1 Tuesday, 2 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
11 This is Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, and I greet Mr. Seselj,
12 Ms. Biersay, and Mr. Marcussen, as well as their Case Manager, and
13 everyone helping us in this courtroom.
14 We were supposed to hear a witness, but for health reasons,
15 unfortunately, we'll have no witness. However, I believe that we had to
16 have an administrative hearing. Last time, we noticed that we were
17 running short of time and that it's best to deal with housekeeping
18 matters when we have enough time, and that's when we have no witness.
19 As far as I'm concerned, I will first read a decision issued by
20 the Trial Chamber as the -- regarding the time allocation for the next
21 witness, VS-1058, scheduled next week, and he should be here. It's
22 almost sure, 100 per cent.
23 I will also read a dissenting opinion regarding the time
25 After that, I will review the situation for the six remaining
1 witnesses, calling them by their pseudonym, so that all parties know
2 exactly where we stand. Then I will also deal with the issue of
3 Mr. Seselj's associates through a motion made under Rule 33 bis by the
4 Registrar, as far as lack of financial means is concerned. And then I
5 will give Mr. Seselj the floor for his comments, administrative comments.
6 But first let's deal with the first issue, which has to do with
7 the time allocation regarding the testimony of Witness 1058.
8 Proprio motu, given Article 98 [as interpreted] of the Rules of Procedure
9 and Evidence, according to which the Trial Chamber can control the way
10 the witnesses are examined and the way evidence is shown in order to
11 ensure that everything is as efficient as possible, given the
12 consolidated decision on the imposition of a counsel and the postponement
13 -- and the motion of the Prosecution on the additional time of
14 November 23, 2000
15 December 8, 2009
16 would only be heard for 30 minutes by the Judges and then 30 minutes by
17 each party; given the press statement made by the witness, a statement
18 made by the -- to the investigator of the ICTY on 21 and
19 22nd April, 2004
20 statement made to the accused in 2008; and given that the time allotted
21 for VS-1058 was not sufficient for the Trial Chamber to put all the
22 questions required, therefore confirms the majority rule obtained by the
23 Trial Chamber, with a dissenting opinion by Judge Antonetti, and all this
24 was disclosed to the party on -- and given that the -- all parties will
25 have an hour and 30 minutes for the examination/cross-examination of
1 Witness VS-1058. This is a majority decision, which means that next week
2 Witness VS-1058 will first be heard -- examined by the Judges for an hour
3 and 30 minutes, then by the Prosecution for an hour and 30 minutes, and
4 then by Mr. Seselj for another hour and 30 minutes.
5 As far as I'm concerned, I'm of a dissenting opinion. I believe
6 that 30 minutes was sufficient for this witness, and for which reason --
7 for these reasons from the decision of November 8, 2008 [as interpreted],
8 the Trial Chamber reduced the indictment. And on paragraph 28, the
9 Trial Chamber mentioned what follows, and I quote:
10 "This being said, the Prosecution can still present evidence that
11 does not have to do with the incriminated facts, but which can back the
12 indictment, without limiting itself to proving that several crimes have
13 occurred, even if this evidence has to do with a crime scene, where no
14 evidence is required."
15 Let me remind you that Witness VS-1058 -- I will not mention his
16 name, but Witness 1058 is going to testify on the recruitment of
17 volunteers, on the speeches made by the accused, on the operations
18 conducted by the SRS
19 Red Berets, operations in the regions of Bosanski Samac with a VRS unit,
20 and as well as the arrest of the group of Lugar and the military police
21 in Bosanski Samac.
22 As you know, Bosanski Samac is a municipality that was deleted
23 from the indictment. Therefore, if the witness comes, he will only
24 testify as to the deliberate conduct of the accused, i.e., Rule 93 of the
1 The evidence helping to establish a deliberate pattern of conduct
2 can be admitted in the interests of justice. Therefore, the witness will
3 come in order to talk about the recruitment of volunteers, the way they
4 were enrolled, and possibly the action conducted by the SRS on the
5 military theaters. He might possibly talk about this.
6 Therefore, given the number of witnesses that we still have,
7 30 minutes would have been sufficient for this witness, which is why I am
8 of a dissenting opinion.
9 Now let me briefly --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] There is a problem with page 2.
11 There's a mistake. The decision just read by Judge Antonetti is
12 referred, on line 8 -- there's a reference on line 8 to Article 90(F) and
13 not 98. So it's now corrected.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, this decision is based on
15 Rule 90(F).
16 Now, as far as the situation of the remaining witnesses is concerned,
17 we still have six witnesses - I'm not going to give their names -
18 VS-1017, 026, VS-034, VS-1058, VS-032, and Witness Isak Gasi. This last
19 witness is not protected.
20 Now, as far as VS-017 is concerned, he was supposed to be heard
21 today. Unfortunately, because of his health, he cannot come. First,
22 we'll check, of course, what his health situation is. The Trial Chamber
23 has a number of measures that it can take to do that. So either the
24 witness will be in a position to testify soon enough or he will not be
25 able to, or maybe he could testify through a videolink. And the
1 Trial Chamber will make a decision once it has a medical record in its
3 026 now. VS-026 was supposed to be heard on
4 January 19 and 20, 2010. For medical reasons, he was unable to come.
5 Therefore, on February 17th, 2010, we asked for a medical examination to
6 take place. And once we have the feedback, we will determine what we'll
8 Now, Witness 034, VS-034. He was scheduled for
9 February 9 and 10, 2010. He also has health problems. We had provided
10 for a videolink possibly, and on February 11th we asked for a medical
11 examination to be conducted. And as soon as we have the feedback, there
12 again, we will rule on this.
13 Now, Witness VS-1058, I mentioned him earlier. He is scheduled
14 for March 9. Mr. Isak Gasi is scheduled for March 10. And we have the
15 last one, VS-32. He was supposed to be heard on February 23rd and 24th.
16 By decision, he was supposed to testify by videolink, but for medical
17 reasons he was unable to attend. So we asked also for another medical
18 examination to be carried out. We asked for that on January 6th, 2010
19 And normally, if everything runs correctly, he should be heard on May 4th
20 and 5th, 2010.
21 The problem is that out of these six, we have three people who
22 are really ill, and we don't know whether, in the end, they'll be able to
23 testify. And we need medical records in order to make a decision on all
24 this. That's the situation as it is now.
25 When we made our scheduling order, we thought that we had
1 January, February, and March to finish off these witnesses, but now we're
2 running late, unfortunately. But we cannot be blamed for running late.
3 Mr. Seselj, unfortunately, you are dependent on the health
4 situation of these witnesses, just like us. As you know, the
5 Trial Chamber wants to hear them as soon as possible, but there's not
6 much we can do right now.
7 Now, lastly, before I give you the floor, as you know, that in
8 the decision, the date of which I forgot, we said that Mr. Krasic could
9 come to The Hague
10 by the Registrar. But the Registry, a few days ago, sent us a few
11 submissions, which I'm sure you received, if they were translated. In
12 these submissions, the Registrar noted our decision but is sending the
13 ball into our camp, saying that the Registrar can only implement the
14 decision if you can really prove that you have no financial means.
15 When I read all these submissions, I was a bit flabbergasted, I
16 must say. Why is that? This dates back -- this is a very old problem.
