1 Thursday, 12 March 2009
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.33 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Vojislav Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
12 This is Thursday, March 12th, 2009, and I welcome Mr. Mundis and
13 all his assistants, as well as Mr. Seselj, and I also welcome all the
14 people helping us.
15 We are going to have a housekeeping session today. The Trial
16 Chamber has some information to provide to Mr. Seselj. We will also ask
17 the Prosecutor and Mr. Seselj whether they have any items they would like
18 to raise.
19 First and foremost, the Trial Chamber would like to tell
20 Mr. Seselj, given the translation problems and the time translation
21 takes, that the Trial Chamber has actually ruled on the addendum
22 regarding the motion for imposing counsel, and for reasons that will be
23 explained in the written decision, which will soon be filed, the Trial
24 Chamber, in its majority, myself having a dissident opinion, has decided
25 to stay on the addendum regarding the behaviour of the accused outside
1 the courtroom, which means, in other words, that the Trial Chamber has
2 decided not to decide so far and will only rule on this when it will have
3 all the findings from another Chamber at its disposal.
4 As far as I'm concerned, I wrote a dissenting opinion which was
5 about ten pages' long, and, Mr. Seselj, you will be getting this opinion,
6 and in my submission I write that the Trial Chamber should have reviewed
7 its decision of November 25, 2008, where it actually decided to stay on
8 the initial motion and should also have just plainly rejected the motion,
9 the present motion, as of today. This is what I explain in my dissenting
10 opinion, and of course once translated, you will be given this document.
11 It might take some time, but I wanted you to know right away. All this
12 means, that for now, no counsel is imposed -- has been appointed.
13 I wanted to tell you all this. Wait for the written decision,
14 translated into your language, and you can read my opinion. And when we
15 meet again, I'm sure you'll be able to make some comments on this, if you
16 believe that this is necessary. That's it.
17 If you have nothing to add, I will move to another topic.
18 Mr. Seselj.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I assume that I do understand
20 what this is all about. Could you please just help me and tell me
21 whether this submission made by the Prosecution was fully closed to the
22 public or only part of it? As far as I can remember, the Prosecution
23 thought it was a problem that my books were printed, and they asked the
24 Trial Chamber to rule on this to the effect that they would approve
25 beforehand the content of the books that I was preparing for publication;
1 that is to say, that they would be submitted to censorship by the Trial
3 I believe that this is truly incredible. If that is why the
4 Trial Chamber decided to actually postpone its decision with regard to
5 this kind of a motion, then I believe that is indicative of the true
6 intentions of the majority of the members of the Trial Chamber.
7 Actually, I'm speculating now, perhaps, until I see the decision itself.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely, you're right, this
9 is speculation right now, so please wait until you have the decision, and
10 you can read it.
11 The issue of confidentiality is another issue, and it is
12 ancillary compared to the decision, but I can tell you that the decision
13 was not handed down because we wanted to hide anything; absolutely not.
14 But in terms of procedure, the motion of the Prosecution was, in part,
15 ex parte and confidential, and because of this the decision will also be
16 confidential, but I will check with my colleagues to see which parts of
17 the decision we can make public. Let me remind you that everything we
18 said is said publicly.
19 The difficulty here, Mr. Seselj, is the following: Everyone,
20 you, the Prosecution, or the Judges, are confronted with three elements:
21 the ex parte element, the confidential element and the public element,
22 and we have to juggle all of this. So everyone tries to make as much as
23 possible public, but even though we are all showing a lot of goodwill,
24 including the Judges - I want to reassure you on this, the Judges are
25 also showing a lot of goodwill - sometimes we are just blocked, we are
1 just stopped, when there are passages that deal with protected witnesses,
2 because then we have to make sure that this remains confidential. There
3 could have been other solutions, but we should have checked this from the
4 very beginning.
5 In decisions or in motions, we could have said "Witness X,"
6 without giving his name or anything, and then, in a confidential addendum
7 or annex, say exactly who this person is and disclose his identity. Then
8 we could have a completely public document with an additional document
9 that would help identify the witness if need be, and that would be
10 confidential. But this is an avenue that was not exploited,
11 unfortunately, and we were used -- we got used to filing confidential
12 documents just because a protected witness is mentioned, and to be on the
13 safe side there is confidential. I think the simplest solution would
14 have been to just say that the witness is called X, Y, or Z, and because
15 of this witness, there is such and such problem, and then that would have
16 been a solution to avoid all this.
17 In the civil law system, the debate is public. All motions are
18 made publicly. There is nothing to hide, whereas here it's a different
19 system that's in place. It's a bit surprising for someone who comes from
20 a civil law system where there's full transparency. It's a bit
22 And I must tell you that as far as what you're saying is
23 concerned, the majority decision made here has absolutely nothing to do
24 with the issue of confidentiality. This decision was made for legal
25 reasons. It's quite respectable, of course, and it's a majority
1 decision. I am of another opinion, but that's -- do you have anything to
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 Mr. President, I find it quite understandable when
5 confidentiality measures are applied in order to protect victims,
6 witnesses, et cetera. What I find incomprehensible is when it is
7 overdone, to the detriment of justice, especially because this is being
8 overdone when it's obvious that we are dealing with false witnesses.
9 Judges, as the Trial Chamber, several times you have assured
10 yourselves here that these are false witnesses because their testimony
11 boiled down to nothing, and I wonder why you kept the confidentiality
12 measures in place, then.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the question of
14 false witnesses, quote/unquote "false witnesses," of course, as an
15 accused you're entitled to say that a Prosecution witness is not telling
16 the truth and that you believe he's a false witness. You have -- you're
17 fully entitled to this, just like when you have your own witnesses, your
18 own Defence witnesses, the Prosecution can say exactly the same thing
19 about your witnesses.
20 Now, the issue of a witness, under oath -- who's under oath, if
21 suddenly his testimony turns out to be a lie, there is a procedure under
22 Rule 91 to solve this problem, but when we have the problem of someone
23 that's saying something that's not exactly the truth, he could do it in
24 very good faith. People sometimes say things in good faith that are not
25 exactly true, which doesn't mean, of course, that they're false
1 witnesses. And then sometimes, you know, there are witnesses, you know,
2 who, come hell or high water, who say things that are not true, and those
3 might be called false witnesses. But, I mean, you're a law professor.
