so would the case
6 manager. That is the only way to go forward with this, and I don't know
7 if there is any other way to work our way around this problem. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You have told me,
9 sir, that the motion was drawn up on Wednesday. As soon as I will have
10 been notified it, I will rule on it. I will also organise a working
11 session swiftly with the Registry so as to draw the adequate consequences
12 on the position given to us by the United Nations legal adviser in New
13 York, saying that you are entitled to have remunerated legal advisers.
14 I do believe that we will reach a solution very swiftly, and that
15 indeed we will make it feasible for you to rule -- to organise your
17 Now I would now like to move on in closed session because we will
18 be mentioning something directly related to what we have already
19 mentioned. I will then give the floor to Accusation afterwards. The
20 issue I want to mention now is in direct line of what we've just mentioned
21 so, registrar, please closed session.
22 [Private session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in closed session, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we are now in closed
25 session because you mentioned earlier your legal advisers, saying that
1 they do a sterling job and I have indeed noticed it while reading their
2 motions myself. It so happens, sir, that last week, and I'm sure you will
3 have told -- you will have been told that, maybe slightly later on but I'm
4 sure you will have been informed of it, one of your legal advisers,
5 Mr. Aleksandar Vucic and a number of other people of your -- of his
6 political party, went and took to the streets and put up a number of
7 posters about Mr. Mladic.
8 Now, as you know, Mr. Mladic is under formal investigation and he
9 is indeed mentioned in your indictment as being involved in the criminal
10 actions. So it so happens that one of your advisers, who should, all
11 being well, be here in the courtroom with you at some point or other, and
12 he has taken to the streets and been seen by the media to support an
13 accused, someone who is under an indictment, and has been searched and --
14 by the Court for a number of years. Mr. Vucic had also said, in writing,
15 that he would agree and -- agree to the rules of the Courts that he would
16 be -- behave in an ethical manner. Now, my question, sir, is did you know
17 about this? Would this possibly change your attitude vis-a-vis Mr. Vucic,
18 and do you feel from your point of view, and I'm sure that accusation will
19 also have something to say about this, do you not think that it has --
20 Prosecution, I mean, has something to say about this. Do you not think
21 that it does not call into question the position of your legal adviser
22 because, in fact, he is supporting Mr. Mladic, who is under investigation
23 and for whom an arrest warrant has been circulated? So, sir, did you know
24 about this or have you only just learned about it?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge, I was informed in a
1 timely manner of this event. Mr. Vucic signed the requisite document for
2 the benefit of the Secretariat as he was being registered as a legal
3 adviser. He has fully complied with all his obligations. However, his
4 obligation is solely in relation to my case on the protection of
5 confidential information in relation to this International Tribunal in a
6 quite general sense. He never signed anything to the effect that he would
7 cease all of his political activity. He's the secretary-general of the
8 Serbian Radical Party, and the policy of the Serbian Radical Party from
9 the very outset was to refuse to recognise the legality of this
10 International Tribunal; to oppose the surrender of any of the accused
11 Serbs to this Tribunal; and further, the policy of the Serbian Radical
12 Party is that this International Tribunal is an instrument in the hands of
13 Serb enemies, the United States of America, all the member states of
14 the -- of NATO, and the EU.
15 Mr. Vucic on the streets of Belgrade, lawfully and in keeping with
16 the Serbian laws, made known, made public, his political positions. The
17 Belgrade authorities wanted to change the name of this one particular
18 boulevard and wanted the boulevard to now be named after the -- after the
19 one major Mafia man in the Serbian history so far who was killed four
20 years ago, Zoran Djindjic, the former president. We were against that as
21 a political party.
22 What happened is that some young people who were not members of
23 our party put up posters of Ratko Mladic all along the boulevard. They
24 were arrested and put in jail for seven months because of disrupting
25 public order. This is against the law so our political party reacted in
1 the following way: We went straight to the boulevard and we did the same
2 thing all over again, this alleged violation, out of spite against the
3 regime telling them come on, go ahead and arrest us, if you can. They
4 couldn't because there was no crime to speak of to begin with. There was
5 no violation of any of the laws and rules availing in Serbia.
6 This was a manifestation of a political opinion, a choice.
7 Mr. Vucic, when he's in this courtroom, will keep his position regarding
8 the illegal nature of this International Tribunal. That is his private
9 opinion, but he will not appear in this courtroom until I appear in my own
10 case. So he and the other two legal advisers will be examining me during
11 my Defence case and this will be the only moment throughout the entire
12 trial that my legal advisers will address the Court, that is, when they
13 are examining me in my future capacity as a witness, in my own case. So
14 we are talking about his political convictions. I respect that. I happen
15 to share these political convictions. My political conviction is that
16 Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic must never face this Tribunal alive.
17 This is their historical responsibility to the Serbian people because
18 through them, the entire Serbian nation, the entire Serbian people, would
19 be tried.
20 My situation is different; I'm here to beat The Hague Tribunal,
21 which I will do. They would never be able to. Other mechanisms would be
22 used against them. They would be tried and convicted, and through them
23 the Serbian people would be convicted because this is the policy pursued
24 by the Western powers and the long-standing enemies of the Serbs.
25 The members of the Radical Party will continue to work in Belgrade
1 against The Hague Tribunal and that is something that concerns them and
2 nobody else. Once Mr. Vucic is receiving a salary as a legal adviser in
3 my case, he will resign to all his positions, from all his positions in
4 Belgrade and spending most of his time here in The Hague. The only time
5 he will appear to speak publicly will be as a member of my Defence team
6 while upholding all the obligations that he assumed, to never disclose any
7 of the protected witnesses or any sort of confidential information or
8 protected documents by making those public. But you can't brainwash
9 people. That is precisely why I trust my legal advisers, because they
10 oppose The Hague Tribunal. You can't possibly be thinking that I would be
11 able to trust legal advisers favouring The Hague Tribunal. I could never
12 bring myself to trust such people. I'd rather die than allow such people
13 to help me with my Defence. I think this is crystal clear.
14 Never for a moment did the Serb Radical Party give up its
15 anti-Hague policies. We didn't want to join Kostunica's government
16 because he, in a manner of speaking, delivered himself to The Hague. He
17 would like to have a coalition with us because we are the most powerful,
18 the most consistent political party. He would rather have us than Tadic's
19 people. This is what politics in Serbia are about right now. We have
20 chosen the hardest way, by opposing the United States, NATO and the
21 European Union, and we are prepared to pursue this path even if it costs
22 us our lives.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, on the political
24 aspect that you have developed, you will understand that I will not
25 comment. However, I do want to make the following statement: I am in no
1 way hostage to anyone who would be an enemy of the Serb people. I myself
2 are totally impartial, unbiased, and am governed by no one. You said
3 earlier that the Tribunal is illegal. That is something that you have
4 already said and you've put forward your arguments, that is your position.
5 I must, however, tell you that we judges are fully independent and that we
6 are in no way here to serve the interests of, as you put it, the United
7 States or the European Union or anyone else. We rule on facts in the
8 files and the issues at hand as impartially as possible. As you know,
9 should a judge be biased or should you feel that a judge was biased you
10 could object to said judge. I have also taken good note of what you said
11 about Mr. Vucic, that he was acting on the basis of his political mandate,
12 his political function, and that when he will assist you here in court he
13 will only serve as your legal adviser.
14 Mr. Seselj, yes?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, not a single time did
16 I raise any procedural objections to you personally as a judge. Ever
17 since you started working on this case you have been working in a way
18 which is proper to a maximum. However, your propriety in this case is not
19 a sufficient reason for me to change my general attitude towards The Hague
20 Tribunal. You know yourself that this Tribunal was not established in
21 order to have justice carried out but in order to have peace in the
22 Balkans, peace in the former Yugoslavia. That is what the founding papers
23 of this Tribunal say. That is precisely the article of the Charter of the
24 UN that was invoked. If I'm not mistaken, it's Article 7 of the Charter.
25 I am not very good at numbers.
1 So this Tribunal wants to establish peace. But not an impartial
2 way, but a so-called pax Americana, that is to say a piece that suits
3 America. Please do not try to convince me that this is an impartial
4 Tribunal. If out of all the accused persons in this Tribunal, 75 per cent
5 are Serbs, and 25 per cent are all the rest, Croats, Muslims, Albanians
6 and Macedonians, then there is no argument for impartiality. Now, look at
7 the judgements. The Serbs get life in prison, 40 years in prison, 30
8 years in prison. Croats get nine years perhaps or even less than that,
9 Muslims two years, two and a half, five years, Albanians are set free,
10 some Muslims are set free. As for the Serbs, the sentences are
11 astronomical. There is no one who can persuade me otherwise. I know that
12 a lot of crimes were committed on the Serb side but no one can convince me
13 that Serbs committed more crimes than Croats, Muslims, Albanians or yet
14 someone else. That is absolutely impossible.
15 So, it is primarily Serbs who are being tried here. Serbs are the
16 only one who are being punished Draconically, and now I'm supposed to stay
17 that this Tribunal is objective? No. This Tribunal is not objective. It
18 is not impartial. It is an anti-Serb court. As for everything that you
19 have done in this case so far, Mr. Antonetti, I pay tribute to you. I
20 don't know what your attitude will be in the future but so far your
21 attitude has been honourable, principled, correct, and you have followed
22 legal tenets 100 per cent. As far as I'm concerned, that is enough. I'm
23 not asking for anything else. I am just asking for proper procedural
24 rights to be exercised. I'm not interested in the judgement at all.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Prosecution, I believe you
1 wanted to address the Tribunal. Do you want to go back to public session
2 or are you still okay with private session? I had after all mentioned
3 Mr. Vucic's case in private session. What do you wish to do?
4 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, briefly, we think that Mr. Vucic exploited
5 his immunity as a member of parliament to engage in criminal activities
6 that are inconsistent with his undertaking to the registrar, and we will
7 be examining closely his undertakings and his behaviour and filing a
8 complaint with the registrar to review the activities, to determine
9 whether or not they are inconsistent with his undertaking.
10 The other point I wanted to address was to request an opportunity
11 to review Mr. Seselj's motion regarding remuneration of his associates.
12 The Court had indicated that you would rule upon receiving his motion and
13 we would like an opportunity to review it, to determine if there is an
14 interest in the Prosecution to respond. I can imagine, perhaps, if the
15 request is ultra vires the Statute it would be appropriate for the
16 Prosecution to assist the Chambers in ruling on the motion.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Fine. You know that the
18 rules give you a fortnight to react. I would ask to you react as swiftly
19 as possible. This is essential. And I will be waiting for your comments,
20 although there is, in my view, no direct relationship but if you wish to
21 reply to the motion, please do. I'm happy to have any comments on all
22 these issues.