17 It dates back ages ago. The Registry's position, which is absolutely
18 normal, is that it will only pay for counsel or for associates if the
19 accused is destitute. As far as you're concerned, you had given us
20 documents which obviously the Registrar does not find suitable.
21 I have thought about this over the weekend, and I thought the
22 following, and I want this on the transcript: If you had asked for
23 counsel, then there would be no problem. You would be given a counsel, a
24 co-counsel, and an entire team of assistants; and this would cost
25 hundreds of thousands of Euros. Now, you don't want a counsel, and you
1 could have been appointed a stand-by counsel. That's also costly, but
2 there the Registrar is ready to pay for that. However, because you are
3 defending yourself, you're not entitled to anything unless you can prove
4 that you're totally destitute.
5 Now, I don't know how things occur in the Karadzic case, but I
6 note that Mr. Karadzic has associates, legal associates. Apparently,
7 they're paid. I don't know whether Mr. Karadzic is destitute or not.
8 But as far as he's concerned, obviously, he's not running into any
9 problems. He gets what he wants, and you're not getting anything.
10 Now, this is what I propose to the Trial Chamber, and if they
11 don't agree with me, I'll do it on my own. I would suggest that we send
12 a letter to the minister in charge of co-operation with this Tribunal to
13 ask him to seise the competent ministry, as far as fiscal issues are
14 concerned, so that we can know whether your fiscal situation in Serbia
15 such that you are poor, rich, destitute. And once we get -- all I can
16 do, of course, is first seise this agency in charge of co-operation, but
17 it's always been very helpful. But when we have the answer of this
18 ministry, I will have a better opinion and also the Trial Chamber will
19 have a better opinion of your wealth situation, because if you have
20 wealth in Serbia
21 have property. If you have bank accounts, also, they must know about
22 this. If you have a car, a yacht - I don't know what you may have - they
23 must know. And they will be able to tell us exactly what your financial
24 situation is like. And then I will send this letter to the Registrar for
25 his information.
1 However, even if you were not destitute, if we found out that you
2 were not destitute, that you had -- that you were extremely wealthy, that
3 your income is huge, you know, compared to wages in your country, and you
4 are a university professor, I mean a university professor is not usually
5 a very wealthy man, but even if you're an extremely well-paid university
6 professor, I believe that the cost of defending yourself in a tribunal,
7 in an international tribunal, are out of proportion for anyone. Even for
8 someone that has sufficient revenue to live can't face to such expenses,
9 and therefore the Registry and the funds of the Tribunal must contribute
10 to your Defence.
11 So, to sum up, I'm very surprised to see that you are said to be
12 destitute, that you have to prove that you're destitute, and that right
13 now you cannot obtain anything; whereas Mr. Karadzic obviously is not
14 running into any problem to get financial help. So I believe that there
15 is double standards being used here, and I wonder why. And I'm saying
16 this in front of my fellow Judge, who is also sitting in the Karadzic
17 case, and I hope that she will support my opinion, as well as
18 Judge Harhoff. But you have to be able to defend yourself, Mr. Seselj.
19 I must tell you that I was very surprised when you told us that
20 you would not appeal the decision for a stay because you did not have
21 your associates. It's true that you did not make a certification of
22 appeal, and the whole trial was postponed for a while. And I thought
23 that -- here I decided that -- I thought that this must be a problem.
24 Maybe this was a tactic on your side. But, anyway, you told us that you
25 were not certifying for appeal because you didn't have your associates,
1 and as a result, well, the trial was postponed for almost a year. And we
2 lost a year.
3 So as far as your associates are concerned, I will ask my -- I
4 will suggest to my colleagues that we officially seise the competent
5 Serbian authority so that we know exactly what your financial situation
6 is like. To sum things up, this morning I was looking at the
7 Rules of Procedure and Evidence on -- of the ICC on this question of
8 financial aid and legal aid, and I noted that at the ICC the
9 Trial Chamber has control over this, and the Registrar isn't free to do
10 anything he wants. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber at the ICC can even
11 issue orders to ask the accused to actually contribute to his defence.
12 So their system is obviously more sophisticated and of a better
13 performance, but I hope that we'll find a solution so that you can
14 benefit from the help of your associates, in accordance with our
16 Now, finally, Mr. Seselj, as you know, we still have six
17 witnesses to hear, two who are scheduled for next week and then we'll
18 have four left, four outstanding. If everything works according to plan,
19 we should be finished with these witnesses in May. Then, according to
20 Article 65 ter of the procedure, Rules of Procedure, the Defence must
21 submit its 65 ter list. So now we have a legal question, and there's no
22 decision on this. We need to know whether the burden of proof of the
23 Prosecutor -- whether the Prosecution's case is rested or not, because we
24 have the Court witnesses that are being heard in between.
25 Normally, in Rule 85, we have evidence that is either the
1 Prosecution's case or the Defence case, but it also says "unless decided
2 otherwise by the Trial Chamber, in the interests of justice," which means
3 that the Trial Chamber, in the interests of justice, has some leeway. We
4 decided to ask for these Court witnesses to come in the interests of
5 justice. Therefore, de jure, I believe that the Trial Chamber has not
6 made a decision on this yet, but I believe that the Prosecution so far
7 has no witnesses left. They can, of course, present new evidence. They
8 can do that during the cross-examination of the witnesses. But he has no
9 more witnesses on his list.
10 So, Mr. Seselj, I would like to know whether you have already
11 prepared your witness list, because we don't want to be in a situation
12 where at the end of May -- or in May, we say, We're done with our
13 witnesses, we have Rule 98 bis, but then we don't want you to ask us for
14 two to three months to prepare your own list. So I'd like to know
15 whether you've already -- whether you are preparing your list at the
16 moment, even if you haven't actually written your list down completely.
17 However, my fellow Judge Harhoff has something to say, I believe.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
19 Yes, I do have a few comments to what our authoritative
20 Presiding Judge has just suggested.
21 Now, first of all, in relation to the issue of the assistance to
22 Mr. Krasic to cover his travel costs to The Hague, I really and honestly
23 believe that this is a matter for the Registry to deal with, and not the
24 Chamber, so I would be disinclined to go along with the Chamber
25 addressing a letter directly to the Serbian authorities. I would find
1 that highly inappropriate. But I did notice that at one point the
2 Presiding Judge also mentioned -- and I don't know if that was a mistake,
3 but you did, in fact, mention that we should address a letter to the
4 Registrar, asking him to contact the ministry in Belgrade. Be that as it
5 may, I do not think that it is appropriate for the Chamber, itself, to
6 engage in any discussion with the Serbian authorities, or any other
7 authorities, for that matter, in relation to the indigency of an accused.
8 So this is at least to clarify my point of view.
9 I have no observations regarding whether or not Mr. Karadzic is
10 being treated differently, as I do not know this case, but I understand,
11 and this is my recollection from last time we discussed this issue of the
12 indigency of the accused in this case, you, Mr. Seselj, if my memory
13 serves me right, the stumbling issue is whether or not you would be
14 prepared to give information about the financial situation of your wife.