4 You know that in an offence, you know there some constitutive elements,
5 and the mens rea is important, the intention is important. So when you
6 supposedly have a false witness, you have to prove that as far as his
7 intention is concerned, he actually wanted and had desire to be a false
8 witness and give a false testimony. You believe that's the case, but we
9 do not. We're not at the stage where we are assessing the probative
10 value of the testimonies in front of us.
11 I was reading, with interest, the Milutinovic judgement, because
12 you know I read everything. I try to keep abreast of developments,
13 notably regarding the other Chambers, in order to see what they say, what
14 they do, in order, you know, to be informed of all this, and in the
15 Milutinovic judgement I was noting that the Judges in this case noted
16 that sometimes victim witnesses said a bit more than the reality, which
17 didn't mean that they were false witnesses. Sometimes, you know,
18 witnesses go overboard and just, you know, pile up the information, just
19 give too much information. This is well known.
20 Just imagine that there is a car accident and suddenly you feel
21 that it's a disaster and that it's been -- the car is totalled, when it's
22 not -- hasn't been totalled, there's just the fender that's bent, that's
23 all, and the victim will say, My car has been totalled. It hasn't, but
24 the witness is not making a false testimony. And this happens here, too.
25 Sometimes people actually tell the truth, tell what they believe is the
1 truth, but there's a bit more than what really happened. You say these
2 are false witnesses. That's your own opinion, but we don't have all the
3 elements at hand as of now in order to assess the value of all this.
4 In due time, it will be up to you to put your case, if you decide
5 to put your case, and then the Trial Chamber will compare what the
6 Prosecution witness said compared to what your own witnesses might say,
7 and we'll see.
8 So this issue of false witnesses is an issue of -- these
9 quote/unquote "false witnesses" cannot be assessed right now. That's for
11 I want to do say this, because you seem to insist on this all the
12 time, and the Trial Chamber has answered over and over again on this
13 issue, but I will just give you another answer.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all right, I'm not
15 going to deal with that any longer. However, in relation to what you
16 raised before, the question is: What document can be an ex parte
17 document and which one cannot? I understand that in Anglo-Saxon law,
18 both parties can submit some documents ex parte, make submissions
19 ex parte, et cetera. However, as far as I have been made aware of
20 Anglo-Saxon law, this can only be of a cautionary nature in the
21 proceedings, in terms of protection of witnesses, places of residence, or
22 if it has to do with the jeopardy of witnesses, et cetera.
23 When a motion is being filed to take away any procedural right of
24 mine, or if a motion is filed requesting a decision that imperils me in
25 any way, that motion cannot be ex parte in a single section. I have to
1 be made aware of all of it.
2 Until now, it was at least twice that you tolerated the
3 submission of such motions by the OTP, and it remained a secret, even to
4 me, what the motion contains. How can I respond to a motion like that?
5 How can I defend myself from the accusations made against me by the OTP?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me answer by quoting the
7 Rule. I know the Rules inside-out. As a permanent Judge, you know, I
8 also can ask my fellow Judges to amend a number of Rules, and I can tell
9 you that I have made a number of requests to change a number of Rules.
10 So there is Rule 68, for example, and Rule 68 says the following,
11 and I quote. I'll read it slowly, and you'll understand exactly what I
12 mean. This is paragraph 4:
13 "If the Prosecutor has information whose disclosure may prejudice
14 further or ongoing investigation, or, for any other reason, may be
15 contrary to the public interest or affect the security interest of any
16 state, it must ask of the Trial Chamber, in closed session, to be
17 relieved from an obligation under paragraph (I)(1) obligation,
18 paragraph (I)(1) being the obligation of the Prosecutor to disclose all
20 This being said, the Prosecutor will provide the Trial Chamber,
21 but only to the Trial Chamber, so not to you but just to the Trial
22 Chamber, so the Prosecutor shall provide the Trial Chamber, but only the
23 Trial Chamber with the information that is sought to be kept
25 I'm not talking about the security interest of any state here,
1 but I'm talking about this Rule as it applies to Prosecution
2 investigations. Because of this Article, the Prosecutor can make sure
3 that elements are only given to the Judges and not to the other parties.
4 This is exactly what's written in the Rules, Rule 68(4). Now, you can
5 just read it again, if you want, overnight. So the rule of law, as it
6 is, does exist. A direct law exists. You know, this is Rule 68(4). It
7 provides for this confidential ex parte procedure. Well, it's actually a
8 fully ex parte procedure existing between the Prosecutor and the Trial
9 Chamber, without the accused being informed of anything. It's in the
10 Rules, and it's been in the Rules since its inception February 11, 1994
11 amended in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and no one has ever decided to amend
12 this Article, this Rule. And I must tell you that I, myself, fully agree
13 with the content of this Rule. If I hadn't, I would have seized the
14 plenary assembly in order to make a change. But there has to be a rule
15 that provides the Prosecution with the possibility of making its
16 investigation confidentially, and this is exactly why this Rule exists.
17 Mr. Seselj.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this Rule, this
19 Rule 68(4), pertains exclusively to exculpatory material. That is to say
20 that if the Prosecutor obtains a document that is exculpatory for me, but
21 is in contravention of public interest or prejudices the interests of a
22 state, it will disclose the document to the Trial Chamber, but not to me.
23 So the OTP will, in part, make my position easier without me knowing it.
24 But that is only in the case of exculpatory material, because Rule 68(4)
25 applies only to 68(1), where it says that the Prosecutor shall, as soon
1 as practical, disclose to the Defence any material which, in the actual
2 knowledge of Prosecutor, may suggest the innocence, or mitigate the guilt
3 of the accused, or affect the credibility of Prosecution evidence; that
4 is to say, that these are documents that are being submitted to you by
5 the Prosecution ex officio, although they are against the interests of
6 the Prosecution, and that they even bring into question parts of the
7 indictment or the indictment in its entirety. However, as far as
8 documents or submissions made by the OTP are made that prejudice some of
9 my rights or, as a matter of fact, my very fate, these documents cannot
10 be dealt with ex parte, and there is no basis for that.
