1 Monday, 14 June 2010
2 [Administrative Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.07 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, 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 Monday, June 14th, 2010, and I welcome our
13 representatives of the OTP and their staff, Mr. Seselj, and everyone
14 helping us.
15 This is an administrative hearing, so before delving into the
16 subject, I will read a few oral decisions. I will read them slowly.
17 Some are short, but some are a bit longer, and the two last ones will be
18 issued in closed session because they are dealing with protected
20 Now, let's start with the public decisions.
21 Let me follow the translation in B/C/S in order to make sure that
22 the B/C/S booth is following.
23 Oral decision regarding VS-026 and VS-032.
24 Noting the Prosecution's public motion filed on June 1st, asking
25 for additional time to tender previous statements and associated
1 evidentiary documents dealing with Witnesses VS-026 and VS-032, noting
2 the public oral decision issued on May 11, 2010, setting the dead-line
3 for the filing of all motions to be taken into consideration by the
4 Trial Chamber in its 98 bis ruling at June 1st, 2010, considering that
5 the Trial Chamber is not yet able to determine whether it will be able to
6 hear the testimonies of Witnesses VS-026 and VS-032, on these grounds
7 grants leave to the Prosecution to file a request to tender evidence for
8 Witnesses VS-026 and VS-032, after their testimony in this case, should
9 the Trial Chamber decide that they are able to testify or within three
10 days after the Trial Chamber's decision, should the Trial Chamber decide
11 that they are not to testify.
12 So in a nutshell, if these two persons come and testify, the
13 Prosecution will tender the evidentiary documents, and if the
14 Trial Chamber decides that they will not testify, the Prosecution will
15 have three days to send us their requests.
16 Second oral decision on the accused's books.
17 Noting the public version of the consolidated decision on the
18 assignment of counsel, adjournment, and Prosecution motion for additional
19 time issued on November 24, 2009, in which the Trial Chamber orders the
20 accused to disclose a paper copy and an electronic copy, if possible, of
21 all future publications in his name that contain, in whole or in part,
22 references to the present case, so that the Chamber may transmit them to
23 the Registry, where they will then be examined to determine whether the
24 publication in question contains confidential information that would
25 identify a protected Prosecution witness in this case; noting the public
1 comments made by the Registry on this consolidated decision filed on
2 January 20th, 2010, in which the Registry notes that it does not have the
3 resources or the knowledge necessary to meet this task, and that it is up
4 to the accused to make sure that no information confidential is contained
5 in his publications; noting the public oral decision issued on May 11,
6 2010, in which the Trial Chamber repeated for the second time the
7 instructions given to the Registry in the consolidated decision; noting
8 the new public comments filed by the Registry on May 18, 2010, allows
9 proprio motu the accused to public his books at his own risk without the
10 accused having to provide them in advance to the Trial Chamber and to the
11 Registry for control; however, recalls that disclosing any confidential
12 running counter to an order for protective measures issued by a
13 Trial Chamber can be sanctioned by a conviction for contempt of court,
14 according to Rule 77.
15 This, in a nutshell, Mr. Seselj, through this oral decision, can
16 publish any book he wants without having to provide a copy of this book
17 or of the project of the book before to us. However, he must make sure
18 that he abides by Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, i.e.,
19 protection of confidential information.
20 Third decision, public decision, on the documents attached to the
21 previous statements of Witnesses Stefanovic, Petkovic, Rankic, VS-034,
22 and VS-037.
23 Noting the public motion filed on the 1st of June, 2010, by the
24 Prosecution, aiming at admitting, on the basis of Rule 89(C) of the Rules
25 of Procedure and Evidence, some documents that were used during the
1 previous written statements of Witnesses Aleksandar Stefanovic,
2 Ljubisa Petkovic, Zoran Rankic, VS-034 and VS-037, submitting that since
3 these documents were commented upon by previous witnesses during the
4 previous statements, these are a set of documents and cannot be
5 disassociated or separated from the statements in question; noting the
6 public decision issued on the 6th of November, 2008, in which the
7 Trial Chamber admitted several previous statements of Ljubisa Petkovic
8 pursuant to Rule [indiscernible] quater of the Rules of Procedure and
9 Evidence; noting the public decision issued on the 12th of March, 2009,
10 in which the Trial Chamber admitted several previous written statements
11 of Aleksandar Stefanovic pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure
12 and Evidence; noting the confidential decision issued on the 11th of May,
13 2010, in which the Trial Chamber admitted several previous written
14 statements of Witness VS-034 pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules of
15 Procedure and Evidence; considering that the Trial Chamber has not ruled
16 yet on the application to admit previous statements of Witnesses
17 Zoran Rankic and VS-037; considering that the Trial Chamber has, however,
18 already admitted previous written statements of Witnesses
19 Ljubisa Petkovic, Aleksandar Stefanovic, and VS-034; considering that as
20 far as witnesses on whom the Trial Chamber has already ruled is
21 concerned, the Prosecution requests the admission of five documents used
22 during the written statements of Aleksandar Stefanovic, 17 documents used
23 for Ljubisa Petkovic, and two documents used for VS-034; considering that
24 the Trial Chamber holds that the documents that have been commented upon
25 by the witnesses in their previous written statements form an integral
1 part of these statements and form a set that cannot be disassociated or
2 separated from these statements; for the foregoing reasons orders the
3 following documents to be tendered into evidence: The five documents
4 that were used at the time of the written statements of
5 Aleksandar Stefanovic and quoted by the Prosecution in paragraph 12,
6 footnote 15 of its motion; the 17 documents used for Ljubisa Petkovic and
7 quoted by the Prosecution in paragraph 15, footnote page 18 of its
8 motion; the two documents used for VS-034 and quoted by the Prosecution
9 in paragraph 21, footnote page 20 of its motion, orders the Registrar to
10 give each document an exhibit number and to put them on e-court as
11 annexes to the previous statements of which they form an integral part,
12 stays its decision on the request pertaining to Witnesses Zoran Rankic
13 and VS-037 until such a time that the Trial Chamber rules on the
14 admission of the previous statements.
15 I have two oral decisions that I need to hand down in closed
16 session. These decisions are not very long.
17 Registrar, can we move into closed session for a few moments,
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 16100-16103 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's an extremely important
20 topic we need to address today which relates to the search, and
21 consequences thereof, which had been conducted at Mrs. Mladic's home,
22 wife of General Mladic.
23 According to the information which has been forwarded to the
24 Trial Chamber, in the month of February of this year the investigating
25 services of the Republic of Serbia found, at the home of Mrs. Mladic, a
1 number of documents, amongst which personal notes of General Mladic were
2 found which could be of interest to a number of cases before this
3 Tribunal. The Prosecutor held that it was important to discuss this
4 matter. A press release was, therefore, provided on the subject of these
5 documents. The OTP sent these documents to the translation services of
6 the Tribunal. This should amount to approximately 3.500 pages. And
7 there are seemingly a set of videos and medical documents or reports
8 which have also been discovered at Mrs. Mladic's home.
9 The Prosecution indicated to the entire world, via a press
10 release, that these documents have been sent to the accused, in the
11 plural. Since they had been drafted in B/C/S, I would like to mention
12 the fact that the Trial Chamber, this Trial Chamber, has had no such
13 document at its disposal. We did not have a CD-ROM containing these
15 As far as the case of this accused in question is concerned, we
16 have not received anything, and we do not understand the language. And
17 like everyone else, I'm waiting for the translation of these documents.