15 And I think that your position was that you had given all the information
16 about the financial situation relating to yourself, but that you refused
17 to give any information in relation to your wife, and it was for that
18 reason that the Registrar said that you had not fully co-operated with
19 the Registry about your indigency, because full information would, in the
20 Registrar's view, also involve your giving information about the
21 financial status of your wife.
22 Be that as it may, I have no further comments, except that if the
23 difficulty here is that the Registrar is of the opinion that you have
24 not -- still not fully co-operated with the Registry, then that appears
25 to be different from what is actually going on in the Karadzic case,
1 because I understand, without having any concrete knowledge about it, but
2 I understand that Mr. Karadzic has, in fact, co-operated fully with the
3 Registrar and has given all the information that the Registrar had asked
5 In relation to the issue of your giving us your list of
6 witnesses, my opinion is, and I think this is known -- this is well known
7 to the Presiding Judge, that I do not think that we can ask an accused to
8 reveal his list of witnesses before the Chamber has ruled in accordance
9 with Rule 98 bis. That's the way I see it, because it would be, in my
10 view, unfair to an accused to ask him to reveal his list of witnesses
11 before the accused knows whether the Chamber has, in fact, accepted all
12 the charges in the indictment. Chances are, of course, that a Chamber
13 may decide to acquit the accused on some of the charges in the
14 indictment; and if a Chamber, in fact, does so, and it has happened in
15 this Tribunal, then, of course, the defendant need not bring any evidence
16 relating to those counts.
17 So I don't think that we can and, indeed, that we should ask you
18 in advance. Of course, if you want to do it, it's your own choice. But
19 I do not think that the Chamber can compel you to disclose your list of
20 witnesses before we have given our oral decision on Rule 98 bis.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Not just some, but, in fact, all
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I want to answer the remarks
25 just provided by Judge Harhoff.
1 For one thing, I have not asked Mr. Seselj to provide this list.
2 I have asked him whether he is thinking about this list and whether he's
3 preparing it.
4 Secondly, and more legally speaking, I could not disagree more.
5 Article 65 ter says the following:
6 "Following the presentation of the case of the Prosecution, and
7 before the presentation of the case of the Defence, the Judge asked the
8 Defence to present a list of witnesses."
9 Now, my opinion is that the presentation of the means of the case
10 of the Prosecution is finished. Article 65 ter (G) refers in no way to
11 Article 98 bis, at no time does it refer to Article 98 bis. Hence,
12 legally speaking, we could actually ask for the disclosure of this list,
13 but I have no intention of forcing, through an interpretation of this
14 rule. I just asked Mr. Seselj whether he is thinking about this list;
15 that's all. I have not requested anything further.
16 Now, on a second point, if the Chamber wishes to send a letter to
17 the Serbian authorities, that's fine. If the Chamber doesn't want to,
18 that's fine too. I will do it myself, personally, of my own initiative.
19 That's what I want to do say.
20 I find that we are in a situation -- in a totally blocked
21 situation, and sending this problem back to the Registrar and leaving the
22 accused to prove that he is, in fact, in a situation of indigency, will
23 leave us stuck. I have only one solution, and if others agree with me
24 about this solution, that's fine. And If they won't follow me, then I
25 will have to do it alone.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I merely want to say that I
2 agree with the interpretation that Judge Harhoff just suggested. Before
3 the presentation of the case of the Defence, we don't actually know if it
4 will be presented or if, based on 98 bis or due to a decision of the
5 accused, himself, whether there will be any need. So while we don't know
6 if the case will, in fact, be tried or not, we cannot go further.
7 On the issue of indigency and possible assistance to the Defence
8 and concerning how indigency can be demonstrated, I also share
9 Judge Harhoff's opinion that this is a matter to be determined by the
10 Registry. But I am convinced that the accused will find some way of
11 helping us out of this difficulty, of the situation in which we diverge
12 on this matter, simply by giving us the few elements that are still in
13 his possession, showing the Chamber that he is trying his best to
14 co-operate. Perhaps, even today, he may have a few things to tell us
15 about these matters.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Mr. Seselj.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Many issues have just been raised
19 by all of you Judges. I'm going to provide you with a somewhat broader
21 First, as concerns Rule 98 bis, that Rule has been in existence
22 for over 15 years, I would say, and it has undergone some changes in the
23 meantime. Pursuant to that Rule, there was a time when a preliminary
24 judgement was issued, and now a written decision is issued by a
25 Trial Chamber, although the Rules of Evidence can be rejected, as all the
1 charges has not been proven, and the criteria that are applied are the
2 most favourable to the OTP. And when the final judgement is passed, then
3 the criteria are applied that are most favourable for me, when all the
4 evidence is valid. That's the difference between the application of Rule
5 98 bis and the final decision.
6 It has never happened so far that an accused has been found not
7 guilty pursuant to Rule 98 bis. What happened was that some charges were
8 rejected, although I'm sure that here the OTP has not even remotely
9 proven any of the charges. And if there were no pressures from outside
10 of the Tribunal, I'm sure that a sentence could be passed according to
11 Rule 98 bis, and that would also contain a ruling to give me
12 compensation, together with the acquittal, for everything that I have
13 suffered through my detention. That possibility exists in any other
14 courts. Unfortunately, at this Tribunal, this has never happened. All
15 the Rules are violated here, and nothing is possible here.
16 Therefore, I'm sure that there is no single piece of evidence,
17 and if there is not too much pressure from the outside, that your rule,
18 according to Rule 98 bis, will be acquittal already in May. However, I'm
19 aware how much the Western powers don't want to see me back in Serbia
20 They have come like a ton of bricks on my party. They have not managed
21 to destroy it, although they have damaged it considerably. But it is
22 still -- it is already recovering. And my return to Serbia would
23 contribute to that recovery. Since, in the eyes of America, I am still a
24 danger if I return to Serbia
1 affairs of Serbia
2 everything possible to prevent my return, even by launching physical
3 attacks on the members of the Trial Chamber, who are trying to use their
4 judgement in passing their decisions. This is my realistic concern, but
5 we will see how things will look like.
6 However, if that decision, according to Rule 98 bis, is not for
7 acquittal, Your Honours, do not think that I can start my case in a month
8 or two. The OTP needed five years to prepare for these proceedings from
9 the moment I was arrested. Since I personally am at least twice as
10 clever and as capable as the entire OTP, I will not need five years, but
11 I will need at least two years before I start presenting my case.
12 I have still not started working on my case, because I've not had
13 the resources, I've not had the money. My associates are scattered.
14 They haven't been paid for seven years. So you will have to give me at
15 least two years to be able to prepare my case, and that on the condition
16 that all the other problems are resolved.
17 Over a year ago, I promised that I would no longer mention the
18 issue of financing. I gave up on that, because I realised that all the
19 doors were closed. You, yourselves, Your Honours, have raised the issue,
20 and that's why I'm going to tell you a few things.