23 Right. I suppose we should maybe switch back to a public session
24 unless you have something else to say in private session, Mrs. Dahl.
25 MS. DAHL: I agree that switching back to public session is
1 correct and we'll review the motion immediately, and let you know if we're
2 not going to file a response.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Public session, please.
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Open session, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something, Judge?
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, since we are in public
10 session now, I would like to submit a request to lift confidentiality from
11 the entire content of the private session that just ended because there
12 were no conditions for having a private session. There is no jeopardy
13 involved as far as documents and trials before this Tribunal are
14 concerned, no other confidences are being infringed upon. What was
15 discussed were things that are well known in the general public and since
16 a certain procedure will be involved with regard to this matter only now,
17 there is an enormous interest on the part of the public to know what
18 happened during this private session and therefore, I ask to you lift
19 confidentiality from that part of the session and to proclaim that part of
20 the session public as well.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, does the person
22 involved agree with you?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you are referring to the person
24 who was mentioned, that person certainly agrees with me. If you believe
25 that he is the interested party. If I understood your words correctly. I
1 can guarantee that he certainly agrees with me.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, on the issue of doing away
3 with the private session, Ms. Dahl, any comments?
4 MS. DAHL: I have reservations of accepting that representation
5 without the concerned party being heard.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, personally, I cannot
7 really see any reason why we should remain in private session, but I would
8 ask you to check with the interested party, whether this is indeed his
9 position, and as soon as you have his agreement in writing, I will do away
10 with the confidentiality of this part of our proceedings. So the issue
11 will be settled but seeing we are talking about a private individual, and
12 although I have no doubts that this private individual will agree with
13 you, I think it is, however, sensible that this person should make their
14 views known. So I would request that you should put the question to the
15 said person and inform us. As soon as that is done we will publicise this
16 part of our proceedings.
17 Now, talking about something slightly different, the issue of
18 witness protection, I recently gave a ruling on measures of protection to
19 be taken by the registrar or the Prosecution when a name, when the name of
20 someone, appears. Now, it may just happen that in the heat of discussions
21 and debates, anyone may mention a name, including you, Mr. Seselj. The
22 name might be that of a person that may be protected, that you wouldn't
23 know, that I wouldn't know that the person was protected, and at the same
24 time, the registrar, thanks to the e-court system, may notice that said
25 person is under protection and therefore that should require redaction.
1 It may happen that we may overlook such a fact in the course of our
2 discussions and that a name may be mentioned. And sometimes the registrar
3 or the Prosecution may not react immediately. It may also happen that the
4 Court recorder may not spell the name right and that nobody really notices
5 it in writing, that only people recognise it in hearing the name, but it
6 might just happen that that person may be protected, may be under
7 protection, and that we would not know it. So in that case, should that
8 happen, the registrar and the Registry more generally should tell me,
9 should inform me, whether there is a need for a redaction, even if the
10 Prosecution hasn't noticed it. That's why I'm always very wary of giving
11 names and I'm always referring to Mr. or Mrs., without giving the surname,
12 and that in a way helps us avoid such problems.
13 Which now brings me to something slightly different again, and
14 that is Mr. Seselj's motion number 287, on Mr. Theunens's report, expert
15 report. This is a fairly complicated issue, and I think it's time that we
16 looked back at history to understand exactly what is happening. On the
17 28th of March 2006, the Prosecution filed a motion so that some parts of
18 the Terrence reports would be made public 30 days before the beginning of
19 the trial.
20 Then, three witnesses would be called because they were mentioned
21 in the report, witnesses 11, 26 and 31. And I shall only be referring to
22 them by their numbers. On the 14th of September 2006, and in those days,
23 Mr. Seselj, you had not attended the courtroom, and the stand-by counsel
24 that had attended did not oppose the request. On the 2nd of November
25 2006, the Court ruled that the motion from -- filed by the Prosecution was
1 null and void on the basis that as at the date of the ruling of the
2 Chamber, the trial was meant to start within the next 30 days. Therefore,
3 the accused should have, or so it seemed, had information and
4 communication of the report in its entirety by then.
5 On the 2nd of October, the accused received the ruling of the
6 Court in B/C/S, but the report or the version of the report that was given
7 to the accused was only a downsized version, whereas the Chamber had ruled
8 that it should be the comprehensive version. And you received, sir, your
9 version on the 17th of May, only a few days ago. It seems, when we look
10 at this issue, that the Prosecution and yourself may not have fully
11 understood that the ruling dated 2nd of October 2006 ordered for the full
12 report to be handed over to counsel and not to the accused because in
13 those days the accused was still only a member of the public. The
14 complete report is in file number 22, and I'll come back to that later.
15 So it does seem that we have something of a mess, that has to be
16 sorted out, and I think we can settle that one with the assistance of
17 Article 94 bis of the rules. Let me read out paragraphs (A) and (B) which
18 in my view do settle the matter. It states, it reads, the report and all
19 statements of any expert witness to be called by a party shall be
20 disclosed within the time limit prescribed. "The full statement," it
21 states, "shall be disclosed within the time-limit prescribed by the Trial
22 Chamber or by the pre-trial Judge." So again it states, "the full
23 statement", it's very clear. The accused must therefore receive the full
24 statement and/or report, the full report in this instance.
25 Paragraph (B) reads that "within 30 days of disclosure of the
1 statement and/or report ... the opposing party" - in this case the
2 accused - "shall file a notice indicating whether it accepts the expert
3 witness statement and/or report; or it wishes to cross-examine the expert
4 witness; and it challenges the qualification of the witness."
5 There is, however, a qualification on this Article because we have
6 here three protected witnesses whose identity should have been disclosed
7 to the accused 30 days before trial started. As things stand today, the
8 date for the opening of the trial has not been set and therefore we cannot
9 understand when the 30-day deadline will start. Last time I had
10 tentatively indicated that the trial may start in November, given the fact
11 that the resources of the Tribunal would not make it possible to open a
12 new trial over and beyond those currently running. Now, assuming the 1st
13 of November may be the key date, the beginning of the trial, if you count
14 backwards, 30 days before the 1st of November would be the 1st of October,
15 and on that date, witnesses 11, 26 and 31 should be disclosed.
16 Mr. Seselj, I believe, I expect, you have received the report
17 because indeed report was in file 22, although you did not receive the
18 entirety of file 22 but maybe some of your advisers or all of your
19 advisers received the report, and from what I understand, part of the
20 report has been redacted, although you were meant to get the entirety of
21 the report. I will, therefore, soon rule on this issue, for indeed, I
22 cannot see how you should give your -- make your position known on the
23 basis of Rule 94 bis(B) if you have not received the full report. I'd
24 like to ask you, Mr. Seselj, if you have looked into this issue, if you
25 have a position and what you feel about it. You have the floor.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I got a redacted report -- version
2 of the report, of the Prosecution expert witness, Theunens. Seven or
3 eight pages were blackened, I think, I can't remember exactly now, and I
4 handed this over to my legal advisers because they cannot receive any
5 documents directly from the Registry or the Prosecution. I am the only
6 person who can get documents and then, if necessary, I forward them to
8 And on that basis, my legal advisers drafted this motion. So it
9 doesn't have to do only with the redaction of the names of protected
10 witnesses, specifically three names, up to 30 days before the trial
11 begins. However, it is also the content that was redacted. The name
12 could have been put under a code name, but they should have disclosed the
13 content to me but they were not able of doing that. Of course, I'm going
14 to state my views on the expert report in accordance with Rule 94 bis only
15 when I receive it in its entirety. And what they sent to me, this
16 redacted report, with seven or eight pages blackened, that doesn't mean a
17 thing. It would have been better for them not to have sent it at all.
18 You know, I don't even have the patience to read it if it's not there in
19 it's comprehensive version, and I feel that they've blackened out the main
20 points, and now I'm supposed to read what is irrelevant.
21 Now, what is really building up the suspense on my part is what is
22 it that is -- what is there that is blackened. So I cannot prepare my
23 Defence properly. I think there has been great abuse in terms of granting
24 protective measures for witnesses and for expert reports. Never has it
25 happened that the Prosecution supported in detail its motion for
1 protective measures. They use a single standard sentence and
2 Trial Chambers routinely decide to grant these protective measures.
3 Therefore, the situation is that there are almost more witnesses with
4 protective measures than those testifying without protective measures.
5 However, it is incredible that even as far as an expert report is
6 concerned, which in essence should be a scholarly work, not testimony, not
7 testimony by a fact witness, even within an expert report certain sections
8 are declared confidential a month before trial. What can be so secret in
9 an expert report? If it's a name, then the name could have been deleted
10 and a code name could have been used. Nothing more than that. However,
11 the Prosecution tendentiously deletes a significant part of the text,
12 about 10 per cent of the text. I guess they are deleting the most
13 important part of the text.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, on the Theunens's
15 report, Mr. Seselj has made his views known and he suggests that the best
16 way to proceed would be to give him the full report and give -- either
17 blacken or give a code name for the protected witnesses. There are all
18 sorts of ways of proceeding. What is your answer to that?
19 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, we rely on our written submissions and I
20 would note that the report itself is over 250 pages. The redactions are,
21 de minimis, yet critical to the protection of the witnesses and I believe
22 that Rule 94 bis has to be read in conjunction with the obligation of the
23 Chambers to protect witnesses. We filed, at the same time as our response
24 to Mr. Seselj's motion, a request for renewed reconsideration of the
25 delayed disclosure request that had been declared moot because of the
1 proximity of the trial date when the previous Trial Chamber ruled on the
2 motion in the first instance.
3 That motion is pending and we believe that the security concerns
4 that justify the protective measures should apply in full force to
5 Mr. Theunens' report. The purpose of providing the full report of experts
6 is to allow the accused opportunity to make the decision whether he
7 accepts or rejects the report or the qualifications of the expert. I
8 think those decisions can be made fully informed by the large amount of
9 information that has been disclosed to Mr. Seselj and that he will not be
10 disadvantaged by removing the redactions shortly before trial as we had
11 initially requested.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, now, dealing with
13 expert witnesses and expert reports, maybe what I have learned firsthand
14 might be of assistance to you, relating to the way the procedure in this
15 Tribunal is. As you may know, these experts are not experts as we
16 understand them in civil law cases. These experts are related to the
17 parties. Prosecution has its own experts. Some of them are, indeed,
18 remunerated by the Prosecutor's Office, and you too will be in a position
19 to choose your experts should you wish to call experts, expert witnesses.