18 As things stand today, as far as I'm concerned, once we have the
19 translation of these documents, I believe a number of elements will have
20 to be checked out; i.e., how and under what conditions were these
21 documents found, what is Mrs. Mladic's position on this question, those
22 documents that have been written by General Mladic, himself, and so on
23 and so forth. So this is an extremely complex issue. In addition, to
24 what extent will these documents be, in light of our indictment? Will
25 these documents be relevant, in light of our indictment?
1 In addition, the Prosecutor has told us that it would only be
2 able to give us its point of view on the 16th of July of this year as
3 regards the accused Seselj. From the 16th of July onwards, Mr. Seselj
4 will have time to respond to this, of course. And as you know, the Rules
5 of Procedure and Evidence indicates that there is a 15-day dead-line
6 which runs from then on, but there can be an extension of this dead-line.
7 All this does have an impact on our schedule, and we will
8 therefore not be able to issue a decision on the question of Mladic's
9 notes before the beginning of September, perhaps even in the best case at
10 the end of August, because we shall have to look at all these documents
11 and this is a time-consuming process. This, of course, will also have an
12 impact on the 90 bis proceedings.
13 In addition, as far as our schedule is concerned, we still have
14 two witnesses on standby. We are waiting for the confirmation of the
15 appearance of these witnesses. That said, for the time being one of the
16 witnesses has indicated formally that he was able to come, and the second
17 witness has indicated that he rather have a video conference. We are
18 still waiting for a medical expert to provide us with his update on the
19 medical condition of these two witnesses.
20 Personally, I wish to take no risks whatsoever as far as the
21 health of these people is concerned. I don't wish these people to be
22 exposed to any disastrous situations which would make their testimony
23 very difficult. We would, therefore, like the expert to indicate to us
24 whether these two people are able to testify or not.
25 For the time being, therefore, we cannot say exactly when these
1 people will come and testify. As a precautionary measure, the
2 Trial Chamber has asked the Registrar to keep a few days at the beginning
3 of July or set these days aside at the beginning of July for the first
4 witness on the 6th and 7th of July, and the second could testify on the
5 12th and 13th of July, if all goes well. For the time being, we are
6 unable to specify this.
7 Whatever the case may be, in light of Mladic's notes, we have
8 every reason to believe that the Trial Chamber will only rule on this
9 matter at the end of August or the beginning of September.
10 But perhaps Mr. Marcussen has some new information to give us,
11 amongst other things, how the translation is getting on, because I
12 believe that there are some 3.500 pages that need translating.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I am -- it's in progress. The
14 steps that are being undertaken are to transcribe the handwritten notes
15 and then have those transcriptions translated into English. That is a
16 process that is still ongoing. There's a separate issue regarding the
17 transcription and translations of the tapes, and that is something that
18 will take a much longer time to have completed.
19 As Your Honour indicated, we have asked for an extension of time
20 until the 16th of July to eventually seek leave to amend our exhibit
21 lists. We chose that date being conscious of the need to have a 98 bis
22 hearing. We're looking at the material, and we may be able to propose
23 only a limited number of pages, if any at all. So we will, of course,
24 get back to you on that by July, but we -- I think I can safely say we
25 will not seek to add all of these note-books, for example, and we may
1 even be able to limit a request much more than that. So we are fully
2 conscious of the need to keep the schedule of the case, and we are making
3 efforts in that regard.
4 We will soon, I believe this week, be putting the material that
5 is being scanned by the Office of the Prosecutor onto the EDS so it is
6 being disclosed to the accused as relevant material, and in that way we
7 are seeking to comply with our disclosure obligations. And, of course,
8 anything that we choose to propose as exhibits or anything that we
9 determine to fall within our disclosure obligation under Rule 68, we will
10 provide to the accused according to the directions of the Trial Chamber.
11 So this may not fully address Your Honour's question, but this
12 is, I think, as close as I can get it today, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Marcussen.
14 One moment, Mr. Seselj. I will give you the floor, Mr. Seselj,
15 but I would like to say one thing.
16 Mr. Marcussen, of course we will wait for you to forward all of
17 this to us once it has been translated. We have to wait until the 16th
18 of July. But that said, Mr. Marcussen, you told us that you would give
19 us some portions of these note-books and not all of them. That's fine.
20 We will look at them with the utmost care. But as you know, the
21 Trial Chamber is currently working on a decision pertaining to the Bar
22 table motion. This is in progress and relates to all the interviews
23 given by Mr. Seselj. For instance, to give you some idea of the
24 complexity of this matter, on the 28th of May, 1992, Mr. Seselj gave an
25 interview to the daily paper "Borba." In this interview, he talked about
1 the support given to General Mladic, and he characterised General Mladic
2 as an expert and commander of the Serbian Army. We will, of course, look
3 into all of this in relation to all the documents to see whether this is
4 relevant in any way and whether this has any probative value whatsoever.
5 And let me give you briefly another example.
6 On the 6th of August, 1992, Mr. Seselj gave two press conferences
7 which are mentioned in one of his books. At this press conference,
8 Mr. Seselj reminded everyone that only the army and the police must
9 fight. The paramilitaries must not go into combat. He indicated that
10 these people are deployed in the area of Pljevlja and fought alongside
11 and under the command of the Army of the Republika Srpska. Therefore, it
12 might be interesting to discover whether, in the note-books of
13 General Mladic, the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party are mentioned
14 that fought and were placed under the command of General Mladic. I could
15 spend hours on this. This, of course, will require an awful lot of time.
16 Mr. Seselj, as far as General Mladic's note-books are concerned,
17 was this the point you wished to raise?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, I'm astonished
19 by the exceptionally bad translation of these so-called statements of
20 mine. First of all, I don't know what kind of fighting is alleged to go
21 on in Pljevlja. There was no fighting in Pljevlja; there was fighting in
22 other places. But God knows who translated this and with what
23 intentions. I was not able to find the passage that you mentioned.
24 However, through the Belgrade press, I found out that the
25 Prosecution here intends to offer the so-called Mladic diaries into
1 evidence. I read in the Sarajevo and Zagreb and Croatian press that
2 there is -- there are great doubts about the authenticity of these
3 diaries. And how come these diaries are suddenly found when the police
4 had searched the Mladic house umpteen times and failed to find them, and
5 now they suddenly do? I don't know, maybe these are his real diaries,
6 and they say there are 3.500 pages of them. My colleagues in prison, who
7 have already received copies of these diaries, say that my name is not
8 mentioned in them anywhere, although in two or three places Mladic refers
9 to "Seselj's men," but in some locations that have nothing to do with the
10 locations mentioned in the indictment. Maybe this is true, maybe not.
11 To date, I have not received anything, but it is my impression
12 that the Prosecution mentions the possibility of tendering the Mladic
13 diaries only to prolong the Prosecution case, to procrastinate, and the
14 Prosecution is doing this rather successfully. I thought that their
15 motion under 98 bis would be filed in May. You have already postponed it
16 for September. And if we are to deal with the Mladic diaries, that can
17 go on and be postponed until December.
18 I have already decided not to file the 98 bis submission. Why
19 would I participate in any exercise meant to prolong the completion of
20 this trial? And if the Prosecution does tender the Mladic diaries, then
21 I insist on getting all of the diaries in their entirety, and not only
22 the manuscripts, which are hard to read. As I saw in the Belgrade press,
23 I would find that hard to read. I demand the transcripts of these
24 diaries, typed up on a typewriter or computer in the Serbian language.