21 In 2003, I provided information about my financial situation, and
22 I gave that to the Registrar by signing a form. Whatever I could report,
23 I did. I reported everything. I disclosed all my assets. The Registrar
24 is now asking for my wife, my sister, to disclose their assets. They did
25 that with my mother previously, and so on and so forth. Who of you,
1 Your Honours, would be willing and in a position to provide somebody with
2 information about the assets of their spouses without their consent? My
3 wife does not want to give me that information. What can I do? Shall I
4 beat my wife? I'm from the Balkans, so maybe you think that it would be
5 most appropriate and befitting. However, I'm not that much of a man from
6 the Balkans. And there's also a danger, if I beat her, that she will pay
7 me back. I've been in prison for seven years. My wife wasn't. And God
8 knows who would fare worse in such a potential skirmish. So you're
9 asking me for something that I can't do, I can't provide.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If this is not too much meddling
11 in your business, just tell me so and I will ask you to no more of an
12 answer than that. But is it so that in Yugoslavia there are two systems
13 for the management of your financial estate, two possible ways in which
14 the estate is shared out between the husband and the wife? Is it
15 possible for your estate to be separate between you and your wife and/or
16 for your estate to be one? And have you, if there are two such
17 possibilities, have you made a choice? I'm not asking you which choice
18 you made, but is it possible to make such a choice, and have you made
19 such a choice, in accordance with the legislation in Yugoslavia?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Judge, under the Serbian law
21 there is no more Yugoslavia
22 It's been long gone. So under the Serbian law, each person has his or
23 her own assets. The only assets shared are those gained jointly,
24 something that is jointly purchased, jointly gained or earned. If we're
25 looking at real estate, my wife has a piece of real estate which is not
1 particularly valuable or expensive, whereas I, myself, have nothing,
2 nothing at all. I have been without a source of earnings for the last
3 seven years. All my assets were in my bank account back in Belgrade
4 have nothing. It's been emptied and spent. I have three young children,
5 one son who is a grown-up, and that son does not have a job. I also have
6 two grandchildren. Therefore, this is all perfectly clear.
7 Secondly, the Registrar has a team of investigators. All doors
8 are open to them over in Belgrade
9 establish anything they liked. I declared my bank account in New York
10 which goes back to 1989. It is actually 21 years' old. May that be
11 noted. There was 70.000 dollars in that account. That account was
12 blocked as of five or six years ago. I tried to use the services of the
13 Serbian embassy to find out why that account was blocked. As you know, I
14 was not a fugitive at any point. They did not provide a direct answer;
15 rather, they said that I would still be able to use the money to pay for
16 the services of an American lawyer who would be representing me before
17 this Tribunal. As you well know, it would never even cross my mind to
18 hire the services of an American lawyer.
19 So what now? Nothing much. Everything is as it was. The
20 Registrar is well able to establish anything they like, yet they refuse
21 to. I provided appropriate information. It is up to them to actually
22 check. They should come forward and say if any of my information is
23 accurate, but the Registrar deliberately avoids doing just that.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You know very well that it is up
25 to you to prove indigency. You can't simply say that the Registrar has
1 the means at its disposal to find the information it wants. It is
2 actually for you to give that information.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no court in the entire
4 world that has a registry this powerful. Here, the Registrar makes
5 decisions about my Defence; they make decisions as to who I would be
6 legally represented by. Where on earth can you find a court of law
7 allowing something like that?
8 I have proven already that I had no money to fund my defence, yet
9 the Registrar is telling me that I have failed to prove it. So what can
10 I do? Is the Registrar always right? No, I think sometimes the
11 Registrar has been known to tell a lie, on many an occasion during my
12 case. There were different people filling that post, but the institution
13 remains. I say I have nothing, and they claim that I have something.
14 Are we going to go on like that until the end of time?
15 Nevertheless, I have not worked on the Defence case so far. What
16 I have been doing is preparing, to the best of my ability, under
17 exceptionally difficult circumstances. I've been preparing to refute any
18 claims made by the Prosecution's false witnesses. I'm not unhappy. I
19 believe I have been reasonably successful. I would have been far more
20 successful had I not been hampered in my work by the various
21 extrajudicial obstacles, had I not been hampered in terms of working with
22 my associates, and a number of other obstacles that were laid in my way.
23 If I do not get any funds for my defence from the
24 International Tribunal, that will simply leave me unable to put forward a
25 Defence case. In order to fund my Defence case, some things must be paid
1 up front, and that means the pre-trial stage as well as the trial,
2 itself. The Registrar must be able to establish to what extent I'm able
3 to chip in, in terms of funding my defence, and to what extent I'm not.
4 There are various criteria. Let's look at the costs of defence cases in
5 all the other trials before the International Tribunal and compare.
6 Let's look at the chronology. The pre-trial stage over a total of five
7 years for my category, and this is category 3 or class 3, there was a
8 break lasting 18 months, and the cost was 380.000, and then that goes up
9 to 24 months, at most. My pre-trial stage took five years.
10 Just look at my expenses. I had to get rid of a lawyer who had
11 been imposed on me in front of the Dutch Bar, and then I had to look into
12 some information in relation to the first Serb lawyer who was imposed on
13 me as a stand-by. Someone must foot the bill, and it simply has to be
14 the International Tribunal. I would not have incurred all those bills
15 had all those situations not been foisted on me by illegal means and
17 So much for the funding.
18 Now, as regards my legal counsel, as we speak, I only have one
19 with whom I'm enjoying privileged communication, Boris Aleksic. I'm very
20 happy with the work that he's been doing, exceptionally happy. You've
21 seen for yourselves he writes very good submissions and he is a very
22 competent lawyer.
23 I'm also happy with my case assistant, Marina Raguz. She's not a
24 lawyer, herself, but she has proven to be quite good at writing
25 submissions. Nevertheless, I cannot go on without Zoran Krasic.
1 Zoran Krasic has been with me throughout, from the word go, and he knows
2 this case. He has been on this case for the last seven years. It is,
3 however, impossible for me to work with him because his status here
4 before this Tribunal is simply humiliating.
5 You must realise one thing. He knows about all these protected
6 witnesses. He knows about all the confidential information and
7 documents. He's seen it all. There is nothing knew that could possibly
8 turn up here without him having access to it. Over the last seven years,
9 he has simply studied it all.
10 Why the whole thing, then? We move into closed session, and he's
11 expected to leave the courtroom, quite aside from what I actually believe
12 about the closed sessions during the Defence case and how that will
13 happen. Unless the OTP stages some sort of a show again, all of my
14 witnesses will be testifying live, in public, viva voce. That happens to
15 be the only kind of evidence that I recognise as legitimate. I don't
16 recognise the evidence as defined by a continental law or, indeed, a
17 common law.
18 This is a criminal case and not a civil case. Everything must be
19 said in open court. We want to avoid situations of people writing stuff
20 that somebody allegedly said, yet not knowing that this is the case.