11 The basic rule in any civilised criminal proceedings is that the
12 accused should be made fully aware of what it is that he is defending
13 himself from. The OTP files a motion, like the one that you mentioned in
14 the beginning, and I am aware of its contents only in part. How can I
15 defend myself from that motion? And you rule on that motion. That is
16 impossible, and there is no basis for that in the Rules of Procedure.
17 68(4) pertains only to exculpatory material, exculpatory material only,
18 because on the basis of this Rule, I do not need to know about
19 exculpatory material that does exist; however, the OTP is duty-bound to
20 make the Trial Chamber aware of it.
21 However, when they are putting forth something that accuses me, I
22 am kept in the dark. That is impermissible. The OTP cannot deal with
23 things that way, and the Trial Chamber cannot protect this in an ex parte
24 way. It cannot be ex parte for me. It can be confidential in view of
25 the broader public, but not for me. Nothing that accuses me can be kept
1 inaccessible to me. Otherwise, you have to reject it outright. If it is
2 something that is incriminating for me, it has to be served on me. You,
3 as the Trial Chamber, cannot accept that. You have to reject any
4 accusations that I cannot defend myself from entirely. There should be
5 nothing that exists for you, as Judges, that I cannot defend myself from.
6 There can be something incriminatory against me only if I can fully and
7 effectively defend myself from that.
8 That is what I wished to say to you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let me answer you
10 on the legal aspect of things, under the scrutiny of my fellow Judges.
11 But Mr. Mundis was up but he's down now, sitting down now, so
12 he'll answer later. He'll have the floor later.
13 So you raised a very interesting legal problem, and I'm summing
14 up what you said. You say that, When there are elements that are
15 incriminating, I should be allowed to know -- to have full information,
16 to be fully informed of them, and of course this is a legal issue and
17 needs to be scrutinised. In the Rules, there are some answers. There
18 are some Rules actually that deal with this. Rule 68(4), the one that we
19 just mentioned, I do agree with you, because this is under Rule 68
20 disclosure of exculpatory material, but whenever the Prosecution learns
21 of the possibility of an offence, the job of the Prosecution is to carry
22 out an investigation, an investigation that is both exculpatory and
23 incriminating. This is, I believe, what the Prosecution should do. So
24 it can carry out an investigation, looking for incriminating material,
25 but also look for exculpatory material. And if it finds nothing
1 incriminating, then the Prosecution should stop its investigation. First
3 And second thing. All this has only one purpose. It aims at
4 protecting the witnesses under Rule 75 of the Rules, the ones who are
5 granted protective measures. You know very well that all the decisions
6 made under Rule 75 are made following a motion either by the Prosecution
7 or by the Defence, depending on whose witness it is, in order to protect
8 the privacy and the security of the victims and witnesses. But in the
9 decisions that are ruled on this -- that are handed down on this, the
10 Trial Chamber must make sure that this decision does not infringe on the
11 rights of the accused.
12 And here you're absolutely right, it does -- it is a fact, in
13 your own case there have been witnesses that were granted protective
14 measures, and I must note that sometimes witnesses came here to the
15 hearing and suddenly said, I no longer want any protection, protected
16 measures, but today we still have witnesses that were granted protective
17 measures. That's just the way it is. And there is nothing I can do
18 about these protective measures. They must be absolutely guaranteed and
19 protected through confidential motions, and sometimes even through
20 ex parte motions, which is why -- and you know this very well because
21 you're an expert when it comes to this -- to our procedure here. You
22 know very well that there are some situations where we have witnesses
23 whose identity is only known just 30 days before they actually come to
24 testify here. There is a -- protection mechanisms that comes in place --
25 that's put in place to make sure that the accused will not know that a
1 witness is going to come testify, and will only be told of the elements
2 of this testimony just 30 days before the actual testimony. This was
3 made and designed in order to protect those witnesses.
4 Now, whether this is an infringement on the rights of the
5 accused, because he can't really know what is being brought against him,
6 well, the Appeals Chamber has already ruled on this and said that there
7 is the 30 days that make it possible for the accused to get ready to
8 cross-examine the witness.
9 So in the regulations in the Rules, we have a number of
10 Rules that are designed to protect witnesses through confidential or
11 ex parte elements, so when you're told that there is an ex parte motion,
12 you have a possibility. If the Trial Chamber is ruling -- making an
13 ex parte or confidential decision, you can seize the Trial Chamber in
14 order to ask for the confidentiality or ex parte to be lifted. You can
15 do this either through an oral motion or through a written motion. The
16 Trial Chamber can then rule on this, and we have already done -- we have
17 already ruled on these kind of issues a number of -- on a number of -- a
18 number of times. You know, we've decided to make public a number of
19 decisions that were ex parte. We've sometimes decided to raise the
20 confidentiality on some motions. We've already done this ex officio.
21 But you -- there is a possibility, through the Rules, for you to seize
23 Then also if the Prosecutor is making an ex parte motion, and if
24 the Trial Chamber grants this motion and actually rules on this ex parte
25 and you're not happy with this, you can ask for the confidentiality to be
1 raised. If the Trial Chamber rejects your motion, then all you have to
2 do is make a certification of appeal and the Appeal Chamber will rule on
3 this in the end. There is a whole avenue that is -- there are a lot of
4 legal possibilities that are available to you.
5 And I believe that my fellow Judges agree with me on this,
6 because we always want to have -- to strike the right balance between, on
7 the one happened, the rights of the Prosecutor to put its case and to put
8 his elements to the Trial Chamber, as well as the rights of the accused,
9 on the other hand. The accused is entitled to a fair trial, and the
10 accused is entitled to know exactly what he's accused of and what the
11 elements against him are. We try to strike the right balance all the
12 time and make sure that everything stays in balance, so that your rights
13 are not infringed and to make sure also that there is no obstruction to
14 the rights of the Prosecution either.