25 The Prosecution has already done such things with other diaries.
1 I'll remind you of only one false witness who testified about Vukovar and
2 who had some sort of note-book of his own, and I had to point out to you
3 how, on the latter pages, in a completely different pen, he added certain
4 things that he thought would be useful to him here. He was dealt with in
5 closed session, so I won't mention his name. The Prosecution in that
6 case provided typed transcripts of that note-book for the other accused.
7 Therefore, I demand all of the 3.500 pages in a typed-up transcript.
8 You will see that these diaries, at least in my case, cannot
9 represent any sort of corroborating document for the indictment.
10 However, they could be exculpatory material under Rule 68(1), and I will
11 insist on them.
12 That's all I have.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I thought I
14 understood, but maybe I misunderstood. When the OTP received from the
15 Serbian authorities these CD-ROMs dealing with these diaries, you must
16 have sent the CD-ROM to Mr. Seselj. What exactly did you do, as far as
17 disclosure is concerned? He says, I read this in the media. Wasn't he
18 given a CD-ROM with the 3.500 pages in B/C/S?
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: That's correct, Your Honour, the accused has not
20 yet received any of the material. The Prosecution received -- the
21 Prosecution is finishing or has just finished various technical
22 examinations of the actual note-books that the Office of the Prosecutor
23 received and has made its own scanning of the note-books. That material
24 will be the evidence that we intend to use, so these would be the
25 digitised copies of the physical evidence that the Prosecution received.
1 That will be disclosed to the accused, as I said, on the EDS, and I think
2 that is taking place this week.
3 It is correct that the Prosecution was also provided a hard drive
4 where the Serbian authorities had done a scanning of materials. For
5 record-keeping purposes, we are considering the actual hard copy to be
6 the best -- the hard copy and the OTP scanning of the material to be the
7 best version of this evidence, and this is the material that's going to
8 be disclosed.
9 There have been in other cases where some of this material has
10 been disclosed to the accused based on the Serbian scannings. In this
11 case, we have chosen that we will disclose the actual OTP scannings, so
12 that's the process.
13 As to what the accused has said about the contents, I can say
14 that we are reviewing the material, and had we -- had we found that this
15 evidence was highly relevant to the accused, contained a lot of
16 exculpatory material or anything like that, we might have proceeded
17 differently. We have considered that in light of what we have been able
18 to access of this material, the most efficient way to deal with
19 disclosure would be to disclose our official scanning of the actual
20 evidence we have received so that we do not have multiple copies floating
21 around, and avoid problems with missing pages and things like that.
22 So that is how we have proceeded. And as I said, the accused
23 should be getting this material this week. And when I say "this
24 material," what I'm talking about is things that we have received in
25 paper format, note-books and documents that have been ceased, except for
1 certain medical documents, but relevant evidentiary material will be
2 provided to the accused.
3 Processing the tapes, as I mentioned, is a difficult and more
4 complex process, but this material will also, as it becomes available, be
5 made accessible to the accused. So we're processing with this as quickly
6 as we can, and we try to be efficient by making sure that we have an
7 official version being provided so the accused -- which is probably
8 numbered and all these other things so we can find our way around in all
9 this material.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I have a
11 technical question for you, but maybe you won't be able to answer it; I
12 don't know.
13 When the Serbian authorities sent you these documents, did they
14 attach all the procedures regarding the search and the seizing of the
15 documents? Was that attached so we know exactly who was there when the
16 documents were found? Is there a very specific detailed list of all
17 documents seized, and so forth and so on? Or maybe you don't know
18 anything about this.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the material was received together
20 with a report about the actual seizure and an inventory made by the
21 Serbian authorities, and we have -- we are also inventorying the
22 material. But the material came together with an official report about
23 the seizure operation. And, of course, depending on whether or not we
24 will tender any evidence or whether any evidence of this nature will
25 become evidence in the case, this might be relevant to authenticity.
1 There have been a number of other steps taken, but at this stage I think
2 the main target is for us to provide the accused with access to this
3 material on the EDS so he can start reviewing it there, and we will try
4 to come back, as I said -- we will not try; we will come back by the 16th
5 of July with a motion and indicating whether there's anything that we
6 would find important enough to seek to add to the exhibit list at this
7 late stage, and we will disclose material that we consider exculpatory to
8 the accused in hard copy to him as we move along.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Mr. Seselj, would you like to take the floor on this so we can
11 finish this discussion on the Mladic diaries?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know in which way the
13 Prosecutor intends to disclose this material in electronic form. I don't
14 know what's going on with the Prosecutor. What is he talking about?
15 This is nonsense. At the beginning of this trial, the Trial Chamber made
16 the decision that everything has to be disclosed to me on paper. What am
17 I supposed to do with the electronic files? Where am I supposed to
18 review them? That's out of the question. Everything has to be on paper.
19 And in addition to the so-called alleged Mladic original, there
20 must be also a transcript in the Serbian language, because, as I said, I
21 am not able to read Mladic's handwriting. If I am not able to read
22 Mladic's handwriting, you cannot force me. I can't, and that's the end
23 of it. Every word from the diaries has to be retyped for me to be able
24 to read it in Serbian. I won't have it any other way.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, as you know,
1 Mr. Seselj is an expert at procedure, and he remembers the
2 Trial Chamber's decision stating that all disclosure must be made on
4 So we've understood what you want to do. You're waiting for the
5 translation, and then you will disclose all relevant elements to
6 Mr. Seselj, be it exculpatory or not, or incriminatory, but Mr. Seselj is
7 now telling us that he wants a hard copy. He wants the documents on
8 paper. He wants, number 1, a transcription in his own language, a
9 transcription of all handwritten documents written by Mr. Mladic, and
10 then he also wants the English version of this, and all this on paper.
11 Do you intend to meet his demands?
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, with all due respect, I do believe
13 that the earlier ruling on disclosure has been that the Prosecution has
14 to disclose all its exhibits and witness statements to the accused in
15 hard copy and all exculpatory information to the accused in hard copy,
16 whereas material that's relevant to the case is to be disclosed or can be
17 disclosed in electronic format.
18 The accused has signed a receipt for his password for access to
19 the electronic disclosure suite, which is the place where we do
20 electronic disclosures. I believe he did that in 2007, and we are
21 proceeding to disclose in that way.
22 In terms of what material will be available there, there will be
23 pictures of -- there would be the scanned images of the handwritten
24 note-book, there will be the B/C/S transcription of those note-books, and
25 extra effort is being made for this particular bundle of documents to
1 make sure that the images and the transcribed pages correspond to each
2 other so they can be read side by side. And a lot of energy is going
3 into making sure that annotations and things like that are indicated also
4 in the typed-up version.
5 So that is how we are proceeding with this material, Your Honour.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me tell you one more thing.
7 I've never signed for any password.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj. You
9 are raising a problem, but it will be solved in the following manner:
10 After July 16th, because the Prosecutor needs time, but after July 16 the
11 Prosecutor will file a motion to add to its 65 ter list a number of
12 documents. In this motion, which will be written in English, he will
13 give his motivation and he will attach the said documents in B/C/S. The
14 originals in B/C/S, of course, so that the Trial Chamber can take a look
15 at the writing. I'm extremely interested in the handwriting to make sure
16 that it is Mr. Mladic's handwriting. And we will also have the
17 transcription in B/C/S of the content of the document and the English
18 version of said document. And, of course, you will be -- will obtain
19 this motion. So these documents tendered by the Prosecution will be
20 disclosed to you as hard copies through this motion.