21 This is something that must not be allowed to happen in a criminal case
22 like this.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you remember the
24 reasons very well. There is no need to remind you of them here. You
25 know what the reasons are for the Registry's decision to suspend
1 Mr. Krasic's situation, and these reasons have not changed. This Chamber
2 can do nothing about that.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I simply cannot settle for that,
4 the fact that the Registrar can suspend my legal counsel. I will never
5 settle for that, I will never come to terms with that. It cannot be the
7 Secondly, you suspended my legal counsel based on a suspicion of
8 the OTP that he was exerting pressure on witnesses. Why was that never
9 proven? It was first presented over two years ago, and it hasn't been
10 proven. Will Zoran Krasic remain branded for the rest of his life just
11 because there was at one point a suspicion on the part of the OTP.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there's a mistake
13 in the transcript. Page 21, line 4, "you have suspended my legal
14 counsel." The Chamber has suspend nobody. We did not do that. The
15 Registry did that.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not received the
17 interpretation of what you have just said, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was trying to say that there
19 is a mistake in the transcript. Page 21, line 4, it says "you suspended
20 my legal counsel." The Chamber wishes to point out that we did nothing
21 of the sort. The Registry suspended, not the Chamber. So when you say
22 "you," you mean this Tribunal or the Registry, but it is not the Chamber.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course, Mr. President, when I
24 say "you," normally I mean the Tribunal as a whole, which I view as a
25 single institution. You have large-scale machinery here taking on too
1 many powers, and sometimes the Registrar appears to be more powerful than
2 the Trial Chambers themselves, which is not the case anywhere else in the
4 Nevertheless, what exactly is the problem we're dealing with
5 here? This is something that you acknowledged in your last ruling, for
6 Zoran Krasic to remain in this half-suspended condition, as it were. He
7 can work with me as far as matters of public record are concerned, but
8 not those that are confidential or outside the public eye. So, for
9 example, he comes and visits me in the Detention Unit. That means that
10 all the conversations will be listened to, or they will tape him with a
11 camera, like the last time he came. They took us to a room that was
12 bugged, and they continually recorded all of our conversations. Why
13 would, then, he visit me if I do not enjoy the privilege of confidential
14 communication? Or maybe there will be a representative of the Tribunal
15 sitting there listening to our conversations, and that is exactly what
16 the lawyers here did to me when I was providing them with instructions as
17 to how to represent me before the Bar here in Holland in June 2006.
18 Throughout all this time, the Detention Unit interpreter was
19 there listening to our conversation. Well, that is one thing that I will
20 be having.
21 If Zoran Krasic visits me, then there has to be privileged
22 communication, not being eavesdropped or anything like that. He's
23 searched every time he enters the Detention Unit, and that, I think, is
24 quite sufficient.
25 At any rate, Your Honours, in February the dead-line expired for
1 you to receive a report on the real condition of Witness 008, the false
2 Witness 008. I have not received a report yet. I'm not sure whether you
3 have. This was a chance for you to see how witnesses were
4 instrumentalised by the OTP for the purposes of this case and how they
5 came to be in the courtroom.
6 I have another legal counsel. This is Dejan Mirovic, who holds
7 an MA degree in Law. He's helping me in my contempt case. He helped me
8 the first time around, and I have now submitted another application to
9 the Registrar for him to be taken on for my next case. There is another
10 vacant spot on my legal team. At the beginning, there were three of
11 them. I would like to fill that post by hiring Mirovic another MA in
12 Law, Zoran Krasic, Boris Aleksic, and Dejan Mirovic. That would be my
13 team, these three prominent and well-regarded lawyers. If needed, I can
14 file a written motion to the Registrar in order to see to it that this is
15 done. Dejan Mirovic will also be helping me and representing me in the
16 contempt case.
17 That's is as far as my legal counsel and my legal team are
18 concerned. So far, they have not received a cent, not a penny, for their
19 work. I have been able to cover some efforts for them, but now I find
20 myself unable to do even that. They haven't been to see me for quite
21 some time, and, frankly, I don't know if and when they will.
22 There's another problem that I'm facing which will make it
23 impossible for me to present my Defence case unless dealt with in good
24 time. If we think back to what Mr. Slobodan Milosevic actually had
25 during his trial, is something that I see as the bare minimum. I will
1 not go below that. I will not settle for any less than that.
2 When the OTP case was concluded, during the actual OTP case
3 Milosevic enjoyed the aid of legal assistants and counsel who would
4 normally wait for him in a special room outside the courtroom every time
5 a session drew to a close, and then they would talk, confer, and so on
6 and so forth. When the Milosevic case was done, Mr. Milosevic was
7 granted a special office in the Detention Unit in which he had access to
8 a telephone line and a fax machine. He was allowed to use the phone as
9 much as he liked, and he was allowed to make all the calls he liked.
10 Whoever is preparing for a Defence case must keep numerous
11 communication lines open to a great many people. 90 per cent of the
12 calls normally come to nothing, but then there is that 1 per cent which
13 normally comes back with a result. Nevertheless, there must be access to
14 these services, and Mr. Milosevic enjoyed that access.
15 The Detention Unit authorities now refuse to issue their
16 permission for something like that to be arranged for me. They have now
17 awarded an office for Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Karadzic, and me to be used
18 jointly. There is a telephone line in that room, but we were officially
19 told that we could use this telephone, in terms of privileged
20 communication, only by using the same number -- dialing the same number
21 that we normally dial from the corridor of the Detention Unit. And that
22 number is normally related to a particular legal counsel we are hiring.
23 Anything else we do, we must buy a card, pay for the conversation
24 ourselves, and these conversations are normally eavesdropped on. Now,
25 this is something that I simply find myself unable to accept.
1 Secondly, we have at different stages in these proceedings. The
2 Tolimir trial has just started; the Karadzic trial has just started; and
3 I am expected to commence my Defence case. What do I need this office
4 for? I need this office to see potential witnesses there. I may have,
5 let's say, 60 or 70 witnesses appearing. I will need to see at least 500
6 or 600 of those before I pick the witnesses who would eventually -- who
7 would eventually appear. That is precisely what Mr. Milosevic did. He
8 didn't bring all of the 2.000 witnesses here to see them, but he did have
9 a list containing as many as 2.000 names. Every time he picked a
10 witness, he would be given an opportunity to talk to them three or four
11 times before the witness ever entered the courtroom.
12 For example, take my case. He spoke to me a total of four times,
13 because I appeared as one of his Defence witnesses. And he was using,
14 for that purpose, this office. And the meetings were attended also by
15 Dr. Branko Rakic, his legal counsel, Mr. Milosevic, himself, and me.
16 And there was no supervision going on whatsoever. Knowing that
17 Mr. Milosevic enjoyed this privilege, well, then certainly I must as well
18 until the moment I die. This is the only way it can happen; no other way
19 but this way. That is as far as the conditions for preparing my Defence
20 case are concerned.
21 Problem number 4, which is exceptionally important, this is
22 something that I've drawn your attention to previously. At one point
23 during the pre-trial stage, I filed a number of motions to the
24 Trial Chamber, more than once, at any rate, as far as I remember, about
25 the following: I suggested that a number of different intelligence
1 services, American, British, German, French, Croatian, and the Muslim
2 Intelligence Service in Bosnia
3 submit all of their intelligence reports, all of their information, all
4 of their Official Notes containing a mention or a reference to my name.
5 The Trial Chamber came back to me, saying that I had to get the work done
6 myself, that I should try to get hold of these documents, and then should
7 I fail, they would be ruling on that.
8 My legal counsel followed this course of action. It was
9 Mr. Aleksandar Vucic who at the time was in charge of dealing with that.
10 He dispatched requests to the US Intelligence Service, the French
11 Intelligence Service, the Dutch -- the Italian Intelligence Service, and
12 the German Intelligence Service. No response came from anyone but the
13 US Intelligence Service, and they wanted the costs covered. I forwarded
14 their response to the Tribunal.