20 These expert witnesses are appointed and chosen by the parties.
21 The Bench does not play any role in this position. The only thing we do
22 is to check when an expert report is being filed, whether the said expert
23 witness is qualified and has the adequate expertise to write up this
24 expert report. And that is why we always require a CV of the expert
25 witness. The expert report is always made up of a number of things, first
1 of all a document, in this case 250 pages long, with footnotes and
2 therefore the expert report, as I said, has footnotes which sometime refer
3 to the evidence list that you have under the 65 ter exhibits list.
4 Now, as far as I know, the accused in the history of our Tribunal
5 have always challenged the expert reports filed by Prosecution and none of
6 them were accepted automatically. In a 65 bis -- in 94 bis(B), the accused
7 may cross-examine the expert. What happens then? Well, the Prosecutor
8 says that the witness is an expert, that they want to include the expert
9 report and the preliminary statement in the case, and in that instance,
10 the Prosecutor may then present a number of exhibits included in the
11 report to the expert witness, so that they comment on it and the
12 Prosecutor would say, "You have submitted this or that piece of evidence
13 in page X, paragraph Y, do you confirm the statement? And do you really
14 rely on this evidence to write up this or that paragraph?" And then the
15 expert witnesses agree, and over and beyond the expert report, the
16 declaration and the statement, the Prosecution will also want to refer
17 formally to the exhibits included in the report.
18 So this is what happens during the preliminary -- during the
19 interrogation -- the examination by the Prosecutor. Then you
20 cross-examine the expert. You will put questions to the expert, put
21 forward your own documents and exhibits, to contradict what the expert
22 witness and/or the Prosecution have said. That is what happens during the
23 Prosecution's evidence review.
24 Then, when the accused calls in his experts, the same happens.
25 Your expert will put in -- put forward his report, the Prosecution will
1 cross-examine your witness, and the Prosecutor therefore behaves as you
2 had behaved when you were cross-examining the Prosecution's expert
4 This is what happens with expert witnesses when they come to
5 testify on specific items related to the case in point.
6 Now, as for the time that the cross-examination may last, or the
7 main examination, Trial Chambers usually consider that there is no need
8 for a first examination, but in Article 65 ter, there are provisions for a
9 time or a period of time due for interrogation, examination. You, as the
10 accused, have the same amount of time to cross-examine, five or six hours.
11 In most instances, the expert witnesses will come for one or two days for
12 the examination-in-chief, the cross-examination and the Prosecutor may
13 then put more questions to the expert witness directly related to the
14 questions raised during the cross-examination. So I think this in
15 practical, slightly technical terms, is exactly the way these expert
16 witnesses are heard by our Tribunal.
17 Now, once the expert report has been acknowledged by the Trial
18 Chamber in entirety or in part, as soon as it has been admitted, the Trial
19 Chamber may, in the final judgement, refer back to the expert report. The
20 Trial Chamber may or may not refer back to the expert report depending on
21 how relevant the procedure is.
22 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, there is a problem about
24 this. This International Tribunal has taken over from the Anglo-Saxon
25 legal system what -- precisely what is the most negative about it.
1 According to our continental system it is the Court that appoints experts,
2 thus experts are court-appointed experts. They produce expert reports in
3 situations where either of the parties make a convincing request for
4 expert reports to be made to begin with.
5 Here, we have the Prosecutor producing expert witnesses. They are
6 no experts. They are officials of the OTP. It's virtually the same thing
7 as the OTP presenting themselves as experts in order to produce evidence
8 that they could not possibly elicit from any other OTP witnesses.
9 Precisely because they are unable to instruct their witnesses sufficiently
10 well for them to represent their position in a convincing manner, they
11 come up with these so-called experts who produce works of
12 pseudo-scholarship to prove the positions of the OTP. Surely enough, I am
13 going to be challenging all the OTP experts including Theunens but in
14 order for me to formally state my position as to why I am challenging a
15 certain witness, I must have the report in its entirety. I will be
16 challenging the report, that much is certain, but my deadline will start
17 running from the day I receive a report in its entirety.
18 The number of Prosecution expert witnesses only speaks to one
19 fact, how unable the OTP are to prove what they are out to prove.
20 There were cases in other trials where an official of the OTP was
21 called to give cumulative evidence of simply what witnesses on the ground
22 have told him. This was used by the OTP in some cases before this
23 Tribunal; I can't remember which exactly. And then the investigator would
24 simply appear as a witness and say, "I was told this by that person or
25 that by another person," without even specifying who or mentioning any
1 names which is not serious in the least by way of an approach. However,
2 it's up to the OTP to decide and we'll see how their witnesses, such
3 witnesses, will fare in the courtroom and I can guarantee that they will
4 not fare too well. I won't leave a single stone unturned once I start
5 cross-examining them and I will shatter their so-called evidence. I
6 myself will have at least as many experts as the OTP, and as usually, the
7 OTP appoint one of their own officials as their expert, I will also be
8 recruiting my experts from my own Defence team. If someone that I have in
9 mind as an expert is now not a member of my Defence team, I will appoint
10 them tomorrow. That's what I'll be doing first thing. And then I will
11 task them with drawing up an expert report on a particular subject in
12 order to parry this blow by the OTP as well, just in order to be able to
13 show how grotesque the whole issue is becoming.
14 However, let's go back to square one, what is really fundamental
15 in this whole matter. There is absolutely no reason for the OTP to simply
16 blacken so many pages of Theunens's report. If we have the names of three
17 protected witnesses, take here for an example, they can be replaced bay
18 code, a pseudonym, something that exists in the documents already. And
19 then we can have the expert report addressing their alleged statements.
20 What is the secret that is being concealed by the OTP that is buried
21 within the body of the expert report itself? Is this some sort of a
22 secret question? Is it just a hoax, possibly an illegal one, possibly
23 something that runs counter to anything that that is here termed
24 procedure. I can understand why they are trying to conceal the names of
25 protected witnesses. I'm not challenging that. You've gone too far in
1 that as well. However, you are now blackening out whole portions of
2 expert reports under the pretext that you are protecting the names of
3 certain witnesses. That is absolutely untenable.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think that you have -- the
5 different parties have expressed their position vis-a-vis expert
6 witnesses. Before we take a break I would like to mention an issue that
7 we have already discussed and not yet settled. That is the issue of the
8 38 files. I think you -- all of you know what is in these binders, and it
9 deals -- they deal with the lawyer that was appointed to assist
10 Mr. Seselj. The lawyer handed over these 38 binders that all sorts of
11 documents are included in them, some of them highly relevant to the
12 accused and he should receive them. This is particularly the case about
13 the documents that were handed over to this lawyer under Article 68 and 66
14 of the rules of our Tribunal.
15 The lawyer that was appointed had been appointed in August of last
16 year. Having then been appointed in August, a number of documents were
17 handed over to him in August, September, October, November, December,
18 until the Appeals Chamber admitted that Mr. Seselj was entitled to defend
19 himself by himself.
20 Now, of course, Mr. Seselj must have access to these documents
21 that had been passed on to the lawyer, because they are highly relevant
22 for him. I would therefore request that the Prosecution should write up a
23 list of all these exhibits and documents that were handed over to the
24 lawyer. I assume that the Prosecution has such a list. I've mentioned
25 this before. We are talking about the documents handed over under Article
1 66, 68, and even the motions that the lawyer may have had copies of and
2 that Mr. Seselj might not have. Once this list has been written up, it
3 will be passed -- handed over to the registrar. The Registry will then
4 look at these 38 binders and pull out from each of these binders the
5 documents that are on the list, to hand them over to Mr. Seselj.
6 Now, why should this be done by the Registry? Well, precisely
7 because the Registry is unbiased, and neutral, vis-a-vis both parties. We
8 cannot ask the Prosecution to do this, seeing as Prosecution may then be
9 informed of a Defence strategy. In some of the binders, there are memos
10 on points of law, for instance. So this would be giving Prosecution an
11 illegitimate advantage. Mr. Seselj also told us that he did not want to
12 look through all these binders. And therefore, only the Registry, because
13 of its neutrality, can, on the basis of the list, hand over the documents
14 to Mr. Seselj. These documents, under Article 66 and 68 are needed by
15 Mr. Seselj to organise his defence, to prepare also the cross-examination
16 of witnesses, and also to choose and appoint -- and call his own witnesses
17 in due course. In -- it is therefore impossible for Mr. Seselj to be in
18 the dark about these 38 binders, especially as the rules impose
19 communication of documents. And therefore, the Prosecution must check and
20 must know which documents were transferred and handed over to the lawyer
21 as of August last year, and hand over this list to the registrar.
22 Mr. Seselj, any comments on this issue?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Judge, sir, I do have an
24 objection as a matter of principle. I never recognised Hooper as my
25 defence counsel. Anything that is in his possession cannot be used as a
1 Defence document in my case and cannot be of interest to my Defence case.
2 The registrar or the Registry cannot arbitrate in this and cannot be the
3 one to judge what, if anything, of Hooper's legacy shall or shall not be
4 forwarded to me. Maybe the documents disclosed by the OTP under Rule 66
5 and Rule 68 could be important documents, and those should be returned to
6 the OTP. The documents produced by Hooper himself, while pretending that
7 he was preparing my defence, might as well just be burned by the OTP. I'd
8 rather end up in prison for 100 years than use anything that was done by
9 Hooper as he was pretending to be defending me. I will certainly not be
10 accepting any of that.
11 As for what was disclosed by the OTP under Rule 66 and Rule 68,
12 well, they must disclose the same thing to me. I can't have the registrar
13 disclosing documents to me under Rule 66 and Rule 68. That is just not
14 within their remit. This is something for the OTP to do and the OTP
15 alone. The registrar cannot assume any of the capacities incumbent on the
16 OTP, or any of their obligations. The registrar, acting under an official
17 obligation, can destroy something, for example, that is found in Hooper's
18 legacy, so to speak, and something that he believed to be strategically
19 important for my defence, some notes that he made, some potential witness
20 statements that he planned for my defence, or any observations made by any
21 of his associates while preparing the defence. That would be totally
22 pointless. I'm not opposing that. Maybe that too can be submitted to the
23 OTP but it might be extremely unethical, even immoral. And that is why I
24 think the registrar should just destroy that.