21 However, if I'm not wrong, I believe I understood that there will
22 be a number of documents that will not be tendered, but that will be
23 disclosed to you, but they will only be disclosed in electronic form.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Mladic diaries,
25 in their entirety, are one document, and only as such can they be
1 admitted into evidence. Of course, you may order, to facilitate work,
2 that only passages be admitted, but before such admission I must be made
3 familiar with the entirety of the document, just as the passages that you
4 find to be relevant, because perhaps I will have my own assessment of
5 relevance that I would emphasise in my response to the Prosecution
6 motion. You cannot deprive me of the right to evaluate relevance myself.
7 Your judgement on relevance comes last, but it's not the only one. There
8 is the Prosecution's evaluation - that's the initial one - and then I
9 must give my own evaluation. And in order to do that, I have to get
10 everything on paper and transcribed, retyped, so that I can read it all
11 and present my views. And you do your own reckoning, how many days I
12 will need to read 3.500 pages at the rate of 100 pages a day.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, my fellow Judge,
14 Ms. Lattanzi, was telling me, and I think she's right - I believe
15 Judge Harhoff will also agree - she was telling me, and I agree with her,
16 that the accused must have the entire Mladic diaries, A to Z. I mean,
17 that's normal, that's normal groundwork. And Mr. Seselj is telling us
18 that if there is 3.500 pages, he can only read 100 pages a day, which
19 means that it will take 35 days for him to go through these diaries.
20 That's it.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, as I said, the material will be
22 available as of this week to the accused on the EDS. The Trial Chamber's
23 earlier ruling has been that we disclose relevant material in electronic
24 form, and we disclose our exhibits and Rule 68 material in hard copy. We
25 will do that.
1 I can inform the Chamber that as far as I'm aware, the case
2 manager of the accused and the legal assistant assigned by the Registrar
3 to assist the accused have not been receiving -- have not requested
4 access to the EDS. Maybe the accused should consider asking his
5 assistants that they get access to the EDS so that he, himself, and his
6 assistant can more effectively access the material there. But the
7 material will be available to him in full. It will be available in the
8 form he requests. And we will, on an ongoing basis, be putting material
9 there in the directory which identifies the Mladic material so it's easy
10 to find and it can be searched, and he can read it there. And we're
11 complying with the Trial Chamber's order as to how we should disclose
12 this material.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'll give you the
14 floor in a minute. But Mr. Marcussen just told us that your associates
15 can have access to the electronic version, and thanks to this I can
16 immediately move on to the next subject.
17 As you know, Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber is very concerned
18 about the rights of the Defence, and we believe that, according to the
19 Statute, that you must be able to have all the necessary resources
20 provided by Article 21 in the Statute. We noted there was a bit of a
21 stalemate on this, and because of this the Trial Chamber some time ago
22 seized the Serbian authorities for a request. We wanted the Serbian
23 authorities, notably the Serbian tax authorities, to tell us what exactly
24 was your estate and your tax situation in Serbia. We wanted to have
25 information also on your wife's tax situation, and we wanted to know what
1 kind of marriage contract you had, whether there was a separation of
2 ownership or whether you had common ownership, and so forth and so on.
3 So we seized the Serbian authorities of such a request, and I signed a
4 letter sent to the minister of co-operation.
5 A few days ago, I got a letter from the minister of co-operation
6 saying that all requests made by the Trial Chamber had already been
7 answered earlier, but the answer was sent to the Registry, and the
8 minister told me that the Registrar had a great number of letters dealing
9 with this issue. So the Registry has, in its hands, all the elements
10 that it is asking you to provide to it. It's a bit strange. The
11 Trial Chamber is going to try to get to the bottom of this with the
12 Registry, but I want to tell you this because I want you to know that we
13 did our utmost to make sure what your situation -- to check your
14 situation, so to make sure that your assistants could eventually help
15 you, as Mr. Marcussen just said.
16 So, Mr. Seselj, what did you have in mind?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the status of this
18 document that the Prosecution is trying to tender belatedly, that is, the
19 Mladic diaries in their entirety, in the legal nature of things, must be
20 the same status as of evidence tendered under 65 ter. This is not just
21 any old document. It's a document being offered for admission into
22 evidence, and it has to be on paper. The only thing that doesn't have to
23 be on paper is a video-clip or an audio-recording, but even there
24 transcripts are compulsory, and we normally got them.
25 Now, the Prosecution says they will decide next week on the
1 electronic version and disclose them to me, and I'm telling them they
2 will not give me anything in electronic version. Now, who do you
3 believe, me or the Prosecution? I guarantee you with my life that they
4 will not hand me anything in electronic form, and he says the opposite.
5 And who's telling the truth now? As usual, only I am telling the truth
6 between the two of us. When I get 3.500 pages transcribed and on paper,
7 I will read them through in a very few days. I will work through
8 Saturday and Sunday without any rest, although my doctors advise me to
9 rest, but I'll forego all rest. Let's see them. I just fighting for the
10 protection of my rights; nothing else.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 We will wait for the Prosecution to disclose all this to you.
13 And as you said, very justly, of course, if some of these documents or
14 all documents are admitted, they will be admitted in hard copy, paper
15 copy, of course.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And you should know this as well:
17 I never signed for any password, and my advisers will not do this work
18 because they're not paid for it. I am in contact with them every day.
19 They do a job of work here and there, but they cannot do work of this
20 sort. They have not been paid in seven and a half years. They have to
21 be paid for all they've done so far. You can't possibly think that one
22 day in the future I will accept that their payment runs from some day in
23 the middle of the case.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 Mr. Seselj, as far as the Trial Chamber is concerned, I think
1 that we've been through all pending issues. I'm not going to go into
2 details, but there's still a few motions that we must rule on. Some of
3 these motions are quite old, a few months old, actually, and we're doing
4 our utmost to work as quickly as possible. And thanks to our
5 Legal Officer, we will soon be able to rule on all these pending motions.
6 These are technical motions, mainly, and they shouldn't create any
8 Mr. Seselj, are there any other issues you would like to raise?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do. I do have 12 issues to
10 raise. I'll try to be very concise. However, it's a long time since we
11 last met, and they've accumulated. On top of it, all these issues were
12 actually initiated by the Registry or the Prosecution or the
13 Trial Chamber, itself. I hope you will be patient, and I have never
14 abused your patience before.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have something I would like to
25 add, Mr. Seselj.
1 You are here to conduct your defence. You are not here to
2 demonstrate that you are an enemy of NATO, of the United States, and we
3 are not here to listen to your speeches along these lines. We are here
4 to listen to your defence. I therefore advise you of the fact that when
5 you take the floor from now on, I shall control this, and I shall check
6 whether you are presenting your Defence case or whether you are
7 discussing things which are not at all relevant in this case.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I fully agree with what my
9 colleague has just said, because when you make such statements, if you
10 think of the public, if you think of the people in Serbia, you want to
11 give the impression that this Tribunal is illegal. It's not the first
12 time that you've said this, but the Judges sitting before you, that they
13 have to take part in all of this, you know this more than anyone, since
14 you see us very regularly, you know that the Bench is there to render
15 justice. We do not depend on NATO, we do not depend on the
16 United States, on Italy, France, or Germany. We are Judges who do our
17 job, and you are presumed innocent.
18 You put us in the same bag as those people you call your enemies.
19 I would like to state that the Judges sitting before you are not your
20 enemies. We are impartial, independent, and we do our job as best we
21 can. We take your interests into account, we take the interests of
22 international justice into account. We are not biased in any way against
23 you. We make sure that you are wary of the consequences which might
24 arise out of your behaviour. You are the only person concerned about
25 this. And my colleagues have expressed their views on the matter, and I
1 fully agree with what they have both said.