15 I am unable to use my legal assistants to address the Croat
16 authorities or, indeed, the Muslim authorities. Therefore, this should
17 be done directly by the Tribunal. This information is essential to me.
18 It is material to my Defence case. Unless I get hold of this information
19 in good time, I really have no idea how I should be presenting my Defence
20 case, as a whole.
21 In the OTP's case, they got everything they wanted from anyone
22 they wanted. They carefully picked what documents exactly would be made
23 available to me from the archives and from all over the place. But then,
24 mutatis mutandis, I must get access to everything wherever my name is
25 mentioned, so then I can pick, myself, whether I will be using a document
1 in the courtroom or not.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, on this latter
3 point that I no longer had in mind, I followed closely what was said in
4 the Karadzic case, where he also asked the states to communicate a number
5 of elements, and I remember what the German ambassador said. He said as
6 far as secret services are concerned, this comes under state secret, and
7 it's impossible to disclose anything.
8 Now, regarding the other countries which participated, they're
9 willing to answer as long as they are given a very clear explanation
10 about the purpose of the request. They don't want to contribute to
11 fishing for information and nothing else. So I believe that your -- you
12 probably will not have a positive answer.
13 I didn't know that your associate had written to everyone, that
14 you only got an answer from the Americans, who were asking you to pay for
15 these documents. I guess that's what they were asking you to do.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Americans were willing, at
17 least on the face of it, to meet my request. However, they had a price
18 list for that. They were prepared to provide documents at a price, and
19 they explained the costs -- the costs of the staff, photocopying, and so
20 on and so forth. However, it seems that all states but Serbia are
21 entitle to have their state secrets. Only from Serbia, Karadzic
22 documents were provided to the Tribunal. Even if some documents were
23 missing, they were produced there and then in order to meet the requests
24 of the OTP. There was such cases. In the proceedings against the six
25 who were tried for alleged crimes on Kosovo, I know for a fact that
1 certain documents were produced subsequently in order to meet the
2 requirements of the OTP; documents which were not authentic. Those
3 documents were forged subsequently in order to prove some things.
5 always an axe hanging over Serbia
6 Tribunal as a serious court of law. Americans, for example, their state
7 interest has always been above the Tribunal. If this, indeed, is an
8 international tribunal, then the interests of this Tribunal has to be
9 above any individual state interest, especially in view of the fact that
10 it is very difficult to prove here that a state is interested in hiding
11 documents. The real interests of Western powers, such as America
13 only to make my defence more difficult.
14 I am sure that all the documents that mention my name and that
15 are kept in their archives would be exculpatory for me. Their
16 intelligence services were involved in all war events. They have precise
17 information. And that information is contradictory to the statements
18 issued by their politicians.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let me remind you
20 of the law. Our Rule 54 bis solves this problem. A party, i.e., you,
21 asking for a -- i.e., a party requesting an order on Rule 54 that say
22 produce document and so forth, will identify the documents, if possible,
23 to indicate how they are relevant to any matter in the issue before the
24 Judge. 3 explains the steps that have been made by the applicant to
25 secure the state's assistance. This is Rule 54 bis(A)(i) to (iii).
1 "The Judge of the Trial Chamber will reject an application if it
2 is satisfied that the documents are not relevant, that no reasonable
3 steps have been made by the applicants to obtain the documents or the
4 information from the state."
5 This is Rule 54 bis(B)(1)(ii), and the decision of the
6 Trial Chamber can be appealed. So the procedure is extremely clear.
7 If you want, for example, the German Secret Services to
8 communicate documents to you, well, first you have to ask for them. And
9 if you get no answer, then you can make a written submission, explaining
10 what the relevance of these documents is, and, secondly, what steps have
11 you taken so far, and, three, what is the exact nature of the document.
12 The procedure is stated in Rule 54 bis. You have to follow it. And I
13 believe that this is exactly what Mr. Karadzic did. He followed the
14 procedure, Rule 54 bis.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I've done.
16 As for the nature of these documents, I would say that they deal
17 with my activities during the war. My name is mentioned in all of them,
18 and that should be a good enough reason for me to request those documents
19 covering a period from 1991 to 19 --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I believe that at
21 one point in time in your country you were vice-prime minister, and you
22 dealt with your own secret services. So you know exactly how they work,
23 how they operate. They're secret by nature. So they don't disclose
24 much. If you're waiting for miracles, well, you know it's a hard road to
25 follow, but you can always try. You might eventually obtain something.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when I was the
2 vice-president of my government, whatever I requested from Serbian and
3 Yugoslav intelligence services, I got all that, by and large. Many of
4 those documents later on, when I was no longer the vice-president of the
5 government, I disclosed all of them. Once, they wanted to put me on
6 trial for disclosing an official secret, but they soon changed their
7 mind. I even managed to get hold of my entire police record. There were
8 no big secrets for me there.
9 And here you could also see that I had much better documents at
10 my disposal than the OTP, and I'm always able to lift the mask of the
11 false documents that the OTP is trying to pass on me. There we've seen
12 documents that were not signed, they didn't have a stamp on them, they
13 were not recorded, and so on and so forth.
14 As far as the foreign services are concerned, I'm powerless here.
15 I don't have the money to pay the Americans. And the rest are keeping
16 quiet. And as for Croatia
17 anybody to be my mediator. I personally don't want to do that; My legal
18 advisers don't want to do that. Aleksandar Vucic didn't want to do it
19 originally, but then I learned later on that he travelled to Zagreb
20 several occasions. And when I learned that, I had already dismissed him.
21 I really don't know why he travelled to Zagreb, who he meant there, and
22 what connections he had there, and what things he was involved in there.
23 In any case, my assistance team has always been under scrutiny,
24 and you realised what that scrutiny resulted in. The team has been
25 changed. I'm not complaining. I have expected all those blows, and I've
1 managed to put through all those blows, not only in biological terms but
2 also in political terms. In political terms, for America and its allies,
3 I am currently more dangerous than I ever was seven years ago. And they
4 are still not happy about my possible return to Belgrade. So we will
5 still have an opportunity to engage in this tug-of-war for seven or eight
6 years, at least until all this is over.
7 But I'm not complaining, I'm not complaining. I'm just telling
8 you that I will not give up an inch of my rights and principles that I
9 adhere to. And I'm telling you, though, these proceedings cannot be
10 finished that easily and at my expense. I appreciate that it will
11 eventually be at my expense, but in the meantime I will be able to deal a
12 lot of counter-blows to my enemies and my opponents.
13 As my -- a friend of mine used to say, I'm not a squirrel; I
14 can't be treated like this by just anybody. I -- you should, rather,
15 compare me with a dragon. That would be a much better comparison.
16 And I have a minor issue, or minor on the face of it. It's a
17 very concrete issue, and I believe it's important enough for me to inform
18 you about it. There is an agency called SENSE. SENSE Tribunal is its
19 full name. Its sponsors are The Hague Tribunal also the
20 European Commission, the governments of the Netherlands, Luxembourg
22 information from the proceedings that are conducted before this Tribunal.