25 However, whichever documents bear the OTP stamp, something that
1 was originally submitted by the OTP, those might as well be returned to
2 the OTP and then disclosed to me and then I will sign for those. However,
3 there is another thing, the documents under Rule 66 and Rule 68 were
4 disclosed to Hooper by the OTP on a regular basis in English. This is
5 useless, as far as I'm concerned. Those must be in Serbian. So what's
6 the registrar's job in this case? Should they check what has been
7 translated and what hasn't? No. The OTP must serve all these documents
8 on me in the Serbian language. Again, I'm pointing you to the document by
9 the OTP, dated the 6th of November 2006. In item 10 alone, they say that
10 207.000 pages must be submitted to me in the Serbian language. They tried
11 using the CD-ROM format and yet they failed. So now we need hard copies.
12 207.000. I'm deeply convinced that they haven't even embarked on
13 putting all of this on paper and actually typing it up. When will they?
14 I haven't a clue. I do know that the trial cannot begin without this,
15 because all these are Rule 68 documents, potentially exculpatory documents
16 which the OTP already have in their possession. And they must, as soon as
17 they have those, disclose them to me. It is an obligation incumbent upon
18 them. Otherwise you cannot have a fair trial. I have proved that you
19 have in your possession 207.000 important documents, potentially
20 exculpatory for my Defence. If you don't submit those to me, there is no
21 fair trial. Don't think the trial can even begin until I have those.
22 This is the most precious document for me. I want all 207.000 of them in
23 my prison cell so I can go through them at my leisure, and judge which I
24 can use and which I cannot. It is you who has established that these
25 documents are potentially exculpatory, not me. This is something that you
1 arrived at. Therefore, whatever you disclosed to Hooper was disclosed to
2 no one at all, in purely practical terms.
3 All the OTP documents go back to OTP. That is what I suggest we
4 do. Whatever belongs to Hooper and was not disclosed by the OTP should
5 just simply be burned which I think would be the most ethical course of
6 action to take.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj is raising an issue
8 here which I had mentioned not last time but at a previous Status
9 Conference. You are under the obligation to disclose to the accused,
10 pursuant to Rule 66 and 68, those documents in a hard copy format, and
11 translated in his own language. So you are under two obligations: A,
12 hard copies documents and translated in his own language. I am just
13 covering, because I had noticed this before and perhaps Mr. Seselj has
14 made a mistake, the documents sent to Mr. Hooper, there would be 207.000
15 pages? If that is the case, if the 207.000 pages have been disclosed
16 pursuant to Rule 66 and 68, these must be translated and provided in a
17 hard copy, unless he has made a mistake. But this seems a huge amount of
18 pages. Where do you stand in relation to this question, Ms. Dahl, because
19 I remember mentioning this a while ago already?
20 MS. DAHL: We agree with the Chambers that the privileged status
21 of Mr. Hooper's documents should be safeguarded and it would be
22 inappropriate to return material to the Office of the Prosecution and thus
23 jeopardise any work product or defence strategy that might be contained in
24 the material. We can produce the list of materials that was disclosed to
25 Mr. Hooper during the point of time where he was representing the accused
1 and we believe the registrar is competent and efficient to make the proper
2 selections. We would indicate where we have already served on Mr. Seselj
3 directly a duplicate set so that we are not asking the registrar to engage
4 in needless work and we would also indicate where material in Mr. Hooper's
5 possession was subject to protective measures or applications against
6 disclosure to the accused.
7 With regard to what falls within Rule 68, we are reviewing all of
8 the prior disclosure in this case to make sure that we are in full
9 compliance with the rules and orders of the Chamber, and as required, will
10 make the necessary translations. It should be noted that Mr. Hooper was
11 given material in its original form, if it was available, meaning the
12 native language of the person who gave the statement. And we are
13 endeavouring to make sure that Mr. Seselj has everything that he needs and
14 is entitled to under the rules to prepare his defence.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, Rule 66 states that
16 the Prosecution is under the obligation to disclose to the accused in his
17 own language all the documents that are going to be adduced or that are
18 likely to be exculpatory material. The accused should have these in his
19 own language and in a hard copy format. This is a legal obligation, and
20 we cannot start the trial if the accused has not received these documents.
21 That's a first point.
22 Second, Rule 68 exculpatory material which should also be
23 disclosed to the accused. When I listened to you, I think I understood
24 that you disclosed to Mr. Seselj, you have already disclosed some
25 documents to him, but the question I have runs as follows: From August
1 onwards, which was the time when Mr. Hooper was designated, you need to
2 ensure that all the documents you have sent to Mr. Hooper, all these
3 documents, must be sent to Mr. Seselj, and this was in a CD-ROM format
4 when they were sent to Mr. Hooper but these documents should be sent in
5 hard copy and in B/C/S. This is where we stand. And it can't be
7 You gave an explanation, but I don't feel entirely satisfied with
8 it. I want to make sure that the obligation you are under has been met,
9 because if you have not met your obligation, you could be liable for
10 Prosecution, and this is something you know full well. So I don't think
11 we have to try to go into too much detail. I understand that you have a
12 technical problem, if you have a great number of documents, and if you
13 felt that the electronic format was a way of finding a solution here, no,
14 this is not the case. As far as I'm concerned, Rule 68(A), Rule 68(i),
15 clearly indicates that the documents must be disclosed in a hard copy
17 The electronic format only pertains to a different category of
18 documents, i.e. collection of documents and software packages, but
19 anything relating to -- that were part of the indictment and were part of
20 the investigation and which will be adduced at trial need to be handed
21 over to the accused. Also, any documents mentioned in the expert reports.
22 And this cannot be disclosed in an electronic format. Mr. Seselj has just
23 told me that we are talking about 207.000 documents. I'm quite surprised.
24 Are you quite sure? Are you sure the figure is right, 207.000 pages?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Judge. I am sure. I am sure
1 because this is a Prosecution document. I don't know whether they are in
2 a position to show it to you on the document. It was submitted to me on
3 the 6th of November 2006. This is a survey of all disclosed or returned
4 material, where it is established exactly what it was that I received
5 because it was on paper and in the Serbian language, and what I refused
6 because it was on CD and what was disclosed to Hooper and not to me. You
7 can see all of that from this document. Now, only in one point, there are
8 over 300.000 pages of documents here. Only in one paragraph, paragraph
9 10, four DVDs are referred to. According to Rule 68, 207.210 pages in the
10 Serbian language. That is paragraph 10. If they were in a position to
11 present this document to you on a monitor. This is a survey made by the
12 OTP and they submitted this both to me and to the Trial Chamber. It was
13 submitted to me on the 6th or rather the 8th of November, or the 6th of
14 November, and the Trial Chamber received it in English probably a few days
15 before that.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I've acknowledged
17 what you have said and I shall look into the matter. For technical
18 reasons, we need to have a 20-minute break now and we shall resume at
20 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have resumed our hearing.
23 Mr. Seselj, I must tell you that I was very puzzled by these 207.000
24 documents. Could you give me the document which you showed me in colour,
25 to see what this document is?
1 Usher, would you kindly go and fetch the document which Mr. Seselj
2 had a moment ago?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, this document was
4 disclosed by the OTP on the 6th of November 2006, pursuant to a ruling by
5 the Trial Chamber. There is an overview of disclosed documents under
6 Rule 66 and Rule 68. Let me draw your attention to paragraph 10 of the
7 document. It's in Serbian. However, the OTP have the document in English
8 because they certainly had it when they submitted it to the previous
9 Trial Chamber.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. In your own
11 language I see that in paragraph 10, pursuant to Rule 68, 207.000
12 documents -- 207.210 documents. This is what I see here. This document
13 is dated the 2nd of November 2006. Ms. Dahl, normally speaking, you
14 should have this document in your own language, which does indicate that
15 there are 207.000 documents. I give Mr. Seselj his document back and I
16 would like to thank him for having enabled me to look at it. Ms. Dahl,
17 what do you have to say to this?
18 MS. DAHL: May I ask for the document identification because the
19 filing date indicated by Mr. Seselj is not assisting me in locating the
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, does this document
22 bear a Prosecution identification number?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On one piece of paper it says
24 IT-03-67. I assume that that is my case number. However, there was an
25 attached text of the OTP with this document but then I haven't got it here
1 with me. But there must have been an English version too. And this was
2 discussed at one of the Status Conferences in the month of November. Up
3 here you have as the date the 2nd of November and that is probably the
4 date of the document in English. However, underneath the text, it says
5 the 6th of November 2006, which I assume means that the text was submitted
6 to me in Serbian four days later. However, I can show this to the OTP if
7 they wish and if it makes it easier for them to find it, if they wish.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Dahl can give
9 you a copy. We can make a photocopy. And in that way you'll be able to
10 find your way around it.
11 MS. DAHL: I can address the quantity of documents. I know that
12 in the case initially, documents considered to fall within Rule 68 in the
13 Milosevic case were tendered as disclosable given the theory of defence
14 that was articulated by Mr. Seselj. Further to that, I don't have a
15 particular response other than to affirm our position, which is that as
16 the Trial Chamber's rulings now stand, electronic disclosure satisfies our
17 disclosure obligations and on an ad hoc exceptional basis, we have been to
18 facilitate Mr. Seselj's trial preparations and avoid the needless
19 consumption of time discussing this objection, we have been giving him
20 paper copies of material whenever possible, since my joining the case.
21 If, upon review, there is the need to print out the material that fell
22 within a different version of Rule 68 that was in play for the Milosevic
23 case, and if the Chamber orders it, we will simply have those materials
24 printed in paper but I want to make sure that the Chamber is aware of our
25 position, that the facility to conduct electronic searches is a safeguard
1 for fairness, and should not be dispensed with by this Chamber regardless
2 of whether Mr. Seselj determines to use that facility or to disable
3 himself and his ability to move quickly through documents to determine
4 their relevance.
5 My fear is that his objection is a strategic one and that upon
6 delivery of 40 boxes of paper, he will then say he doesn't have time to
7 read it all.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Now, Rule 68, which is
9 mentioned in the document, is -- includes two parts:
10 "(i), the Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to
11 the Defence any material which in the actual knowledge of the Prosecutor
12 may suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or affect
13 the credibility of the Prosecution evidence."
14 That is little (i) and according to me, this should be disclosed
15 to an accused who is representing himself. This should be disclosed in
16 hard copy and in his own language. There is double small (ii):
17 "Without prejudice to paragraph (i), the Prosecutor shall make
18 available to the Defence, in electronic form, collections of relevant
19 material held by the Prosecutor, together with appropriate computer
20 software with which the defence can search such collections
22 This relates to other relevant material, which is made available
23 to the accused in an electronic format. According to your exchange of
24 views, this would have to do with documents referred to in the Milosevic
25 case, but in essence, in the Milosevic case, was there not material that
1 could be considered exculpatory, that would suggest innocence or mitigate
2 the guilt of the accused? I don't know. So it's for you to look into the
3 matter and make sure you do it in a very accurate fashion because out of
4 these 207.000 pages, I assume there must be all the records of the
5 Milosevic case, all the transcripts. I don't know. But it's for you to
6 look into it. I don't know personally.