2 You give the feeling that you are not interested in your trial,
3 and what you would like to do with this trial is denounce what NATO may
4 have done, but this is not of interest to us. What we are interested in
5 is to know whether there are, in the Prosecutor's documents, anything
6 that could be incriminating for you. If there isn't, then you will be
7 acquitted, and if there is, then we will explain why that is the case.
8 But we need to go beyond the 98 bis proceedings in order to do this.
9 You have 10 or 11 subjects left. You have the floor.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Please replace
11 "Denmark" instead of "Germany."
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, if you were objective
13 and impartial, you would never have agreed to be Judges in this illegal
14 court. But since you did agree, you agreed to carry out your tasks. You
15 all come from NATO member countries, who bombed Serbia bestially. You
16 killed Serbian children for three months, and you are convincing --
17 trying to convince me that you are objective. You have been holding me
18 here illegally for seven and a half years. According to the Rome Statute
19 of the ICC, a trial chamber is obliged every six months, ex officio, to
20 review the decision on detention. You never made a decision on
21 detention. You just issued an arrest warrant, and nothing more. You
22 have been keeping me here for seven and a half years and going through
23 all these machinations by the Prosecution and listening to false
24 witnesses. How many times have you postponed proceedings, and you're
25 postponing them again. The longer you postpone them, the longer you are
1 receiving these lovely Judges' salaries at this Tribunal.
2 I don't care how you will sentence me. I don't expect anything
3 good from you. You're my enemies because you come from NATO member
4 countries who are hostile towards my fatherland of Serbia, and you cannot
5 be anything else to me other than enemies. I have been very civil
6 towards you, but the fact that I have been civil does not mean that I
7 have to like you. I don't like you. I'm treating you as my enemies, and
8 you have seen that every day of this trial. Every day, you could have
9 seen that, from Day 1. Yes, you are my enemies, and you have been given
10 the assignment of taking my head off. Well, go ahead and do it once and
11 for all, instead of waiting for every new evidence. There won't be any
12 new evidence.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this could go on
14 for a long time, but I must tell you that I have never been asked to chop
15 your head off, nor to sentence you. Nobody would dare say that or tell
16 me that.
17 Second point. You may think that we are your enemies, but you
18 must know that you are not the enemy of the Tribunal and not of the
19 Judges of this Bench. You are a person who is presumed innocent and who
20 has rights, and I'm making sure that these rights are being abided by.
21 You are saying that we support the Prosecutor to delay the trial.
22 I was not the person who found Mladic's note-books at his wife's home.
23 This was part of the investigation process in the case against Mladic,
24 and the Prosecutor is seizing us of this matter. What do you want us to
25 do about it? Do you want us to say this is of no interest whatsoever?
1 In that case, the Prosecutor would be the first to say that it was or is
2 prevented from presenting its evidence.
3 Is there anything else you would like to address?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are we going to take a break now
5 and then continue after that or should I continue right away?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It might be necessary to. We
7 started at 3.00. We have been sitting for an hour and a half. Let's
8 have a 20-minute break now.
9 --- Recess taken at 4.31 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 4.55 p.m.
19 Let's move into open session, since this has to do with protected witnesses.
20 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no doubt -- there is no
9 need to explain that I have nothing nice to say about Aleksandar Vucic,
10 nothing nice, but I am not the kind of person who would plant something
11 that then he would be held responsible for, in turn. I published a book
12 that, in its title, contains his name, but I would be the one who could
13 be held responsible for the contents of the book. I am responsible for
14 the contents of the book. That needs to be quite clear. He is not to be
15 held responsible for anything in this case. I was just so malicious to
16 put his name in the book for political reasons. What is in the book is
17 exclusively my responsibility. And since you have again initiated that
18 question, I have already informed you that the entire circulation of the
19 book has been issued to the population of Bor as part of the election
20 campaign of the Serbian Radical Party. Perhaps you -- these are the last
21 editions, copies of the book. You will not be able to get your hands on
22 any other copies of the book unless you go and get them from the citizens
23 of Bor. You can get them now, because I'm not going to give them to you
24 later. And I hope you will not take them from me by force. But, in any
25 event, I have no means of defending myself from NATO forces, so I suggest
1 that you ask the usher to take these books from me right away and hand
2 them over to Mr. Marcussen.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will not
4 accept them.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 If Mr. Marcussen wants the books, he can take them right now,
7 because I am not going to give them to him after the session unless he
8 wants to get into a fight with me. But I am not a proponent of fighting,
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, do you wish to
11 have the books?
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: We always receive what the accused give us, so we
13 would also take this.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Mr. Marcussen would
15 like to have the books.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here they are. Mr. Marcussen can
17 personally come and receive the copies of the books from my hands. I
18 don't understand why everybody's afraid of me. I could have signed the
19 books for him, too.
20 Anyway, let us move to more serious things, if you permit me,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have 11 questions but I'm going
24 to try to be very brief.
7 I shall, therefore, ask the Registrar to prepare an order to
8 redact this part.
9 Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, then I will not speak
11 anymore, since you have declared this as confidential. You are
12 preventing me from submitting my closing arguments. How can I refer to
13 this case in my closing arguments; only in the way that I referred to it
14 earlier? Does that mean that my closing arguments will be redacted, that
15 they will be confidential?
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you can challenge
17 the decisions handed down by the Chamber, as you can concerning
18 confidential documents. So the documents remain confidential, and if
19 they remain confidential, the Trial Chamber, if it does not overturn its
20 decision, cannot do anything else about it. It can, therefore, only
21 redact this part.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't disclose the document.
23 I'm talking about the occurrence generally. I didn't refer to the name
24 of the witness. We don't know which document is being discussed. I'm
25 just talking about the general occurrence, that a witness stages being in
1 danger and then that is something that is ascribed to me. Then it turns
2 out that I would be someone who would be endangering the safety of the
3 witness. This is what it would seem like. And in the beginning, right
4 away you believe this story. Now that the truth has been uncovered, it's
5 necessary to redact the transcript. It's like strangling me in the dark,
6 and if you're doing that to me, there's nothing I can do. You can just
7 continue strangling me in the dark.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, three things.
9 First of all, nobody wishes to strangle you, and I must say I do
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We seem to be talking at
3 cross-purposes. We belong to different civilisations, and we don't only
4 speak different languages, our brains are set up differently. I claim to
5 you that I did not disclose confidential documents. I'm talking about a
6 phenomenon that could happen in relation to any of your witnesses or any
7 of your documents. I have not given the number of a document or the name
8 of a witness. I'm just pointing out to you a phenomenon that is
9 occurring, and I want you to respond. Maybe my brain is in need of
10 examination, but in any case I forbid a post-mortem on my body after my
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please address your next topic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Third point.
14 I received the motion of the Prosecution for judicial notice to
15 be taken of adjudicated facts in the Krajisnik case. I strenuously
16 oppose this motion, because Momcilo Krajisnik did not have an adequate
17 defence. During his trial, he came into a conflict with his counsel. He
18 was unable to eliminate that counsel because the Trial Chamber was
19 against him. In appeals proceedings, he had to represent himself, so
20 that this is absolutely untenable and inadmissible in this case. Not a
21 single adjudicated fact from the Krajisnik case could be taken judicial
22 notice of, because Krajisnik did not have a fair trial. He had a trial
23 without proper Defence.