15 It is a very difficult exercise to strike this right balance,
16 it's difficult. We try to do it as best as we can. I'm not saying that
17 we never make mistakes. Sometimes we might make mistakes. It can
18 happen, of course, but there are -- but we have the Appeals Chamber here
19 that is used as a safe-guard mechanism, and in its discretion, the
20 Appeals Chamber can say that the Trial Chamber has either erred in law or
21 erred in fact, and reverse our decision or quash or decision.
22 But I believe that Mr. Mundis had something to say before you
23 wanted to take the floor again, Mr. Seselj.
24 Mr. Mundis.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
2 Just a couple of very quick points, some of which Your Honour,
3 the Presiding Judge, has hit upon, but clearly there are a number of
4 provisions in different parts of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that
5 particularly cover ex parte filings, and in addition to those very
6 important provisions of Rule 68(4) and Rule 75, of course, the third
7 large category concerns Rule 77 and the practice direction derived
9 I also just want to point out, as the Presiding Judge indicated,
10 that there have been instances where the Trial Chamber, in safe-guarding
11 the rights of the accused, have lifted ex parte annexes or parts thereof
12 in Prosecution filings, and so Mr. Seselj's concerns about that are
13 unfounded, in light of the fact that the Trial Chamber ultimately can
14 reject or lift any ex parte filings, annexes, or parts thereof if a party
15 to the proceedings has abused the ex parte provisions.
16 But thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure to what
17 extent this entire decision is advancing the proceedings in this case.
18 It's certainly interesting to have a debate about what can be ex parte
19 and what can't be, but to be quite transparent, I'm not sure we're going
20 to resolve much, if anything, by continuing to discuss the merits of
21 ex parte filings or procedures.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I add something?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, just a minute.
24 Mr. Mundis's opinion is an opinion that I share. He's wondering whether
25 this has any purpose today. Well, as far as this Trial Chamber is
1 concerned, today we're not really involved in all this, because it's
2 another Trial Chamber that will deal with all this. So here again he is
3 right. All these problems were not properly raised and should not be
4 raised in front of this Chamber. They should be raised in front of the
5 other Chamber.
6 Mr. Seselj.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in this year and a
8 half since the trial stage of these proceedings have been ongoing, I've
9 been wondering whether what I'm doing has any point. Well, of course
10 there's a point to it. My response is always positive, because the
11 public has the ability to follow this, at least in part, and to the
12 extent to which the public can observe and listen to proceedings, the
13 proceedings make sense and have a point.
14 However, when there is no public, if you were to try me in a
15 completely private or closed trial, I would not defend myself at all.
16 There would be no point in my defending myself.
17 I read Kafka's books when I was in high school, and his book "The
18 Trial," sticks in my memory. I am defending myself. I don't know what
19 I'm defending myself from. Witnesses come and go. Each one tells his or
20 her story. I catch them lying, but nobody -- I have never even heard
21 what I'm being accused of. You may know that, you may have learned it
22 before the trial, but I wish to draw your attention to the following.
23 It's been two months now since the names of the last protected
24 witnesses were disclosed to me. There is no longer a single witness, and
25 hasn't been for a full two months, whose name I don't know, whose
1 statement I don't have, or a suspect interview they gave and so on. All
2 this was disclosed to me two months ago, and I am not making public the
3 names of these witnesses and never have. However, the Prosecution here
4 is waging a battle for me to be unable to defend myself, because the
5 Prosecution is frustrated by the efficiency of my defence up to now.
6 They asked in July for a counsel to be imposed on me, because
7 what they would like is to have counsel imposed on me by the Registry,
8 who will sit here and nod approvingly, approving everything they say.
9 I can list the names of such counsel here, but I won't, because you will
10 redact the transcript as soon as I do, and this is what is preventing me
11 from saying what I really think and putting forward details. But when
12 you redact the transcript, it obliterates what I've said, as if I haven't
13 said anything at all. That's the point.
14 In January, as early as January, the Prosecution became aware --
15 well, I want to tell you this. I think it's important. If you don't
16 want to hear it, all right.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course I will listen to
18 you. I will certainly not not listen to you; that's out of the question.
19 But I would like to say, and forgive me for interrupting you, but as I
20 listen to you, especially what you said at the outset, you said something
21 with which I completely disagree. When I agree with you, I never
22 hesitate to say so. When I agree with Mr. Mundis or Ms. Dahl, I don't
23 hesitate to say so. When I disagree, I don't hesitate to say so. When I
24 do not agree with you, I let you know that I do not agree.
25 And regarding one issue that you addressed at the outset, and
1 that is quite important, I do not agree with you. You said that this
2 trial must be public and that the public at large must be informed. Very
3 well. This is a fact of common knowledge. In democratic countries and,
4 in particular, international tribunals, the public must be informed of
5 proceedings. I do agree with you.
6 Nonetheless, I understand you as saying that what you're
7 interested is the trial for the public, not so much for yourself but for
8 the public, and to that extent I do not agree with you. The trial is for
9 you. You are the accused. For six years you have been detained, and in
10 my mind the trial is about you, first and foremost. The public is simply
11 secondary. But you seem to reverse these roles. For you, what is most
12 important is the public, and you might even say, and you have said it,
13 that you're not all that interested in your fate. I do not agree. I am
14 mostly interested in your fate, and what the public can be apprised of or
15 not is secondary to me. What law professors or jurists who are in
16 training might say about the proceedings is of no interest to me. I am
17 solely interested in assessing the evidence brought by the Prosecution,
18 or that they will bring, and the opposing evidence that you will bring
19 during cross-examination or by producing evidence that contradicts that
20 brought by the Prosecution. That is all that I am interested in, and I
21 am therefore completely in disagreement with you regarding the way in
22 which you perceive the trial. The trial is, above all, about the
24 Like you, of course, I have read Kafka, a number of times, in
25 fact. It is well known to all, and of course we have to avoid a
1 Kafkaesque trial, but I do not have the feeling that I am taking part in
2 such a trial. I try to be as transparent as possible. Sometimes I may
3 say things that people don't like, but I do so in the best interests of
4 justice, and it is in the interests of justice for the accused, you in
5 this case, to feel that he is listened to and heard, that the Judges
6 listen to your arguments, and listen to those of the Prosecutor. The
7 Prosecutor must also feel that when he brings incriminating evidence, it
8 is assessed fully by the Judges. And this is what we have always done
9 when we have heard witnesses. You have drawn your own conclusions on the
10 basis of their testimony. I imagine that the conclusions drawn by the
11 Prosecution are not the same. And ultimately the Judges will assess all
12 of the evidence.