7 It is for me to check, to make sure that he has in his possession
8 all the material likely to exculpate him, that may suggest innocence or
9 may mitigate his guilt. You are under this obligation. It is for you to
10 check out the document and see why it has been prepared in that way. We
11 shall return to this issue but I think you have to focus on this
12 particular question or pay attention to it. Mr. Seselj, I would now like
13 to address another item which concerns you personally. I'm sorry, I
14 hadn't seen you, Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I would just briefly like to
16 refer to what the Prosecution attorney said in relation to the Milosevic
17 case. Mr. Milosevic himself agreed to have documents disclosed to him in
18 electronic form. That is what his legal advisers wanted. Soon
19 afterwards, he realised that he had made a mistake but it could no longer
20 be rectified. In his case, there were many complaints in terms of the
21 delivery of documents. You can see that from the transcripts.
22 Mr. Milosevic agreed that documents be given to him in English. He knew
23 English much better than me but in my opinion, that was a mistake he made
24 too. And then the OTP overdoes things. Since he himself agreed that
25 documents be disclosed to him in electronic form, you were in a position
1 to do that. I do not agree to that. I want everything to be on paper.
2 So these are two very different cases. If we look at another case where
3 an accused agreed to have documents disclosed to him in electronic form,
4 cannot be a precedent for a case where the accused resolutely opposes
6 Secondly, the very fact that you marked so many pages of these
7 documents as potentially exculpatory material now makes it incumbent upon
8 you to disclose on paper, in Serbian, all these documents. I'm not going
9 to let you carry out a selection now and say, "Ah, we made a mistake.
10 That's not exculpatory and we're going to -- do not interrupt me now.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Dahl, you have the
13 MS. DAHL: I would object. I would ask the accused to speak to
14 the Court and not to the opposing party. I believe that is a breach of
15 proper courtroom decorum and not necessary.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, on the merits of this, I
17 think you're right, as far as form is concerned. I'd like you to address
18 me and the Prosecutor would like the rules to be properly applied. So
19 turn to me when you take the floor.
20 But as far as the document is concerned, and that's what I'm
21 interested in, thanks to Mr. Seselj, it's not the Prosecution that
22 notified me of this. In the Milosevic case, the Prosecutor, pursuant to
23 Rule 68, had disclosed to Mr. Milosevic in electronic format anything
24 pursuant to Rule 68(i). Mr. Milosevic was conversant in English and the
25 amicus curiae had accepted this system. This had not been a problem for
1 Mr. Milosevic, but there is a problem -- this is a problem for Mr. Seselj
2 because Mr. Seselj cannot accept this system.
3 Something which had escaped me and where it is an issue is that in
4 those documents which had been disclosed to Mr. Milosevic, there were
5 exculpatory documents that could be of interest to Mr. Seselj, who is part
6 of the joint criminal enterprise together with Mr. Milosevic. I think it
7 is important to remember this. I have the indictment here in front of me,
8 and in the indictment, in paragraph 8, all the members of the joint
9 criminal enterprise are mentioned: Slobodan Milosevic, Veljko,
10 Blagoje Adzic, Colonel Ratko Mladic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic,
11 Radovan Stojicic, Milan Martic, Goran Hadzic, Radovan Karadzic,
12 Momcilo Krajisnik, Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, and the last one formerly Arkan,
13 Zeljko Raznjatovic. So Mr. Milosevic was part of the joint criminal
14 enterprise, as is Mr. Seselj, so the exculpatory material which you sent
15 to Mr. Seselj may concern him also. He would therefore like to receive
16 them in his own language. I hope these have been translated and he would
17 like to receive them on paper. This is no mean issue. It is important
18 you deal with it. We will certainly get back to this. It is incumbent on
19 the Prosecution to look into this and deal with it and on the 4th of July,
20 you must inform me of where you stand.
21 I shall now move on to another topic.
22 Yes, Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, if you look at the transcript
24 of today's Status Conference as well, you can see that I invariably
25 address you only. When I address you, it is the figurative way I speak
1 and how I'm going to convey a particular message. For example, I can
2 mention a witness and say, "You have to tell the truth and so on and so
3 forth." So it's not that I was addressing the Prosecutor. I'm addressing
4 you. And through you, as the Presiding Judge, I'm conveying a message to
5 the Prosecution, and I am astonished by this absence of intelligence and
6 inventiveness. How can one not understand that, invariably, I have been
7 addressing you only and you can see that from the transcript.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I acknowledge this because
9 when you first intervened, you did say, "Your Honour" before making your
10 submission, so Mr. Seselj was addressing me and was not addressing the
11 Prosecutor. So let's set this aside for the moment because we have more
12 important issues to address right now, namely the question of Rule 67,
13 which is of great concern to you, Mr. Seselj. Lastly -- of late, I asked
14 the Prosecution to draw up its list of witnesses and to update its
15 pre-trial brief, but Rule 67 states as follows: "Within the time limit
16 prescribed by the Trial Chamber or by the Pre-Trial Judge appointed
17 pursuant to Rule 65 ter, the Defence" - i.e. you, in this
18 instance - "shall notify the Prosecutor of its intent to offer the defence
19 of alibi; in which case a notification shall specify the place or places
20 at which the accused claims to have been present at the time of the
21 alleged crime and the names of -- and addresses of witnesses and any other
22 evidence upon which the accused intends to rely to establish the alibi."
23 Thereafter, "Any special defence, including that of diminished or
24 lack of mental responsibility; in which case a notification shall specify
25 the names and addresses of witnesses and any other evidence upon which the
1 accused intends to rely to establish the special defence."
2 Therefore, Mr. Seselj, this procedure is made available to you.
3 This contains two aspects: A, the defence of alibi; and B, any special
4 defence. You may resort to this but you may also not resort to this rule.
5 It is for you to decide.
6 What is the defence of alibi? For instance, when an accused is
7 told that he was present on the scene when in fact he was not there. In
8 that case, the accused says, no, this is not right, I was not there, it
9 wasn't me.
10 So the defence of alibi deals with this kind of situation where
11 somebody is alleged to have behaved a certain way or to be responsible for
12 a particular fact when the person was not there. When you invoke this
13 particular item, you need to specify the names and addresses of the
14 witnesses in support of your defence. Then we also have a special defence
15 which can bring together a number of things. I don't think this would
16 apply to you, but if, for instance, we are dealing with mental
17 responsibility, either the fact that the person is not able to understand
18 things or that the accused has a mental disability. I don't think this
19 applies to you. But this is something that an accused can also resort to.
20 In that case, the accused can say that he was not able to understand what
21 he was doing and therefore cannot have been responsible for those
23 Now, when this has been dealt with, paragraph (ii): "The
24 Prosecutor shall notify the Defence of the names of the witnesses that the
25 Prosecutor intends to call in rebuttal of any defence plea."
1 In paragraph -- Rule 67 specifies that if you do not resort to
2 this, you are still entitled to testify on your defence plea thereafter.
3 Let me remind you that this rule does exist. If you would like to use it,
4 it is for you to inform the Prosecution about it because the Trial Chamber
5 has nothing to do with this system. It is for the Defence to inform the
6 Prosecution. So it is for you to deal with this. So I would like to draw
7 your attention on this particular rule.
8 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, I have no intention of
10 invoking any sort of alibi. The indictment does not even allege that I
11 was at the site of any of the crimes. Not only was I not a direct
12 perpetrator, I wasn't even there when the crimes were committed. What I
13 am being charged with primarily is hate speech, which I used to incite
14 murderous instincts in others, rape instincts, looting instincts, and the
15 desecration of places of worship. Then there is the joint criminal
16 enterprise notion, which is a mere notion. There are no elements to it.
17 According to that notion I should be responsible for any crime ever
18 committed by the Serbs anywhere. That is the notional framework. As far
19 as item B is concerned, under Rule 67, there is a partial specification,
20 and then it says the things it says about mental accountability or
21 responsibility of an accused. So that is a possible framework for a
22 defence but this doesn't limit the individual variance of this special
24 I did understand that in good time and over the last years, I
25 submitted to the OTP 15 documents in which I explained this special
1 defence notion. The first report I submitted, which ran into over 300
2 pages, was an analysis of my political speeches where I spoke about how
3 the Serbian soldiers and members of the Radical Serbian Party were to
4 behave in war, how they were to treat the civilian population, children
5 and so on and so forth. That was translated into English. The next
6 report I wrote was a report in which I challenged the possibility of any
7 sort of personal involvement on my part in a joint criminal enterprise.
8 Even this concept that the OTP resorts to has no precedent in
9 international criminal law. At the Nuremberg trials, there was the
10 concept of conspiracy that was used but not joint criminal enterprise,
11 which is what is being brought up here and which is what has been used
12 already in a number of different trials here, which is a sore spot for
13 this Tribunal generally speaking but that doesn't matter right now.
14 Further, I wrote reports on the criminal role of the Roman Pope
15 John-Paul II and Benedict XVI as the main culprits for the war in the
16 former Yugoslavia. These reports run into over 4.000 pages, and
17 contributions were made by Zoran Krasic and Elena Bozic-Talijan. This was
18 even published in Belgrade in four volumes. The set contains four thick
19 volumes. Further, I published three reports on what is here termed hate
20 speech which runs into a lot of pages again, perhaps over 800, if you put
21 it all together, citing examples of hate speech in Croatia by Croatian
22 officials, by Croatian public figures, citing examples of hate speech by
23 Muslim officials and figures of public life, and citing examples of hate
24 speech by Western politicians, statesmen and leaders, speaking in very
25 obvious terms about the Serbian people. And this was contributed to by
1 Miro, a member of my expert team. And several other reports where I deal
2 with the lack of reliability and moral credibility of certain OTP
3 witnesses that were announced but who were not protected witnesses, or
4 persons I assumed might appear as witnesses because they are on the OTP's
5 bankroll and appear in other trials, (redacted), Dejan Anastasijevic,
6 Vesna Kljajic and so forth -- and so on and so forth. So these persons
7 are not protected witnesses which means I can use their names freely in
8 open court.