24 Number 4. I received a second motion of the Prosecution for
25 non-disclosure of names and identifying information about witnesses. The
1 date is 29 April, and I received it seven days ago, 8 June. That's six
2 days ago. The Prosecution wants redactions to be made in the witness
3 statements of various witnesses who mention my name and whose statements
4 have been used in other cases. They invoke that shameless decision of
5 the Trial Chamber in that case, and the interpreter made a mistake,
6 saying that I was sentenced to 15 minutes of imprisonment. It was 15
7 years -- sorry, 15 months, and this is the greatest disqualification of
8 the validity of these proceedings. The proceedings are underway still,
9 but they are about to convict me.
10 This argument of the Prosecution does not hold water. I want all
11 these unredacted statements of all these witnesses.
12 Number 5. On a number of occasions, I demanded --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm sorry, but I
14 find it difficult to follow you. You have just talked about a case which
15 led to you being sentenced to 15 years [as interpreted] imprisonment.
16 You have asked for the witness statements to be disclosed to you. Now,
17 as part of the appeals proceedings, you need to turn to the
18 Appeals Chamber for this. I'm not competent in this matter. I can't
19 interfere in any way in the appeals proceedings.
20 What is it, exactly, that you're asking for?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm only stating a fact when I say
22 that you have horribly bad interpreters.
23 The Prosecution is asking, with relation to statements that he
24 should disclose to me, statements of witnesses from other cases that
25 mentioned my name and did not appear in this case, that these statements
1 be redacted before being disclosed to me, and their main argument in
2 support of this motion is this judgement of the Trial Chamber convicting
3 me to 15 months of imprisonment as having -- as if I had disclosed names
4 of protected witnesses, and I did not disclose those names.
5 I hope you had a better interpretation now.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Granting to redact the
7 statement of witnesses in other trials, where names were mentioned, and
8 you were against this?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You have understood now.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On a number of occasions, among
12 other things, I asked the Prosecution, under the Rule 68(1), hand over to
13 me all the documents relating to Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, and the
14 so-called Serbian Volunteer Guard. The Prosecution has sent to me a
15 number of irrelevant documents and mainly shirked from complying with
16 this obligation.
17 Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, he's named by full name as one of the
18 people who are included in the joint illegal enterprise in my indictment.
19 I recently got documents relating to the negotiations between Arkan and
20 this Tribunal in 1999, focusing on the possibility of his giving evidence
21 in exchange for cessation of legal pursuit of him. Now I got hold of one
22 of the Prosecution documents that the Prosecution had given to some
23 Defence teams in other cases, not to me. It's not a confidential
24 document. It's a document from the State Security Service of Serbia,
25 dated 7 January 1991. The numbers given by the Prosecution to these
1 documents run from 0632-0999 to 0632-1010. We see from this
2 document that the State Security Service of Serbia has at its disposal
3 information that Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, had been mobilised in 1989 --
4 sorry, recruited in 1989 by the State Security Service of Montenegro, led
5 by Kekovic, and the leaderships of Bosnia, Croatia, and perhaps even the
6 Vojvodina were behind it. His men were supposed to chart slogans and
7 carrying billboards to disrupt the elections at protest rallies. That's
8 how he started protest rallies. He joined the masses, trying to be the
9 first ranks and to shout slogans that would attract the media reporting.
10 Some of these rallies are listed, and on page 2 it says that he also
11 appeared at one rally in Belgrade in February 1989, carrying a large
12 picture of Slobodan Milosevic and wearing worker's clothing, and he tried
13 to mount the horse on the square of the republic. It's a monument there.
14 This is proof that from 1991, the State Security Service has
15 Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, on their payroll as an agent against other
16 enemy services, such as Croatia, Slovenia, later Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
17 so on. According to the information of the State Security Service, Arkan
18 worked as an agent provocateur against other state security services
19 Yugoslavia. This document gives me reason to believe that all the crimes
20 that were committed by Arkan had been committed on the orders of his
21 bosses, so that the blame goes to the Serbian people, the Serbian police,
22 and the Serbian Army.
23 This is a document that the Prosecution never gave me into my
24 hands. I gave you the number of this document. You can check for
25 yourselves. This is proof that the Prosecution did not act diligently
1 under Rule 68(1). Is this an exculpatory document? Of course it is.
2 Somebody who is ascribed to me as a collaborator in a joint criminal
3 enterprise is doing the dirty work against Croats, Slovenes, and others.
4 I hope the Prosecution will be the subject of a decision by the
5 Trial Chamber appropriately.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, Mr. Seselj made
7 this request of you some time ago. Mr. Arkan, in the indictment, is a
8 member of the JCE with Mr. Seselj. Therefore, everything that has to do
9 with Arkan must be of interest to Mr. Seselj. And a few months ago, he
10 had asked the Prosecution to disclose all interviews it may have had with
11 Arkan, and then after that he discovers, through other accused,
12 obviously, because as you know, they meet in the UNDU, they discuss, they
13 exchange information, and, okay, by talking to other accused he finds out
14 that there is a document which establishes that Arkan had been recruited
15 by the state security services to do some propaganda work and so forth.
16 Now, Mr. Seselj's thesis, and he told us about this very long
17 ago, is that people committed the crimes, these crimes were committed by
18 other people than himself, and he wants you to disclose all documents
19 that have to do with the connection between Arkan and the OTP. He needs
20 these documents under Rule 68(i).
21 What do you have to say to this?
22 MR. MARCUSSEN: The first thing I have to say is that, at least
23 on my understanding from the way the accused explained the contents of
24 this document, it seems to be incriminating rather than exculpatory. It
25 confirms that Arkan was part of the JCE. He co-operated with the organs
1 that are involved in the execution of the JCE. So it's actually an
2 incriminating document.
3 We will look into this particular document. We have been trying
4 to have measures in place to ensure that various documents are being
5 disclosed on a rolling basis. Whether this is document -- this
6 particular document has fallen through the cracks, we will look into.
7 Obviously, the accused had received the document. It's a State Security
8 document. I believe he has told us that he has published all these
9 documents in Volume 4 of the very big publication that he spoke about
10 last time, so fortunately there would be no prejudice with this
11 particular document, but we'll look into it.
12 As to the issue of the agreement with OTP, I believe, that is an
13 issue that has come up repeatedly in this process, and it's an allegation
14 that the accused keeps making. We have responded that we are not aware
15 of any such negotiations, and I simply can't assist the Court any more on
16 this. So that's where matters stand.
17 I might actually --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the Croatian authorities have
19 information that you did that, and Mr. Marcussen doesn't have these
21 Now, this document is being badly interpreted by Mr. Marcussen.
22 It says that Arkan was an instrument of the leaderships of Croatia and
23 Slovenia and the then leadership of Montenegro and the then leadership of
24 Vojvodina who were opposed to the leadership of Serbia and Milosevic's
25 regime, that he was their instrument, and that he was sent deliberately
1 to go to Milosevic's rallies, to shout slogans that were considered
2 hostile, or reactionary, or what have you not, to disqualify Milosevic
4 It's not my job to defend Milosevic posthumously, but I do want
5 to show you what kind of man Arkan was and primarily to show to you that
6 the Prosecution is keeping these documents from me, to show to you what
7 kind of means and ways their using. That's a key issue for me.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Number 6.
10 I got from the Prosecution, and the date is 14 May, delivered to
11 me on the 25th of May, disclosure of the Prosecution regarding
12 Witness WS-1093 [as interpreted] and that they will not rely on the
13 evidence of this witness. It is explained inside the document that the
14 witness, who had been proofed to testify in another case, had admitted to
15 lying about certain things in his statement. I hope you received this,
16 too, Judges.