13 So I took the liberty of interrupting you, because what you
14 started out by saying regarding the need for all the proceedings to be
15 public, and the fact that, in fact, the trial is for the public,
16 unfortunately, I can't agree with you in this regard.
17 Now, Mr. Seselj, please go ahead.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the feeling that the
19 interpretation of what I said was not good enough. I don't remember ever
20 having said that this trial is for the public. I was only stressing the
21 importance of the public in any trial, and I was especially trying to
22 show how important the public is to me in these proceedings. So what I
23 said was that if this trial were completely closed, I would not wish to
24 defend myself. How this was interpreted to you, I don't know, but it
25 doesn't matter now.
1 Thanks to this trial, and partially the fact that this trial is
2 public and that the public was able to follow these proceedings to a
3 certain extent, I have already entered history with large steps, and that
4 is why my fate no longer interests me. However, Judges, you may wish to
5 consider what trace in history you will leave by the role you are playing
6 in these proceedings.
7 But you interrupted me when I was trying to say the following:
8 Ever since this trial began, as early as January, in my estimation, the
9 OTP realised that they were not prepared for this trial. As the Serbian
10 people would say, the OTP found themselves in a quandary. They prepared
11 for this trial for years, but they were convinced that counsel would be
12 imposed on me and that everything would run smoothly. They wanted to
13 have 90 percent of the witnesses brought under Rules 22 bis --
14 THE INTERPRETER: 92 bis, interpreter's correction.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- or quater, and so on, but I am
16 grateful to the Trial Chamber, as a whole, for rejecting the motion of
17 the OTP to have this enormous number of witnesses brought here under
18 those Rules.
19 We have had live testimony at this Court, and now the OTP is
20 searching for an exit strategy. First they want to gain time, which is
21 why they wanted to interrupt the proceedings, which is why they wanted
22 Judge Harhoff to be removed from the Chamber. Then they wanted to
23 interrupt the proceedings so that they could have an interview with me.
24 And when I rejected this in July, they put forward a motion for counsel
25 to be imposed on me. And when they were unsuccessful with that, they
1 filed a motion for contempt of court, and then this Trial Chamber
2 rejected having to deal with that and another Trial Chamber was
3 appointed. But the fact is that the OTP is searching for whatever reason
4 they can find to delay the proceedings. They are waiting for a miracle.
5 They want me to die -- or, rather, they're waiting for me to die, for
6 example, or for something like that to happen, anything that will put an
7 end to the proceedings. And now they have been more successful than
8 hitherto in buying time.
9 But what you have to decide on now is the following: Can these
10 proceedings continue if you have not tried me within a reasonable period
11 of time, because that is my right. Judges, are you trying me in a
12 reasonable time-period or have all reasonable dead-lines already expired?
13 What would have happened in America? After a year and a half of
14 this maltreatment, the Court would have rejected the indictment. They
15 wouldn't have waited six or seven years. All reasonable time-periods
16 have already elapsed, from whatever way you look at it. And as all
17 reasonable dead-lines have already expired, the trial cannot be fair.
18 No unfair trial can be in the interests of justice. No
19 proceedings which did not take place within a reasonable time can be
20 fair. That's the point. All reasonable time-periods elapsed years ago.
21 There are no longer any reasonable time-periods, so there is no longer
22 any fair trial.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.
24 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 The Prosecution simply rises to categorically reject the
1 submissions of the accused that we are unprepared, or ill-prepared,
2 and/or simply waiting for the accused to die. That is an outrageous
3 statement made by the accused, and we want to put on the record most
4 forcefully that those submissions should absolutely be rejected.
5 We will also reiterate that a number of instances in this case
6 and in the pre-trial phase of this case were due directly as a result of
7 the conduct of the accused, and the length of time that this case has
8 required to get to the point we are at is, at least in large part, a
9 direct result of actions taken by the accused at that point in time when
10 counsel was earlier assigned in the pre-trial phase of this case, and we
11 again categorically reject the notion that we are delaying these
12 proceedings and/or in any way contributing to the length of time required
13 to bring this case to completion.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's something else I have to
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you may say something
19 But with regarding a reasonable time-period, that is a concept,
20 well, in particular in light of the case law of the European Court of
21 Human Rights. It has been established in current law that the accused is
22 entitled to be tried within a reasonable time-period. He must appear as
23 early as possible before the Trial Chamber, and the trial must also take
24 place within a reasonable time-period. That is not in dispute.
25 I would invite you to read, when you can in your language, the
1 opinion that I handed down regarding this matter, and a counsel -- I will
2 not go into it, but you will see that personally I think that, in fact,
3 this trial could come to an end very expeditiously. A number of measures
4 could be taken, and I describe them in my opinion. I cannot go beyond
5 this for the time being, because it would take up time needlessly, but I
6 would encourage you to read my opinion that reflects my personal opinion
7 that some of my fellow Judges may not share, that you may not share, or
8 that the Prosecution may not share, but it is my opinion, and I believe
9 that we could be in a situation that would make it possible to bring this
10 trial to an end quickly. If I were alone, this would be possible, but I
11 am not alone and my opinion may not be shared by my colleagues. So I
12 would urge you to read my opinion and to give it some thought.
13 Mr. Seselj, perhaps it would be a good idea to move on to another
14 topic, because you have emphasised this issue.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll be very brief, but I have to
16 respond to what Mr. Mundis has said, that I have contributed in any way
17 to delaying these proceedings. That is simply untrue. I only insisted
18 on my right to defend myself, which was being denied or challenged,
19 because when they are imposing counsel on me, they are taking away from
20 me my right to defend myself. An imposed counsel then becomes a part of
21 the Prosecution team. I insisted on defending myself, on having all
22 documents disclosed to me in writing and in the Serbian language, which
23 is also my right.