9 I disclosed that, but in one fell swoop, the OTP are trying to
10 discredit this, as if I'd never done it to begin with. They have admitted
11 themselves that they never read or translated some of those. Some of
12 those they are not even familiar with. There is a motion to that effect
13 by the OTP dated about two months ago. But I stick to those reports.
14 These reports must be translated into English or French. Why? When my
15 legal advisers examine me in this courtroom, in compliance with item B of
16 Rule 67, they will be asking me about these reports. If you don't have it
17 ready and in front of you in English or French, if you don't have it
18 available, I don't know how on earth you're going to know what we are
19 talking about.
20 If you think that I'm going to try and prove that I'm totally
21 unrelated to a rape that happened somewhere or other or to an act of
22 mistreatment, that I first heard of after my arrival in The Hague, well,
23 then, you are dead wrong. I will destroy this general historic framework
24 that you so artificially built up in a series of trials before this
25 Tribunal. But on account of their inadequate defence strategies, the
1 accused so far have not been able to challenge that and to shatter this
2 construct. I am thoroughly preparing just for that, and thank God you
3 have provided me with ample time to prepare properly. Therefore, I'm not
4 neglecting this rule. It was under this rule that I filed 15 reports
5 which I'm not giving up regardless of the qualifications heaped on them by
6 the OTP. These reports cannot be ignored because the entire strategy of
7 my defence will be based on these reports and studies.
8 I am being charged with all these things but for these things I
9 will be using their own Popes, John-Paul the II and Benedict the XVI and
10 I'm going to be accusing them of these crimes. I cannot be a worst
11 criminal than Alija Izetbegovic, Franjo Tudjman, Bill Clinton,
12 Madeleine Albright, Jacques Chirac or Tony Blair and I will be proving
13 this in this courtroom and I will prove it well and soundly. I don't know
14 who can stand in my way and who can keep me from doing that. I'm not
15 going to be wasting my energy analysing if someone cursed someone else's
16 Muslim mother, if someone killed somebody else for profit. I'm not going
17 to be trying to convince anyone that it wasn't my fault that a murderous
18 instinct awoke in a particular person, that somebody instinctively felt
19 the need to loot or to kill people around him. I'm not going to be
20 challenging these because this is something that the OTP simply cannot
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
23 continues] ... A, B, by sending a 15 documents to the Prosecution. But as
24 you know, the document which you have forwarded, do these documents also
25 contain lists of witnesses which you intended to call to testify to prove
1 your point? Otherwise, the Prosecution can turn around and say, "I have
2 received the documents, but these documents do not contain the names of
3 the witnesses."
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, I do not need to have
5 any witnesses. Rule 67, item -- paragraph 1, item (B) says the names and
6 addresses of witnesses and any other evidence. I will not be bringing any
7 witnesses because that would be an irrational thing to do. In part,
8 however, the defence experts will be addressing the issue in their expert
9 reports. I limited myself to this particular portion, any other evidence.
10 In my studies, I invoke with great precision a number of books,
11 newspaper pieces, when I say books this means works of research, works of
12 scholarship, historical scholarship. I also invoke documents produced by
13 the Serbian secret services, especially as concerns certain witnesses on
14 the OTP's payroll who are being overpaid, (redacted)
15 (redacted). I invoke all of those and each of my
16 studies and reports contains the appropriate references.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Line 24 of page 51, the names
18 have not come up here. I hope, sir, that there are no protected witnesses
19 that you are referring to. I do not know.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly not. I'm keeping that in
21 mind 100 per cent. I will not be disclosing a single protected witness
22 name, at least not before protection measures are lifted. However, I will
23 be applying great effort towards that objective, for protective measures
24 to be lifted, and for the total number of protected witnesses to be
25 reduced to what can be considered --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
2 continues] ... To Rule 67 you have just told me that you have told the
3 Prosecutor of your special mean of defence and it's now for the Prosecutor
4 to see what's in there. And I expect that to happen very soon.
5 Now, since last time, I have ruled on a number of issues and I
6 would like to give you an indication of these because you may not have
7 received the translation. Ms. Dahl, you wanted to respond on the Article
8 67 issue.
9 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour we would like an opportunity before
10 the transcript is released to review it for redaction because I share the
11 Court's concern that perhaps there were materials mentioned that shouldn't
12 have been. I'd like to clarify that on 22 November 2006, the previous
13 Chamber issued an oral ruling at transcript page 812 to 813 that the
14 material mentioned by Mr. Seselj today, which is the same as being
15 discussed previously, was not within Rule 67, and I would note that on
16 November 8 and November 3, there was quite a bit of discussion of the
17 types of material Mr. Seselj considered to be a special defence. It was
18 clarified at that point by Mr. Seselj that it was not within the express
19 meaning of Rule 67 but that he considered it special because it was unique
20 or presented for the first time and we considered that all of the issues
21 were fully discussed and that there would be no reason to revisit the
22 decision of the 22nd of November.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I am bound only by what I say
24 and what I rule. It says here in Article 67 that the accused may refer to
25 a defence of alibi or a special defence. I have therefore turned to the
1 accused and asked him to tell us whether he wants to act on the basis of
2 Rule 67. He has just told me that on the issue of the defence of alibi he
3 does not intend to act upon it and as for the special defence, he has just
4 said that he has done what it takes and he has given me an explanation. I
5 therefore do not feel I'm in a position to say whether what he is saying
6 comes under the remit of Rule 67 or doesn't. What I do know is that
7 Article 67 -- that Rule 67 entitles him to act, vis-a-vis the Prosecution
8 and he feels what he has transmitted and handed over to you comes under
9 special defence. Me, personally, as the Chamber I have nothing to say.
10 First of all, because I have not seen these documents, I do not know what
11 they include, Mr. Seselj has given us a quick summary of them, and he has
12 also stated that he intends to refer to these documents during
13 cross-examination and the examination of expert witnesses.
14 So it's a question for you and him to settle. I have nothing to
15 do in this. My only rule is to remind the accused that he has a number of
16 rights, including this specific right under Rule 67, you may interpret
17 this differently. He interprets it in his own way. But once again, it is
18 not for me to say that his interpretation of Rule 67 is erroneous. It's
19 his business, it's not mine. Maybe we misunderstood each other, Ms. Dahl.
20 MS. DAHL: I'm in agreement with the Chamber. I was pointing out
21 that this was not new ground to be ploughed. That it had been addressed
22 previously for the Court's information and whether it withstands the
23 requirements of rules and whether he has complied with what's incumbent
24 upon him under the rules remains to be seen.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Mr. Seselj, you wanted to
1 answer back to Ms. Dahl, did you?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I think that it was precisely
3 in this courtroom that I testified for 14 days as a defence witness in the
4 Milosevic case. As for three of these reports, I presented my opinions on
5 that during my testimony there, and even the Prosecutor prepared his
6 questions for cross-examination on the basis of these reports, as regards
7 these particular individuals. May I draw your attention to another thing?
8 This manner that Prosecution counsel has, it seems to her that there may
9 be something here that should not be disclosed but she doesn't know what
10 it is, so she's going to look at it and speak on the subject subsequently.
11 I mentioned three witnesses, I testified about them in the
12 Milosevic case. (redacted), I testified in public
19 (redacted).But as a name, as an individual, he's not a protected witness.
20 People know, the public knows, that he testified here in several trials
21 and I spoke about him here on the basis of three concepts of my special
22 defence, and that is what I did as a defence witness in the Milosevic
24 Please do not allow such insinuations that somebody says, "It
25 seems to me that there may be something there." You either know or you
1 don't know that there is something there. I was very accurate, and I pay
2 special attention to this, and so far I've made no mistakes on that.
3 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, my concern was to act in accordance with
4 the protocol that was established for reviewing the transcripts in an
5 abundance of caution. There were no insinuations of misconduct being made
6 presently against Mr. Seselj. What we would like to do is simply review
7 it before it goes out. I'm rather new to the case and want to avoid
8 unnecessary inadvertent mistakes.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, registrar, I suppose we
11 should check indeed that the witnesses that have been mentioned are not
12 protected witnesses. I do not know. I understand that there is a --
13 somebody called (redacted) [as interpreted]. I have no idea who he
14 is. According to Mr. Seselj, his testimony did not happen while he was a
15 protected witness so that's all I know. Let us now move on to the next
16 item, rulings recently given.
17 The Trial Chamber -- the Chamber or myself, rather, have ruled on
18 the Cermak and Markac issue relating to the access of confidential
19 documents in the Seselj case. This was rejected -- thrown out in the
21 On the 29th of May, I gave a ruling on the protection of
22 witnesses. That's what I mentioned earlier, and I said how we should
24 I also ruled on the preliminary memo and the list of evidence
25 under 65 ter on the 31st of May, and I have asked Prosecution to hand this
1 over swiftly.
2 Mr. Seselj, there was also a very important ruling that was made.
3 You may have received a copy of it if it has been translated and I don't
4 know that it has yet. This ruling relates to the motion by the accused to
5 set a deadline to file a pre-judgement motion, a preliminary judgement, on
6 the summary indictment -- the summary modified indictment, motion number
7 287. The Chamber, under the chairmanship of Presiding Judge Robinson, has
8 accepted this motion, and therefore entitles the accused to file a
9 preliminary motion based on an error in the form of the amended summary
10 indictment. Therefore, a 14-day period will run as of the translation of
11 the motion or of the 14 motions under motion 285.
12 Mr. Seselj, I remember that you said last time that you wanted to
13 challenge the indictment. Our ruling enables you to do so. The deadline
14 runs from the moment when you will have received this ruling translated
15 into your own language. This is something that I wish to inform you of.
16 There is also another motion that was slightly confidential and I
17 will therefore ask the registrar to put us back into private session. And
18 I will give the floor to the Prosecution afterwards because I want to wrap
19 up on this final point first.
20 Registrar, please, closed session.
21 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, you have the floor.
18 MS. DAHL: I wanted to indicate that the intersection between
19 those two rulings presents a conundrum for the timetable under which
20 Mr. Seselj is to file his challenge to the indictment. Under the
21 Chamber's ruling, the last triggering date is service of one of the -- of
22 the Rule 66(A)(i) statements. We are in the process of disclosing those
23 materials presently. However, the delayed disclosure of some -- a subset
24 of those statements allows us to wait until 30 days before trial. That
25 would delay the timetable under the Chamber's order to challenge the
1 indictment, and I would like to request modification of that decision. I
2 can put the request in writing, if that will be more helpful, so that the
3 non-protected witness statements, the service of those, will then be the
4 triggering event and that we are not put -- the case is not put in the
5 position of having the challenge to the indictment coming on the opening
6 of the trial.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. I will look into this.