17 Now, the witness confessed that he lied consciously, and the
18 Prosecution is informing me they will not rely on his evidence in this
19 case. This witness has already appeared. We heard him. He has gone
20 through examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Perhaps you can
21 still remember all his lies and how he fared in cross-examination. But
22 now the Prosecution say they will not rely on his evidence.
23 Now, the Prosecution is telling us that a witness in this case
24 had testified falsely, and let's see what you are going to do now,
25 Judges. If this document hasn't reached you yet, I'm giving you the
1 information now.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, out of memory,
3 for two witnesses you told us that -- you told the Trial Chamber that you
4 would not use the testimony of these two witnesses. But out of memory, I
5 don't think that you said in your filings that these were false
6 witnesses. This is the way I understood. But Mr. Seselj says that you
7 confessed that these were false witnesses. I don't remember this at all.
8 I remember that you told us that for various reasons you had decided not
9 to use the testimony of these witnesses. Is that it?
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think the accused has correctly stated what is
11 in the filing. We have provided the Trial Chamber with the information
12 that we have obtained, so, yeah, I mean, we have provided various things
13 concerning the one witness, who is VS [indiscernible], and the other
14 witness, VS-1093, we included with our filing information that we had
15 obtained from this witness about this particular issue. So we have
16 provided the information that we have obtained.
17 Now, there might be issues that arise from that. We have not
18 said anything about whether or not the witnesses state so consciously or
19 things like that, but we thought that the Chamber should have this
20 information and that the accused should have the information at his
21 disposal. What we have decided is that we will not rely on the evidence
22 of these two witnesses for the purpose of the Prosecution's case.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 Mr. Seselj.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've received from the
1 Prosecution - the date is 14 May, and I received it on the 26th May, and
2 the title is "Disclosure of the Prosecution related to Witness WS-008
3 [as interpreted]." The Prosecution will not rely on his evidence. Let
4 me remind you, he testified wholly in the closed session, but until the
5 last moment he kept bargaining with the Prosecution whether he will be my
6 witness or their witness. He wanted an apartment and a job for his wife
7 and residency in a new country, and if they gave him that, he would
8 testify as a Prosecution witness. I gave you evidence that he was a
9 false witness, you acquired additional documentation yourselves, and now
10 the Prosecution notes that this was a false witness. They don't call him
11 a false witness in so many words, but they say they will not rely on his
13 Is this now enough for contempt of court proceedings to be
14 started against them or are these proceedings only started against me,
15 never against them, for leading false witnesses?
16 I am not afraid of proceedings for contempt of court. I am
17 telling the public that not a single witness was held accountable for
18 false testimony in this Tribunal, and false witnesses appeared here from
19 the very beginning, from the Tadic case. One of the false witnesses even
20 went public himself about it. And what happened? Nothing. There were
21 many, many since the Tadic case.
22 Now, let's go on. Issue number 8.
23 One witness who had the pseudonym WS-037 [as interpreted]
24 testified here. He gave several statements to the Prosecution, and in
25 none of them did he mention my name. However, when the Prosecution were
1 proofing him to testify in this case, then they prepared a statement for
2 him ahead of his appearing in court, where they put my name in brackets
3 in a completely artificial way. His testimony was actually very valuable
4 to me, because he confirmed that the Crisis Staff in Zvornik paid Arkan
5 to come and participate in the fighting, that Arkan came in a police car
6 from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, with the license plates of the
7 Federal Ministry of the Interior, and with the blue rotation light on top
8 on. Nobody from the Federal Ministry of the Interior is with me in the
9 joint criminal enterprise. And when this witness finished his evidence,
10 he was in the hallway here. How come he was in the hallway together with
11 Mr. Marcussen? I don't understand. Perhaps the hallways are narrow.
12 Anyway, this witness apparently told Mr. Marcussen that he had to testify
13 falsely or sign a statement or something, and now Mr. Marcussen is
14 sending The Hague investigators to Serbia on the 30th of January to talk
15 to that witness. And here they have provided me with a partial
16 transcript of that conversation where very often there is an indication
17 "unclear" whenever the witness speaks, "unclear," "unclear," "unclear.
18 For some reason, they did not wish to give me those parts. Can
19 Mr. Marcussen conduct himself in this way after the testimony? I
20 understand that he was dissatisfied with the testimony of the witness in
21 the courtroom, but what does this additional harassment of the witness
22 mean? And if something false was said, where was that; in other cases
23 when he testified, or in this case, or in a number of previous
25 Gentlemen, I don't know whether you received this, but I received
1 it on the 2nd of June, receipt number 648. It's a Prosecution document.
2 Probably it wasn't sent to you at all. 648 is the receipt number signed
3 by Mr. Marcussen personally. I can read his handwriting. Mladic's I
4 cannot, but Mr. Marcussen's I can.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I request that page 50, line 11,
7 through page 51, line 17, be redacted. This particular issue is subject
8 to a confidential decision by the Trial Chamber. The accused is
9 referring to material that we have disclosed to him, which is
10 confidential disclosure material. It is not for public use. It is for
11 his use in trial. And it should not be referred to in open session. So
12 I'd like to request redaction of these particular parts on this basis.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, very well.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In you redact this now and it
15 doesn't say anywhere on the document that it's confidential, the witness
16 is being referred to with a number and it says that this document is
17 being furnished to me under Rule 68(1), and now if you redact the
18 transcript, then the words that I addressed earlier would be too mild in
19 any case, and I would have -- and even if I do have something more sharp
20 to say, I'm going to refrain myself from doing that. It doesn't say
21 anywhere on the document that it's confidential, so there's no reason to
22 redact the transcript.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult with my fellow
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber decides to
2 leave the transcript as it is, public.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank God for a decision in my
4 favour for once.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Let me just -- it may seem unnecessary, but
6 obviously the Prosecution did not harass the witness. The Prosecution
7 has received certain information. It has provided that under Rule 68, as
8 it is obliged to do, and that's the end of the matter. These repeated
9 allegations and conspiracy theories by the accused are utterly
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 Mr. Seselj, move on, please.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm being too soft to the
14 Prosecution. I'm not attacking; I'm just saying that there is material
15 that is not being given to me by the Prosecution. What am I doing here?
16 I'm doing everything mostly by myself on the basis of what I'm given by
17 the Prosecution. And if I -- I don't need to read the documents that are
18 given to me, it will make my job much easier.
19 This is another document now that is not confidential, and I
20 would just like to say that the entire statement by
21 Interpreter (redacted) needs to be disclosed regarding the
22 conversation with Zoran Rankic, and this was a request for that. The
23 response by Mr. Marcussen is that the Prosecution does not have that
24 statement and that the information that was disclosed to me comes from an
25 electronic version which (redacted) most probably sent to the office
1 manager in Belgrade, and there is a complaint about her way of evaluating
2 the work of the employees. And the report contains four sections that
3 refer to the conversation with Zoran Rankic.
4 What is new here? We didn't know, when Mr. Rankic testified here
5 in the courtroom, that (redacted) reacted to the manner in which
6 Mr. Rankic was being questioned, and she did that as early as 2004 or
7 early 2005, when she was trying to protect some of her employee rights,
8 communicating with the Tribunal offices in Belgrade. This was in 2005.
9 Well, according to 68(1), I should have received that in 2005, and not
10 only a few days before Mr. Rankic actually appeared in the courtroom. I
11 should have been informed about this earlier so that I could do some of
12 my own investigations and find out more about this matter. Who knows
13 what I would have dug up. The Prosecutor is five years late in the
14 disclosure of that important element that concerns the testimony of
15 Zoran Rankic.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I will give you
17 the floor. I worked on this this morning, and let me tell you about the
18 personal conclusions I have drawn on this.