24 What else have I done to obstruct the proceedings? Well, when
25 you -- when you filed an indictment against me, you must have known that
1 you would have to disclose everything to me in writing and in the Serbian
2 language. You must have known that I would be defending myself, because
3 I don't know any lawyer better than myself. So why would I allow someone
4 who is less capable than me, more stupid than me, and less educated than
5 me to take charge of my defence? Are you normal? How could I allow an
6 idiot to sit here in this courtroom, pretending to defend me, somebody
7 who you would choose, somebody whom the Registrar, Hans Holthuis, would
8 appoint. This is really incredible. This is infantile on your part. I
9 would simply never accept that.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you've said already
11 said all of this in writing during the pre-trial phase, in hearings as
12 well. You've said this many times. I would not wish to come back to
13 this issue. To some extent, the ruling of the Trial Chamber addresses
14 the issue, since the Chamber has not assigned a counsel to you, so for
15 the time being that, in itself, brings a clear answer to the question you
16 have raised.
17 Now, Mr. Seselj, I would like to address another issue, the issue
18 of disclosure of videotapes. I do not know whether you have received the
19 report drafted by the amicus curiae regarding the issue. As you know,
20 the Trial Chamber had designated such an amicus curiae to review the
21 possible consequences of disclosing to the accused a videotape or
22 videotapes that are characterized by various intellectual property
23 rights. And you have shown that you would be able to reproduce, on your
24 internet site, such documents, and this in itself can be a problem.
25 Hence, we have asked the expert, the amicus curiae who has
1 expertise in this field, to answer a number of question. He has done so,
2 but we are facing a serious problem, because the author of the video has
3 intellectual property rights over this video, and in the long run there
4 could be an issue if this were to be broadcast. Even if the ICTY and the
5 UN are granted immunity from jurisdiction, this could nonetheless give
6 rise to problems.
7 So my first question is: Have you been disclosed -- or has the
8 report of the amicus curiae been disclosed to you?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, I have not received it.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Court Officer
11 has said, well, you haven't received it yet because it has not yet been
12 translated. So, of course, the best would be once you have been able to
13 read it in your language, review it, then let us know what your comments
14 are. The Trial Chamber will rule on the matter, since it has been
15 referred to us. I already have an idea of how we might meet your
16 concerns or address your concerns regarding the disclosure of this
17 evidence, and also address the concerns regarding the protection of the
18 intellectual property rights of the authors of those videotapes, in
19 particular BBC
20 However, our decision -- our ruling would be enriched by your own
21 opinion, as well as the opinion of the Prosecution, with regard to the
22 best way to proceed. This is not an urgent matter, since the trial has
23 been postponed for the time being, so we have enough time to deal with
24 this matter and hand down a ruling in order to make it possible for you
25 to have access to the said or aforementioned videos. So we'll wait for
1 you to be able to receive the report in your language, and expect you
2 then to communicate to us orally or in writing, whichever you prefer,
3 your position in that regard.
4 Then there is a last point that I would like to address. I'm
5 sure that you would like to raise other issues, and I will let you do so
6 in a moment. I would like to say a few words about scheduling.
7 We try to keep in touch with you, in permanent contact with you,
8 to see -- or to meet every two weeks. That may seem quite frequent, but
9 it makes it possible for us to at least try to settle a number of
10 problems. We can't always settle those problems, but it makes it
11 possible for the Trial Chamber to be kept informed of whatever
12 difficulties arise that either have you to deal with or the Prosecution
13 has to deal with. So in our ruling, we decided to convene hearings quite
14 frequently in order to take stock of the situation. The next hearing
15 should take place on the 26th of March, but I have noted that there is
16 another trial planned for the same time and on the same day, so we're
17 looking into this, if we have to assign a priority. Perhaps it's the
18 Djordjevic trial, I think it is. If that trial has priority, then we'll
19 just have to postpone the hearing slightly.
20 That is what I wanted to inform you.
21 Mr. Seselj, do you have other matters you wish to raise, other
22 than those you have already mentioned?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I have four questions to
25 First of all, my first question is the following. On the 6th of
1 March, a confidential submission of the Prosecution, from the 24th of
2 December, 2008, was submitted to me, and it has to do with Witness
3 VS-037, who would testify according to 92 ter. In order not to take too
4 long, I don't want to write up a motion, I will -- and it would have to
5 be translated into English, and it would take time, but I will tell you
6 here why VS-037 is a witness that I oppose. He is one of the most
7 important Prosecution witnesses. His name was disclosed to me only
8 around the new year. He is one of the two witnesses whose names were
9 supposed to be disclosed to me a month before they were to appear in
10 court. For some reason, the Prosecution did not bring that witness into
11 the courtroom in that period of time. This witness was a very high
12 official at the place where he lived and where war operations were taking
13 place. The Prosecution first envisaged three hours for that witness.
14 I think that it is very important that this witness remain a
15 viva voce witness, if you want the proceedings to be regular in this
16 trial. This was a witness who was interviewed as a suspect twice. There
17 were no statements given by him. The OTP compiled a statement of his
18 only in December of 2008, and that is what they want to have admitted
19 into evidence. I insist that this witness remain viva voce, because if
20 this witness is not going to be a viva voce witness, then the question
21 remains who will be a viva voce witness anyway. That is the first thing
22 that I wanted to say to you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, regarding this
24 motion, of course we will look into this, like we always do, whenever you
25 have challenged the 92 ter procedure. We've always looked at this very
1 carefully in order to make sure that the testimony of the said witness
2 was extremely useful and had to be done according to 92 ter. But as of
3 now, I have no additional element, I don't have the statement here. But
4 what I do have makes it possible for me to note that this is a witness on
5 Zvornik. Regarding Zvornik, we have heard an incredible number of
6 witnesses; 1015, 1013, 1012, 1064, and so forth and so on, 1105, 1138,
7 and many others. So as far as your question is concerned, whether this
8 witness is absolutely essential, whether his testimony will actually
9 bring some added value to the information we already have, whether what
10 he will say might be incriminating and might bring new information, well,
11 we don't know. Those are questions that need to be answered. We know
12 that if we switch to 92 ter, you will not cross-examine. We know that.