8 The issue of course is not wasting -- of not wasting any time, and to do
9 so we have to make sure that Mr. Seselj can have the possibility very soon
10 of filing his motions on the indictment, and that he also has access to
11 these 14 statements should they serve any purpose in his defence. In the
12 ruling that Judge Robinson has signed and which I can read here, it states
13 that the 30-day period runs from the moment when Mr. Seselj gets the
14 translation in B/C/S, and it also indicates that it may run from the
15 moment when he receives the documents under Rule 66(A)(i).
16 Now, because we now have this order I think we should act upon it
17 very swiftly so that we shouldn't waste any time. Afterwards, the
18 Trial Chamber, as a whole, will have to look at it, seeing as it is a
19 preliminary motion. I have not -- I cannot act on the authority of the
20 Trial Chamber as a whole, so the Trial Chamber as a whole will have to
21 rule on this preliminary motion on the basis of the questions raised by
22 Mr. Seselj, should there be any. And this may also take some time.
23 Let me also mention -- let me also mention the issue of motion
24 288. There were also a number of issues related to confidentiality and I
25 would therefore ask the usher to -- the registrar, sorry, to go into
1 closed [sic] session.
2 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. So we are back in
23 public session, then -- open session. I heard that the wall was being
24 broken down. I don't know where we've got to. Maybe the construction
25 work is finished. Can you tell me more, maybe?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I was told that work on this
2 would start on Friday. By this morning, work hadn't started yet. But it
3 wouldn't surprise me if work was already underway now and had started
4 after I left the cell. I certainly received every possible guarantee that
5 the matter would be dealt with swiftly.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the course of a Status
7 Conference, I remember giving the undertaking, and I will stick to it,
8 that I would come and see by myself that indeed you do enjoy the best
9 possible facilities so as to enable you to work from your cell. I was
10 therefore waiting until the end of this demolition work before I would
11 come and visit you. Now, we will come back on the 4th of July and you
12 will tell me on the 4th of July when it is agreeable to you for me to come
13 and visit you, together with the registrar, of course, to witness by my
14 own eyes that it has been done. I'll just remind you that as of the 12th
15 of July, I shall not be in The Hague so I will come between the 4th and
16 the 12th, provided the demolition work is done. Just goes to show that it
17 made sense for me to raise this issue because I had been told, or at least
18 I was under the impression that the demolition work had started and you're
19 telling me that it hasn't.
20 I therefore sincerely hope that it will start very shortly so we
21 will discuss this issue once again on the 4th of July and I hope that we
22 will have finished the demolition work by then and that you will have a
23 free access to the second cell so that you can have easy access to all
24 your documents.
25 I'd also like to -- are there any other comments on this issue,
1 Mr. Seselj?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I do have another question to
3 raise, if I may. Yesterday I filed a motion for the Trial Chamber to
4 reconsider its ruling on the 15th of May. This is the contempt of court
5 proceedings, the request for contempt of court proceedings, for this to be
6 delayed until the end of trial which is the suggestion that you made
7 yourself. For reasons that I can't understand, this was served on me
8 eight days too late. However, there is another argument that I would like
9 to raise, which I came across as I received your ruling. The ruling was
10 made on the 15th of May and I received it on the 1st of June. Therefore I
11 had no time to draw the attention of my legal advisers to the documents so
12 that they may incorporate it into the motion. In footnote 2 to that
13 order, it reads that the OTP had submitted a reply to the contempt of
14 court proceedings. There are ten confidential attachments and an ex parte
15 attachment. I didn't get the reply at all. This was filed by the OTP on
16 the 12th of April and has not been translated into Serbian or served on
17 me, for example.
18 Judge, sir, you know that under Rule 126 bis, I'm entitled to seek
19 explanation from the Chamber for the submission of a reply to any motion
20 made by the OTP. The time for filing responses to motions. I've not been
21 able to do that so far because I still don't have the OTP motion. It
22 hasn't been served on me and it would seem to follow from that same thing
23 that the Trial Chamber could not make an order based on my motion based
24 solely on the motion and reply by the OTP without allowing me to formally
25 file a response. This is just another -- another argument in favour of
1 you altering the 15th of May order. The urgency of a contempt proceedings
2 is paramount here. Your order speaks to the fact that there is a
3 suspicion, suspicion of contempt having been committed. Had there not
4 been this suspicion you would have thrown my motion out any way. Any
5 delay in these proceedings would be an obstruction of justice.
6 This is a very important preliminary matter that must be dealt
7 with before the trial begins. So, having raised this additional point, I
8 think I have now shown sufficiently that the order must be reconsidered
9 and amended. The order itself violates one of my basic procedural rights
10 under Rule 126 bis.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if I understand you
12 rightly, Mr. Seselj, and I must say, I had overlooked this, you have not
13 had the answer of the Prosecution; is that right?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not to this very day. The response
15 is dated the 12th of April.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Under Rule 126 bis, when
17 a party answers, they can be the possibility for the other party to be
18 allowed to answer back by the Chamber. This, of course, would require you
19 to have been given the preliminary answer. I now understand you haven't
20 received it. Well, I will look at my colleague -- I will turn to my
21 colleagues and this was a Trial Chamber's ruling as a whole, and I
22 therefore must consult them. I personally would be ready to give you more
23 time to answer back but I am not sure I know what my colleagues would say.
24 I will therefore consult them and you're quite right to have drawn
25 my attention to this issue. I expect my colleagues had not taken into
1 account or realised the issue of the translation. What I expect is that
2 the Prosecution's answer went to translation and translation -- that
3 translation of the document didn't occur or was happening and therefore
4 you didn't get it in time and has not -- you have not been in a position
5 to answer back. So thank you for telling me and I will consult and tell
6 my colleagues immediately, enabling you to act upon this.
7 Let me now turn to Ms. Dahl. We have noticed, Madam, that there
8 are a number of outstanding issues that are still pending, the issue of
9 funding by the Tribunal of his associates, the 207.000 pages, the issue
10 also of the indictment that will be called into question by the accused,
11 and all sorts of other things. I think we all now know what these issues
12 are. Now, over and beyond these current problems, I think we should look
13 to the future. And when I say we should look to the future, I think we
14 should establish a working mechanism that Prosecution -- or working plan
15 that the Prosecution could submit to the Chamber, bearing in mind the
16 possibility of new modifications and amendments on the indictment.
17 What I'm more interested in is working on the basis of the 65 ter
18 list and understand how you will get the witnesses to come, the viva voce
19 witnesses, the 65 ter witnesses, and the others. What is your working
20 plan, what do you expect to do? I will also have to tell you and to
21 decide on how much time you will have for the presentation of the evidence
22 on the basis of all these elements. I know that the trial started and was
23 then suspended because of the counsel issue. I seem to remember that you
24 had provided for six months for the presentation of evidence, give or take
25 a little time. Six months is so many hours. So on the basis of your
1 working plan, I will have to look, witness by witness, how much time we
2 should expect to spend with them.
3 I therefore need to know what you intend to do and I need to get a
4 sense and an understanding of how you are going to present the evidence,
5 and that means, of course, that I need to know who are going to be your
6 witnesses, how -- who comes and testifies viva voce, who is going to be 92
7 bis, 92 ter. I need all this so that I can prepare the work of the
8 Chamber and also so that the accused, who will be organising his own
9 defence, can organise it precisely because he needs to know who the
10 witnesses are and who they will be coming and how -- in which order they
11 will be coming. He needs to be informed upstream.
12 So I just wanted to mention this. And I'm sure that we will have
13 opportunities to come back to this issue, and I wanted to highlight the
14 fact that this is a significant concern that I have and that presumably
15 the accused shares. So that he can organise his defence depending on who
16 comes and which witnesses come. After all, cross-examination also has to
17 be properly prepared.
18 During the next Status Conferences, we will have an opportunity, I
19 am sure, to discuss with Mr. Seselj and yourself all the issues that
21 Now, before I sum up the Status Conference, after all, I am
22 working on another case this afternoon, I would like to turn to Mr. Seselj
23 one final time and ask him whether there are any other items that he
24 wishes to raise today for the information of the Trial Chamber or the
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Judge, sir. I have raised all
2 my points for today.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I must also ask you
4 the usual questions on your health. Are you in good health?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm all right. No problems.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And as far as your
7 conditions of detention are concerned, are there any particular requests
8 or grievances you would like to make or are you waiting for the work to be
9 completed in this famous cell?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no grievances for the time
11 being. I have received every assurance that this would be finished in a
12 matter of days.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Dahl, would you
14 like to draw my attention or the attention of the Trial Chamber on any
15 particular point?
16 MS. DAHL: The overwhelming majority of motions that are pending
17 before the Chamber have to do with planning for the trial and what method
18 we will be presenting testimony. I will endeavour to present two pictures
19 to the Chamber regarding the duration of the case. One is if we are in
20 need of bringing more witnesses than planned in viva voce format, and
21 whether the amount of time that is represented by using the procedures
22 under the rules, it's my understanding that Mr. Seselj has a strong
23 objection to so-called paper testimony, and we will look at our case to
24 see how best to present it. We want to achieve a coherent and cogent
25 narrative for the finders of fact and that perhaps is best served by
1 favouring the viva voce witnesses but we will certainly streamline and
2 present the most persuasive concise case possible.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, I would
4 just like to put a question to you. This is something which I have
5 noticed in the written submissions. This has to do with the 92 ter
6 witnesses. In your written submissions, you are against the fact that
7 these witnesses fall under the 92 ter rules provisions. Let me reassure
8 you, the 92 ter rule does entitle to you cross-examine these witnesses.
9 92 ter rule is a fairly simple rule; we have a written statement in this
10 case. The witness has prepared this written statement. The witness has
11 signed it. And he is then being asked a while ago, in 2002, 2003, 2004, I
12 don't know, "You made this statement. Is this your statement?" And he
13 says, "Yes." "Is this your signature?" And he says, "Yes."
14 "Would you like to amend something today?" Sometimes in certain
15 cases some witnesses say yes. Because they remembered a number of facts
16 or they remembered that what they have stated is not quite in line with
17 what they said at the time. So then changes are made. And after that,
18 the Prosecutor says, and this is a very swift process, "I would like to
19 tender into evidence the written statement."
20 The accused then has the floor and the accused cross-examines the
21 witness on the entirety of the document. But in this -- at this
22 particular stage, the documents are being authenticated by the witness.