23 And last time, the week before last, when we heard the protected witness,
24 Ms. Biersay mentioned or quoted my statement that I issued at a press
25 conference in 1992, and that was when I requested for Ostoja Sibincic and
1 others to be released after having been arrested in Hrtkovci. The SENSE
2 Agency, or the SENSE, whatever its name is, published as follows:
3 "Ms. Biersay quoted Seselj's statement at a press conference held
4 in 1993, at which he requested for the detained activeness of the
5 Serbian Radical Party to be released, including Sibincic."
6 This means that somebody suggested that that agency should
7 infiltrate a piece of false information, and that was that I treated
8 Sibincic as a member of the Serbian Radical Party, although at that
9 conference, I said - and I published that in my book "Bila Bandic Has to
10 Fall" - the Serbian Radical Party, that is the third issue that I
11 would -- we would like to communication our position. The Serbian
12 Radical Party requests the release of Sobija Ilicic [phoen] and others
13 who were arrested in Sovislavici [phoen], former Hrtkovci, because we
14 believe that they have been arrested because of their political campaign
15 or, rather, a political campaign conducted by some circles of the federal
16 authorities, primarily Tibor Varadi, a minister and official of the
17 Pro Ustasha Party of the Yugoslav Association for Democratic Initiative.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
19 Mr. MARCUSSEN: I believe the accused is raising an issue of
20 evidence rather than an administrative issue at this point.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, this is evidence,
22 Mr. Seselj, this is evidence.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, this is an administrative
24 issue, not an issue of evidence. I would like to -- I'm trying to show
25 you how a propaganda war is waged against me by the SENSE Agency,
1 supported by the Tribunal.
2 And then I go -- I went on to say if somebody committed a crime,
3 it is up to a court to establish that, and I will --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm sure that you
5 know the media better than I do. You can send them some mail, you know,
6 a letter, to ask them to amend their press release, and they'll make the
7 amendment. They might have made a mistake. I don't know. I didn't
8 follow this. You can always write to them so that they can make a
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was convinced that
11 you, as members of the Trial Chamber, will be very interested in learning
12 about this problem. I sent a submission to the Registry, and that
13 submission was prepared by Boris Aleksic. But I would like to also
14 inform you about the forgeries that I'm dealing with. I have been
15 dealing with such forgeries all the time. And could you please allow me
16 to read two more sentences and quote what I said at the conference, and
17 how the two sentences have been misinterpreted by the SENSE.
18 I said if somebody committed a crime, it has to be confirmed by a
19 court. They were arrested after a political campaign, without a piece of
20 evidence that a crime was, indeed, committed. We demand that they be
21 released and that they be allowed to mount a defence at large. If
22 anybody has to be arrested, it should be those who committed the most
23 atrocious -- such a crime, and exchange them with the Croats. And then I
24 went on to talk about how those criminals were released, and that was in
25 1992, and it's clear what I wanted to say.
1 At the same time, the SENSE Agency published that on that
2 occasion I protected members of the Serbian Radical Party, although on
3 several occasions we established here in this place that they were not
4 members of the Serbian Radical Party.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
6 Mr. MARCUSSEN: The accused is clearly continuing to present
7 evidence. He's making a submission about evidence that was presented to
8 you in court. He's making an argument as to why some evidence that has
9 been presented is wrong based on some documents he's reading from. If
10 the accused intends to turn this into an evidentiary hearing, then we
11 should have this piece of evidence that he's reading from admitted into
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, regarding this
14 agency, this is not the first time that there are some technical
15 problems, and I say, quote/unquote, "technical problems" with this
16 agency. You're not the first accused contesting what this agency is
17 saying. But they can answer any request made by you, and if they made a
18 mistake, because they can make mistakes, well, they will correct their
19 mistake. Jumping to conclusions by saying that they're forging the truth
20 or giving false true, that's going a bit too far.
21 Let me tell you that we have been in contact for years now, and
22 it's the first time that you are addressing this problem of this
23 SENSE Agency. It's up to you to solve the problem. We're not here to
24 deny freedom of speech to anyone. We're not here to tell anyone, You are
25 not reflecting correctly what is being said during the hearings. It is
1 not our job; it is not what we're here for.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in my view, your job
3 is anything to do with this trial and my position in it. You are the
4 guardians of the just nature of this trial.
5 As I told you, I submitted this to the Registry, and the
6 Registry's in charge of working with this agency, in charge of funding
7 the work of the agency. I officially submitted this to the Registrar.
8 I'm merely now informing you that I, in fact, did that and why; which
9 concludes the matter for me. That is all I had to say in that respect.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You're telling us
11 that you made a submission to the Registrar, and you will -- it's up to
12 the Registry to decide.
13 Mr. Marcussen, before we wind up, do you have anything to say.
14 Mr. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honours, I do have a few points.
15 First of all, and this goes to the issue of what stage the
16 proceedings is in, the issue came up about whether or not the
17 Prosecution's case is closed. As I indicated last time we were in court
18 and this issue came up, it's the Prosecution's position that the
19 Prosecution's part of the presentation of evidence is not yet over.
20 In addition to issues that might come up during the
21 witnesses - and I understand that the President has already deal with
22 this, and I accept, of course, the position that there can be Prosecution
23 exhibits tendered during that -- during the testimony of the remaining
24 witnesses - I also wanted to alert the Trial Chamber to the fact that the
25 Prosecution intend to file another motion for admission of documents from
1 the Bar table. We will make a short request for leave to exceed the word
2 limits, on the basis of -- for the same reasons that we sought it for the
3 first Bar table motion. We will get that filed very quickly. We just
4 need to finalise some technical issues, and then we can file that.
5 On the 23rd of April, 2002, Mr. Mundis -- no, that cannot be
6 right. 2008, my apologies. Mr. Mundis indicated that the Prosecution
7 was working on preparing a list of additional videos to be shown. We
8 would like to show a few more videos to the Court. We have considerably
9 cut down the list, so I think we could do a short video session, but we
10 would like to present some further videos. And as the Court has decided
11 that the propose procedure is that the videos be shown in court, we would
12 need some time to do that.
13 So those were the first two things in relation to the close of
14 the Prosecution case.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, a spur of the
16 moment. I am just finding out about these videos. You know that we
17 still have six witnesses, and you could always show these six -- these
18 witnesses [as interpreted] during the hearing of these six witnesses in
19 the framework of the time allotted to you; for VS-1058, for example,
20 through VS-1058, because having a special video session would mean that
21 you would be allotted additional time, and personally I would be against
22 that. I can tell thank you immediately.
23 So if you have a few videos to show, since we're going to have
24 witnesses, use these witnesses to show your videos, you know, during your
25 cross. Say, Mr. Seselj said this earlier, I will show you a video, and
1 then we'll see the video. That way, you can obtain what you want.
2 Mr. MARCUSSEN: I'm not certain that the remaining witnesses can
3 speak to the particular witness -- to the particular videos that we have
4 left, so I'm not sure that's feasible.
5 And on the issue of time, I believe that the Prosecution had five
6 hours and something left of its time before the remaining witnesses were
7 converted into Court witnesses, so I would think that we have some time.
8 In any event, all we need is maybe an hour or two hours. It's --
9 we are not talking about a massive amount of videos to present.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I'm not
11 convinced that you still have five hours. Our Legal Officers have
12 checked this closely, and I don't think that you have five hours left.