13 This is your position. You've stated it over and over again.
14 We've been very careful regarding this. When we decided that you
15 absolutely had to cross-examine the witness, we rejected the 92 ter
16 motion from the Prosecution and demanded that the witness come viva voce.
17 When we noted that it was not absolutely necessary because the elements
18 that were in the statement did not bring any additional value to what we
19 already knew, then we tended to maintain the 92 ter, even though you
20 opposed it. So you must know that we were always extremely careful to
21 strike the right balance between the rights of the Prosecution and the
22 interests of justice, and the rights you have to a fair and expeditious
23 trial, and the importance of integrating a number of the statements of
24 what the witness might say in his testimony, even though you would not
25 cross-examine him.
1 Now, despite all this, despite the fact that sometimes you --
2 despite the fact that you made your position not to cross-examine 92 ter
3 witnesses, you must have noted that the Trial Chamber itself actually put
4 questions to those witnesses when you would not cross-examine, and we
5 actually asked all these witnesses to answer all elements that were not
6 perfectly clear.
7 So as far as VS-037 is concerned, we'll see. As of now, I can't
8 tell you what my personal position might be, and I certainly can't tell
9 you what the Chamber's position will be, but all I know is that regarding
10 Zvornik, we have already heard a host of witnesses and we have a great
11 wealth of information regarding this. We know exactly what -- we have a
12 good picture of the situation over there.
13 Now, you say VS-037 is essential for you. You might be right,
14 you might be wrong, but we have to look into this and we have to check
15 the statement before.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just an additional argument,
17 Mr. President.
18 So far, as for the crimes in Zvornik, we heard only witnesses who
19 were true victims or false victims. I did not deny that there were true
20 victims among them, too, but it is a fact that they were all among the
21 Muslims. This the only relevant witness from the Serb side, if we
22 disregard the person who personally buried the victims, and I don't think
23 that his testimony is of any particular value. However, this is a
24 highly-placed official on the Serbian side. As a matter of fact, this is
25 a witness who would have to have known everything that was happening in
1 Zvornik, even the things that the OTP does not insist upon in the
2 statement that they wrote up for him and that he signed. I think it
3 would be absolutely inappropriate if the significance of this witness
4 were to be neglected and if he were to testify under 92 ter.
5 There were so many witnesses who marched through this courtroom
6 viva voce and who were a waste of time. I think that this is a witness
7 with whom we are not going to waste time at all.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Let's move to
9 private session for a minute, because I have a question for Mr. Mundis,
10 but I believe that it should be put in private session.
11 Mr. Registrar.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 14432-14433 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, this is
7 on the transcript, and we'll check into this.
8 Mr. Seselj, regarding your second item.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The 10th of March, a Prosecution
10 motion was submitted to me from the 12th of December, 2008. This is a
11 confidential motion with confidential annexes, and that's why I'm going
12 to read out its heading.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: It is too fast, we cannot
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not going to refer to the
16 confidential annexes here. I'm just talking about the motion that is a
17 public motion. Up until recently, the name of this witness was
18 protected, and I see that now they've given up on the protective measures
19 for this witness. This is a person who was killed two or three years ago
20 because of his participation in Arkan's assassination. Now, was it
21 Arkan's men who killed him for revenge, or did the murderers of Arkan
22 kill him so he would not appear as a witness again them? I don't know.
23 However, this is a witness whose testimony is false and who does not
24 mention me anywhere at all. He was chief of police in Mali Zvornik, but
25 also he was a big-time criminal, one of the main organisers of smuggling
1 from Republika Srpska to Serbia
2 booty and so on and so forth.
3 The Prosecutors could have called this witness while he was still
4 alive, had these proceedings started on time. I was not tried within a
5 reasonable period of time, and that is why the Prosecution was late in
6 calling this witness. The murder of this witness has nothing whatsoever
7 to do with me or these proceedings, and therefore I believe that there is
8 absolutely no reason for the transcript of the testimony of this witness
9 in the Milosevic case to be admitted in the evidence of this case. The
10 same goes for his statement, which I don't really have here right now.
11 As far as these requests made by the Prosecution are concerned,
12 this is also a public document with confidential annexes. It was
13 submitted to me on the 9th of March, and it is dated the 12th of
14 December, 2008; motion of the Prosecution for accepting, I think it says
15 here, and it should probably say "statement," whereas here in my version
16 it says something which must be the wrong word. Witness VS-012 to
17 testify on the basis of 92 quater.
18 They are asking for protective measures to be lifted in the case
19 of this witness, and it is my understanding that he died a natural death.
20 This is false testimony provided by this person, and it was used in some
21 other trials, but I have not received transcripts of that person's
22 testimony. Perhaps the OTP has information to the contrary, but I do not
23 recall ever having received transcripts of his testimony, and I couldn't
24 find it myself.
25 This witness is a participant in the war in Vukovar, but within
1 the Novi Sad
2 indictment pertains to the possibility of volunteers of the Serb Radical
3 Party being in Operations Group North. You know what the indictment
4 says. It refers to the Operations Group South or, rather, the 1st Guards
5 Brigade. There is nothing in the indictment that pertains to crimes that
6 may have been committed in the territory of the operations of the
7 Novi Sad Corps; namely, Operations Group North. So it is utterly
8 senseless for the statement of this witness and the transcripts of his
9 testimony in other trials to be admitted in evidence of this case.
10 The fourth question that I wished to raise is --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, very quickly,
12 regarding the two 92 quater statements, the head of the police in
13 Mali Zvornik and the statement of VS-012, let me tell you that the Trial
14 Chamber will look into this very carefully, as it usually does, with the
15 following in mind: Number 1, is this a relevant statement, as far as the
16 indictment is concerned, maybe regarding the JCE, or regarding crimes
17 that were committed in relevant municipalities, and, thirdly, whether
18 this is relevant regarding the possible participation of SRS volunteers
19 in all this. This will be the filter that we will use in order to rule
20 on this, in order to rule whether we actually grant or reject the
21 statement. It's pointless to use it if it's not relevant. We took due
22 note of what you've just said, and we will look into this very carefully
23 before we actually rule on this.
24 But, please, tell us what your fourth item is now.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a brief observation.