23 Certain documents are shown by the Prosecution to the witness and the
24 witness is asked to comment upon them. And as part of the
25 cross-examination, the accused then cross-examines the witness and says,
1 in paragraph 1, you have said such and such, and you cross-examine the
3 I wanted to make sure that you had no doubts about this. The
4 Prosecutor is not tendering into evidence a document which nobody is
5 allowed to talk about. The Prosecution -- the accused plays a great part
6 because the accused cross-examines the witness, and the judges on the
7 Bench also put questions to the witness, put questions about the
8 documents, about what the witness has written and so on and so forth.
9 This is a fairly new procedure, which is advantageous because we are able
10 to gain time in this case. And very often, the -- during the Prosecution
11 case, the witness answers questions which are put by the Prosecution. So
12 in certain instances we are able to gain time and the Prosecution is
13 still -- and the accused can cross-examine this witness. As this witness
14 figures on the 65 ter witness list, and the time allocated to the
15 Prosecution is mentioned on this document, an hour and a half, for
16 instance, the Defence will automatically have the same time, i.e. an hour
17 and a half, even if the Prosecution spends ten minutes with this witness,
18 the accused will have an hour and a half to cross-examine that witness.
19 I wanted to share this with you because in your written
20 submissions, I understand that you were worried about it. Mr. Seselj, you
21 have the floor.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Indeed, Judge, sir, there are two
23 problems inherent in this. One has surfaced repeatedly already. I really
24 am adamant that the number of 92 bis testimonies, 92 ter and 92 quater, be
25 reduced to a minimum. The bulk of evidence must be viva voce. In
1 principle, the evidence under the three said rules should not amount to
2 more than 10 per cent of the total evidence. Secondly, before you and
3 your colleagues agree to have a certain statement made by a witness
4 admitted under 92 bis, 92 ter and 92 quater, the OTP must submit to both
5 you and me the material in its totality: Any statements made by these
6 witnesses, any evidence they gave in other trials, and any possible
7 accompanying documents. They must do this before I am bound to state my
8 position whether it is acceptable for me for any of these witnesses to be
9 introduced under any of these rules. The OTP are doing it exactly the
10 other way around. They want you to grant these witnesses being introduced
11 under these rules ahead of time, as it were.
12 And then in God knows how many months, I will be caught up in a
13 situation where I will have to acquaint myself quickly with the essence of
14 their evidence, the gist of their evidence. I must know what the essence
15 of their evidence is under these rules and then I can make my move. It
16 isn't enough for me to know that a witness has died and then his statement
17 is submitted under 92 bis. Maybe it's sufficient for that witness. If
18 he's dead, he cannot be here. But it's certainly not sufficient for me to
19 allow his statement to be introduced under a certain rule. It must be
20 better argumented, as it were. The trial is four and a half years late.
21 Half my witnesses will die before the trial ever begins. People are
22 fragile beings. They are gone in a minute, especially all these false
23 witnesses, suddenly their conscience awakes, they have compunction and
24 they commit suicide, or something simply eats them up from inside. These
25 are dangerous matters, you know, and they are certainly not a game.
1 There must be a study in relation to each and every witness
2 planned to be submitted under Rule 92 bis, ter or quater. We must list
3 everything that puts me in connection with this witness and then I can
4 say, "This one okay, 92 bis, this one okay, 92 ter, this one okay, 92
5 quater." But if I say that I can't accept one of these witnesses under
6 any of these rules, I must know exactly why and I must have appropriate
7 reasons. Things being what they are, I can state, ahead of time and as a
8 matter of principle, I don't agree. And then you say but you don't
9 furnish any argument, do you? How could I possibly furnish any argument
10 if I've never received any documents whatsoever?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Insofar as some witnesses can
12 come in different forms, 92 ter, 92 bis and 92 quater, viva voce, viva
13 voce and 92 ter witnesses can be cross-examined by you. As far as 92 bis
14 witnesses are concerned, as you know, these are witnesses which meet very
15 precise criteria and under Rule 92 bis, the criteria should be mentioned
16 in the Prosecution's motion and should be clearly spelled out, to see
17 whether there is any need to hear these witnesses, and under Rule 92 bis,
18 it is stated that these testimony must be cumulative as compared with
19 other witnesses, therefore the Prosecution should explain why this
20 testimony is cumulative in nature, should pertain to the historical
21 political or military background in question, and statistical analysis of
22 ethnic -- of ethnicity, has to relate to the crimes committed on victims,
23 on the character of the accused, or has to do with information that has to
24 be considered when handing down the sentence. And some factors are quite
25 the opposite, that the evidence be presented orally, that a party may
1 object because it feels that this is not reliable, and any other factor
2 that would substantiate a cross-examination. So this procedure is subject
3 to a number of criteria and it will be for the Chamber to hand down a
5 I cannot take a decision at this juncture on these 92 bis
6 witnesses. Last time, I explained that it has -- it is shaped like a
7 triangle. We have viva voce witnesses, 92 ter witnesses, who come to
8 corroborate what viva voce witnesses have said, and then we have 92 bis
9 witnesses that corroborate all of this, but basically the whole system
10 rests on the testimony of viva voce witnesses. This is what I said last
11 time. When a viva voce witness has just discussed a number of events or
12 facts, a 92 ter witness will address the same events but maybe it is not
13 necessary to examine him on all the events in question. So this is how
14 Rule 92 ter is being applied.
15 You raised the 92 ter -- 92 quater issue. We do face a situation,
16 some of the witnesses have died unfortunately, and these witnesses have
17 made written statements or these witnesses have testified, either under
18 oath or have testified during the Prosecution case and have been
19 cross-examined. In certain cases, this evidence provided by these
20 witnesses may be of interest in the particular case, maybe of interest to
21 the Prosecution or may be of interest to the Defence. You may want to
22 tender into evidence the testimony of a witness who has died because you
23 feel that this is particularly important, and this procedure enables to
24 you do this. So this is how the system works. I know that 92 quater is
25 something which you've referred to. You are thinking of Mr. Babic, and
1 you are referring to what has been said in the Milosevic trial. Unless
2 I'm mistaken, I believe that that is what you are referring to. Maybe
3 you're referring to other things as well. I don't know. But we will know
4 which will be the viva voce, 92 ter, 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses. We
5 will be hearing as soon as the witness list is drawn up. And it's only
6 when that is done that we will be able to see where we stand.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The OTP provided a general list of
8 witnesses. In my opinion, it was done before the indictment was reduced,
9 because I indicated to you last time that there are many crime based
10 witnesses on that list, from Vocin, Brcko, Bijeljina, Samac, et cetera and
11 all of that is no longer in the indictment. So again, the OTP has not
12 done its work conscientiously and properly. First they should submit a
13 list of viva voce witnesses, and that is something that they undeniably
14 have the right to do. For everything else, the OTP have to be granted
15 leave by the Trial Chamber and before you rule on this, I have to have
16 time to challenge it because, say, even in 92 bis you can have a character
17 witness. There are at least a million people who are prepared to write
18 the worst of things about my character and then I don't have the
19 opportunity to cross-examine them and to prove that their character is far
20 worse, and in this way make them totally incredible and therefore their
21 statements would not even be taken into consideration.
22 Then in accordance with 92 ter, there is this trend in the OTP, in
23 other cases, to call as many witnesses as possible under 92 ter under the
24 exclusive argument of saving time in this way. However, under Rule 92
25 ter, every witness can charge me in the same way in which viva voce
1 witnesses can charge me, whereas my time for cross-examination is limited.
2 In the Milosevic case, it was from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. And
3 then for example, 200 documents are tendered along with such a witness.
4 He cannot -- this kind of witness cannot even mention all the documents
5 involved. And so on and so forth. Last time, I gave the example of the
6 insider witness who was supposed to be their crown witness, in December
7 last year, this -- and now they have submitted a request to turn that
8 witness VS-17 it into a 92 ter witness. All of a sudden, this star
9 witnesses changes his status. It just crossed their mind. Do you know
10 why? Because the OTP writes that person's statement and then they are
11 afraid that that witness will not be able to tell that story as nicely as
12 they wrote it in his statement, because this is not his own statement,
13 it's somebody else's. It's the OTP that created the statement. Then I'm
14 going to be constrained in terms of my cross-examination time and anything
16 As for 92 quater, an according to my calculation, there are six
17 witnesses that died, Milan Babic; Miroslav Deronjic; then a Muslim officer
18 from Mostar; then an alleged volunteer from Novi Sad; another one
19 committed suicide, the OTP asked for protective measures to be lifted but
20 I haven't got the decision yet as to whether these measures were lifted or
21 not. I'm going to mention any names although they know who this is. And
22 one person was killed because he took part in Arkan's assassination. He
23 was killed on some vendetta.
24 So, along with Milan Babic, I already gave you this example, they
25 want to tender about 300 documents. I have forgotten the exact number but
1 I told you because I had the exact survey, through a dead witness they
2 want to tender 300 documents. I don't think that a single document of a
3 general nature can be introduced through a dead witness because the point
4 of introducing documents through witnesses is that I should have an
5 opportunity to ask that witness specific questions about a given document,
6 not saying automatically, let's introduce 300 documents, or for example in
7 the case of 92 ter, I get an hour or an hour and a half for
8 cross-examination and several hundred documents accompany that witness's
9 statement. I should be given the opportunity to put at least one question
10 respectively with regard to each and every one of these documents. Let
11 the OTP reduce the number of documents or let them count on a lot more
12 time. I cannot use less than three minutes for putting questions for each
13 and every document. If you have several thousand documents, then multiply
14 that by five minutes, for instance and you're going to see how much time
15 that is for cross-examination on documents only.
16 And then, clarify this for yourselves: How many irrelevant
17 documents there are there. Because I have the right to put questions
18 with regard to relevancy, not just to give me a bit of time to ask him
19 what's his name, what kind of schools he went to and so on. You know, the
20 main point of cross-examination is to challenge the credibility of a
21 witness. I am going to ask him about his mother's milk, that he was fed
22 when he was a baby and I'm going to prove even through that that he cannot
23 be a credible witness. I repeat my insistence yet again, as for 92 bis,
24 ter and quater, I should have a minimal number of witnesses.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you are saying has been
1 recorded. We will be able to see things much more clearly once we have a
2 new list, but just one remark I'd like to make. Given that the indictment
3 has been amended, the Prosecution withdrew 26 witnesses from its original
4 witness list, but before we can do anything we need to have the definitive
5 witness list. As now the time has come to adjourn, I'd like to thank you
6 and we shall meet again on the 4th of July.
7 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
8 12.28 p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th
9 day of July 2007.