13 We'll take a close look at this to see exactly how much time you have
15 Mr. MARCUSSEN: Now, as for the issue of the accused's ability to
16 present his defence, the way I have heard the accused speak today, he has
17 essentially said he does not have the resources and, therefore, is not
18 capable of preparing his defence. That, again, raises the issue of
19 whether or not it is required for the Trial Chamber to impose counsel,
20 and it's a difficult situation for the Trial Chamber, I realise. And I
21 also note that although I'm not to make any submissions on whether or not
22 the Serbian authorities should or should not be requested to provide
23 information, the Prosecution would request that the Trial Chamber, if it
24 is to make such a request to Serbia
25 the accused whether or not the request has been made, because the
1 Trial Chamber has found that the accused is not able to ensure his
2 defence without some legal assistance of some sort. So that's what I
3 wanted to say on this point.
4 I would also note that the accused made a lot of arguments about
5 how he had prevented from doing this or how he didn't have resources.
6 I think it's important to put on record as well, though, that the accused
7 has actually presented, with various of his motions, quite a lot of
8 witness statements he as obtained actually even before the commencement
9 of the trial. And as we have frequently debated, when various witnesses
10 have been cross-examined, he has obviously had the resources to have
11 somebody collect various pieces of evidence for him and have them faxed
12 to him in court. And I put this on record because I think that it's
13 important that the public is informed about what's going on here. And
14 when the accused is presenting himself as some sort of a victim of the
15 system here, I think it is inappropriate. The Trial Chamber has done
16 what it could and been very, very lax in allowing the accused to present
17 his evidence during the trial, has allowed him not to provide documents
18 in translated form, has allowed him to come with the documents late. So
19 I think important that the record is somehow made as to what the
20 accused's ability is to present his case.
21 So, Your Honours, I think it's important, as we move forward,
22 that we clarify the accused's position on this counsel issue.
23 And I would note that once the Defence case starts, it will be
24 important, of course, for the fairness of the trial and for the
25 Prosecution's ability to cross-examine remaining witnesses, that we do
1 get things translated, that we do get them on time. So if the accused is
2 not able to respect reasonable dead-lines for those kind of things once
3 the Defence case starts, the whole issue of his ability to present his
4 defence comes up again. And the issue of whether or not he can do so
5 without some sort of legal assistance, unfortunately, will arise again,
6 but this time in a new form. But it cannot end up being the case that
7 the Prosecution's ability to prepare for cross-examination of witnesses
8 get prejudiced because the accused refuses to provide information to the
9 Registrar which enables the Registrar to give him counsel, if that's what
10 actually is needed.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we only have five
13 minutes to go before the tape finishes, quite, but we must finish now.
14 We have five minutes, Mr. Seselj, and then we will wind up.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just respond to
16 Mr. Marcussen.
17 As for the admission of documents into evidence, what
18 Mr. Marcussen has announced is impossible. Any documents had to be
19 tendered while the witnesses were around, while he was examining his
20 witnesses, now the Chamber's witnesses, and potential Defence witnesses.
21 The only thing that can be admitted directly into evidence with no
22 witnesses are photocopies of portions of my books or the pieces that I
23 wrote. This is the only thing that can be Bar-tabled, as it were.
24 The other thing. Mr. Marcussen has just stated something that is
25 utter nonsense. If I have no funding to present my Defence case, then
1 obviously this brings up the issue of my lawyer. What exactly will this
2 lawyer be doing, presenting a Defence case against my will? I don't see
3 any brains here. Do you have any, sir? How on earth could a lawyer like
4 that be allowed to do that?
5 Milosevic was tricked some time ago. He submitted a witness
6 list, and then a lawyer was imposed on him to pick witnesses from that
7 list. That didn't work.
8 Me, I will not be forwarding to you a Defence witness list, or,
9 indeed, any of my evidence until I have received sufficient funds to
10 appropriately present Defence case. A budget must be determined for my
11 Defence case in relation to the pre-trial stage, in relation to the OTP
12 case, and in relation to the Defence case; the breakdown being like that.
13 A budget is determined based on the complexity level of the case, and
14 then we can say, I can fund this or that portion from such and such
15 sources, but the rest of the bill should be footed by the
16 International Tribunal, that being the only legitimate method of going
17 about this. No one so far here has even tried to determine a budget for
18 my defence or, indeed, to ascertain what, if any, of these expenses I can
19 cover myself and from what sources. And yet you would like to assign a
20 lawyer to me. Are you in your right state of mind, people? How exactly
21 are you going to do that? If you're bringing a fool into this courtroom,
22 and this fool will be travelling around Serbia, tracking down witnesses.
23 Well, this fool appointed by you would never be allowed to enter Serbia
24 let alone pick my witnesses. Maybe someone from this OTP of yours, some
25 of their staff, maybe they should go, have a walk around, and then tell
1 other people there that I'm probably the most heinous person alive.
2 Am I the worst person you've ever met? I'm sure you've never met
3 anyone like me throughout your careers, not you, not the Trial Chamber.
4 I don't think you've ever met anyone like this before.
5 You are bound to get a lot more headaches because I'm here. I
6 will not give up any of my claims, and I'm ready to stake my life to
7 stand up for my rights and principles. You are powerless when you face
8 me, and my power is enormous. My greatest resources are right here
9 between my ears, and I'm sure, Mr. Marcussen, that you've had ample
10 opportunity to see for yourself. You can't overcome that. There's no
11 one available to do the work for you.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we're about to
13 close. And, anyhow, we're running ahead of things, because we still have
14 to deal with 98 bis. And if there's one thing that I'm sure I
15 understand, is that you are asking for two years to prepare yourself.
16 This much, I understand. Until now, that was not clear to me.
17 Secondly, you are asking for financial means in order to fund the
18 presentation of your witnesses. Now, this is another element that the
19 Chamber will keep in mind when they make decisions.
20 We will meet again next week. I can't remember if it will be
21 morning hearings or afternoon hearings, but, anyhow, you will be told.
22 We have VS-1058 and Gasi, one and a half hours for the Chamber,
23 one and a half hours for the OTP, one and a half hours for Mr. Seselj,
24 followed the next morning by Mr. Gasic [as interpreted], who has 30
25 minutes. In theory, only issues related to his testimony will be raised,
1 and no administrative issues, because that would be a waste of time.
2 That's what I want to tell you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Judge Harhoff, who
5 has a very vast experience in these matters, is pointing out to us that
6 when we start on the presentation of the Defence case, a new financial
7 regime comes into place. What you might want to do is discuss this with
8 the Registry people who visit at the Detention Unit. Mr. Petrov is about
9 to change his position. Somebody's going to replace him, Ms. Campbell,
10 and you should take it up with her. See if you can solve this problem.
11 She is the person you can talk to in the coming weeks, in the coming
12 days, because we are now moving into a different phase with a different
13 financial regime.
14 You have to bring your witnesses; you have to see your witnesses.
15 We have to pay the planes, and the hotels, and the meals for your
16 witnesses. This is obvious, without question.
17 Now, we will stop here, because we are running ahead of
18 ourselves. I think it was a good idea to mention your list of witnesses,
19 because we were able to sketch out what problems you were going to be
20 faced with in the time to come.
21 We will meet again next week. It will be afternoon hearings,
22 Judge Harhoff just told us, and we will meet, therefore, at 2.15.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.55 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 9th day
25 of March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.