1 You are aware of the general principles involved in my opposition
2 to the application of Rules 92 ter and 92 quater because they were
3 included in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence after I had my initial
4 appearance in this courtroom, so it cannot be retroactively applied if it
5 prejudices me.
6 I would also like to remind you of B -- paragraph B in 92 quater.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: It is being read out too
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So these are witnesses in respect
10 of which the Prosecution was too late. If the procedure applied had been
11 appropriate and if this witness were alive, he could have been called to
12 testify live. However, the question remains: How many witnesses are
13 going to remain alive if these proceedings go on forever? The question
14 is who is going to be alive amongst all of us who are here in this
15 courtroom, let alone all these witnesses who are being called. You know
16 how these things are.
17 Also, I would like to ask you whether you have done anything in
18 respect of the perjury of (redacted) In court here, I demonstrated that
19 this was a false witness, and I proved that, that he testified falsely
20 about what happened in Zvornik, he transmitted everything that happened
21 in 1990 into 1992. And you told me that once this witness was heard, you
22 would take a position on that.
23 Finally, through the Registry, this morning I asked the OTP,
24 because I have no answer, I asked that the OTP provide me with a
25 statement and possibly the transcript of Witness C-1095 in the trial
1 against Slobodan Milosevic. The OTP ultimately gave up on the testimony
2 of this witness in court. I read the transcripts of the Milosevic trial,
3 the public part that was published by the Serb Radical Party in the
4 newspaper "Srpska Slobodarska Misao." I came to realise that this was a
5 planned witness in the Milosevic trial and that he was ultimately given
6 up on. I think that this statement would be very important for me in
7 this trial, in these proceedings, so I now ask the Trial Chamber to
8 instruct the OTP to find this statement for me and to provide it to me.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Now, regarding this witness that you allegedly call a false
11 witness, let me tell you that the Trial Chamber has met over and over
12 again and has debated on this at length, and a decision will be ruled --
13 will be handed down. This item has taken up a lot of our time. All this
14 case actually takes up a lot of our time. We spend all our time on this,
15 and we're quite concerned about this. There's worry, of course, you
16 know, will I still be there tomorrow? It can be quite troubling to think
17 that way, and this is why we try to hand our decisions as quickly as
18 possible. And I can tell you that regarding this witness, a decision
19 will be handed down extremely soon.
20 Now, as far as Witness C-1095 is concerned, I know nothing of
21 this. I know nothing of this, I repeat. Mr. Mundis is the only one who
22 could tell us about this, but he's going to -- I'm sure that he's going
23 to answer that he's going to check into this and to inform us.
24 If I understand well, Mr. Mundis, a witness has testified in the
25 Milosevic case, Witness C-1095, and Mr. Seselj would like to get the
1 transcript of his testimony.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Yes, I was informed about this immediately before today's hearing
4 commenced, and we are making some inquiries to determine whether, in
5 fact, this witness did testify, and the dates of his testimony, whether
6 it was in open session, closed session, whether we have statements that
7 are recorded or in writing. We're making all of those inquiries, and I
8 expect to be in a position to respond to Mr. Seselj very shortly. We
9 will probably be doing so by way of a disclosure letter or a letter
10 indicating to him that we have no such material.
11 While I'm on my feet and before we adjourn, I did want to --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, you are on
13 your feet, thank you, and I wanted to take this opportunity to tell
14 you -- to ask you, Mr. Mundis, whether you had anything to tell us.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Just one other issue with respect to Witness VS-012.
16 Mr. Seselj, a few moments ago, was discussing the 92 quater
17 motion filed by the Prosecution with respect to Witness VS-012, and I
18 believe, at least in the translation, he indicated that he had not
19 received certain material relating to that witness. And according to our
20 records, there was disclosure concerning Witness VS-012 on 9 November
21 2007, and closed-session transcripts of the prior testimony of that
22 witness were disclosed to the accused on 13 February 2008, according to
23 our records. So perhaps if the accused can check his records on those
24 dates, he should be able to find the material that he just referred to.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Mr. Seselj, regarding VS-012, Mr. Mundis is telling us that
2 everything was disclosed to you on February 13, 2008, notably.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not impossible, so I am
4 going to check. I did not say with any certainty that it hadn't been
5 disclosed to me. I put it in the form of a question, if you remember
6 what my wording was. I did manage to find this. Ever since I received
7 this document on the 9th of March, and that was three days ago, I did not
8 manage to find this. Probably I will. Well, if it's been disclosed to
9 me, I'm going to find it for sure. It's just a question of time.
10 As for this witness from the Milosevic case, he did not testify.
11 The OTP planned to call him, but they gave up. And in the transcripts of
12 this trial in 2003 - I can't remember exactly what the month was - I
13 found the part where the Prosecutor is informing the Trial Chamber and
14 Mr. Milosevic that they've given up on him. They mention his last name
15 there and a pseudonym. That's the information that I have.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Mr. Mundis, it seems that C-1095 did not testify in the Milosevic
18 case. He was planned, he should have been called, but in the end he
19 never testified. But still there must be a written statement, and this
20 is the one that is in question. It might be a Prosecution witness or a
21 Defence witness. We don't know. Maybe the elements are exculpatory. We
22 don't know.
23 MR. MUNDIS: We will check to see whether we have a statement,
24 whether it's in written form or recorded form, audio-recorded,
25 tape-recorded, transcript form. We will make those inquiries and, as
1 I've indicated, the accused will be notified either in form of disclosure
2 of that material or a letter to the effect that we don't have a written
3 statement or a recorded statement of the witness. So that will be done
4 in due course. I would expect to be in a position to provide that
5 material or to send a letter to the accused hopefully by the end of
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. All this is now on
8 the transcript.
9 We will meet again in a fortnight in order to take stock of the
10 situation, and I'm sure that by then a number of problems will have been
11 solved. And if they haven't been solved, we will raise them again two
12 weeks from now. I really hope that we can have this hearing two weeks
13 from now. Otherwise, we'll set another date in order to make sure that
14 we do meet.
15 I believe that we have checked all of the items that were
16 involved, and I will now adjourn.
17 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
18 at 10.01 a.m.