19 I read the entire testimony of Mr. Rankic. It was a testimony
20 that lasted two days, and many questions were put to him on the
21 translations and the role played by the interpreter. My fellow Judge,
22 Judge Lattanzi, also put questions to him, and that's on the transcript.
23 I also put questions to him. Everybody put questions to Mr. Rankic. And
24 then later I found out that for years now, the OTP had known that there
25 was a problem with this very special interpreter, and we were never told
1 anything about it. But now we know, but it would have been better to
2 know this earlier. So I know that the OTP is a big office, there are
3 many departments, and maybe they only learned about this very recently,
4 but that is the situation as it is. We have this interpreter who
5 obviously said a number of things. The Trial Chamber will look into this
6 later on.
7 Mr. Marcussen, what do you have to say?
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, it's true that the document appears
9 to be from January 2004. The Prosecution became aware of this document
10 in the autumn, and we then took steps to verify, with the person in
11 question, whether or not there would be any concerns about disclosure of
12 the document to the accused. As soon as we had a response to that, we
13 disclosed the document that we had. The document was disclosed,
14 actually, to the accused on the 23rd of December, so way in advance of
15 the witness appearing to testify. So he could have followed up. The
16 document was also included in, I think, the witness notification that was
17 given to the Trial Chamber before the witness testified. And when I'm
18 talking about the document, I'm talking about the 23rd December letter
19 that we sent to the accused. The Chamber also got that. So the
20 information was also provided to the Chamber in advance of the testimony
21 of the witness.
22 For reasons -- because of the nature of the document, we chose to
23 extract the relevant portions from the document, but merely that pattern
24 repeated the relevant parts in the letter that were given to the accused
25 and later were given to the Chamber as well. So everything that is said
1 about the interview of Rankic has been repeated in the disclosure, and
2 what we have left out are also other issues, but it's our submission that
3 all the relevant information was given in a timely manner to the accused.
4 And as I said, it is true that the letter is dated from 2004, but
5 the Prosecution only became aware of it years later. And as soon as we
6 did become aware of it, we took steps to ensure that the relevant
7 information was disclosed to the accused.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should I move to my next question,
10 number 10? It's about a confidential document.
11 I am going to carefully say only what can publicly be said about
12 a confidential document. It's the 5th of May, 2010. I was handed the
13 document on the 9th of June, 2010. The Prosecution is seeking that
14 certain intercepts be admitted.
15 We listened to different intercepts here for several days
16 publicly; only the witness that commented on them commented with
17 protective measures, if you recall. All the intercepts we listened to in
18 open session, and they were admitted. Now the Prosecution is seeking to
19 admit, without public hearing in the courtroom, intercepts that were
20 admitted in the case file of some other cases. I think that that is
21 absolutely unacceptable, because everything that the Prosecutor
22 considered relevant from that vast number of intercepts was presented
23 here in the courtroom in public session. None of those intercepts were
24 marked confidential. I don't know why this document is marked
25 confidential. Perhaps because of the cases that are being mentioned from
1 where the intercepts should be taken. But I don't think that you are
2 acting in a way that can be acceptable on legal grounds. We can admit
3 intercepts that were heard here in the courtroom, and later you can
4 consider my objections and remarks regarding their authenticity. But as
5 for this particular request by the Prosecutor, this is simply something
6 that cannot be done.
7 I have spoken about a confidential document publicly in a way
8 that did not reveal anything, and so you don't need to respond to a
9 possible request by the Prosecutor to redact the transcript.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This motion is currently being
11 examined by the Judges. We will rule on the merits of the motion. You
12 have clearly indicated what your position is orally. It is on the record
14 Do you have anything else you'd like to address?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two more items. There is a
16 letter of yours here marked "Confidential." I would like to interpret
17 this letter without violating the confidentiality either of the document
18 or of the contents, just to indicate the problem.
19 Here, you're asking the Serbian authorities to take steps to
20 provide for the security of a certain witness who was (redacted)
21 (redacted). You're expressing your concern for his safety. That
22 witness was never in any danger in any way whatsoever. The problem lies
23 with the Prosecution. When they accepted him as a witness, they promised
24 him a job and an apartment in a foreign country, and they did not fulfill
25 that promise. And the witness first agreed to testify falsely in order
1 to receive these benefits, and then when that fell through, he did not
2 wish to testify falsely anymore. (redacted)
5 Again, I spoke about a confidential document without violating
6 the confidentiality of the document or revealing the identity of the
7 witness, so I think that there is no reason for this to be redacted from
8 the transcript either. In a way, this is a kind of protest of mine
9 because of the actions by the Trial Chamber. You had no evidence that
10 the witness was really in danger. None of the witnesses that appeared in
11 this courtroom or that the Prosecutor placed on its list of witnesses
12 against me were never exposed to any kind of danger anywhere; not just in
13 my case, but in any case where a Serb was accused.
14 I have one more matter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall respond to what you
16 have just said on a personal note. If my colleagues disagree with me,
17 they will take the floor.
18 Now, it's a question of substance, why at some point for an
19 ex-witness, who is a protected witness, draw the attention of the Serbian
20 authorities to the protection of this witness if necessary, and the fact
21 that this witness must be protected. We don't have much information. We
22 have information which is piecemeal and we might be wrong, but in this
23 case it's better to do more than not do enough, and we are asking the
24 Serbian authorities to assist us. The Serbian authorities have great
25 resources and are able to provide protection or they may feel that there
1 is no need to set up any protective measures.
2 In addition, when we suspect that pressure is being exerted or
3 that a given witness is being intimidated, we don't know where the
4 threats come from. The threats can be of a very different nature. The
5 threats may have no connection whatsoever with an accused. This is
6 something which we were faced with a moment ago. We are asking the
7 Serbian authorities to act promptly, and then we shall do what is
8 necessary. And for the moment, we have nothing.
9 In this kind of situation, Mr. Seselj, what is important is to
10 protect the witnesses, whoever they may be. It is better to do more than
11 to not do enough.
12 On a personal note, I sometimes, contrary to the position adapted
13 by my colleagues, have turned to the Serbian authorities, and I have
14 said, This is what I say about it. And the Serbian authorities, who are
15 extremely competent, do their job, and I have great faith in them.
16 Contrary to what you have told us a moment ago, there is no cultural
17 divide and you operate exactly like I do. The Serbian police, the
18 investigating judges in Serbia, the Serbian authorities, are able to
19 conduct some very valuable work, and I have no reservations as far as
20 they are concerned. Every time we have asked them for something, I have
21 always been provided with an answer, whatever the authorities may be.
22 And I can also tell you, Mr. Seselj - this is something you don't
23 know - but in another case, in the Zupljanin case, when I wanted to know
24 why Mr. Zupljanin had not been arrested, I examined -- or referred to the
25 Republika Srpska, and they responded. At the time, depending on the
1 answer I received, I concluded that Zupljanin was not in the
2 Republika Srpska, and in the end he was arrested elsewhere. So I have
3 great faith in the way in which the Serbian police operates, the Serbian
4 justice system, and the authorities. And when I suspect a given witness,
5 I believe the authorities in question will know who is behind this.
6 You said it yourself a while ago. Thanks to the work they have
7 done, we realised that a given witness had allegated [as interpreted]
8 that he had been threatened, and this was not true. In this kind of
9 situation, it is better to do more than to do not enough for the truth to
10 be established.
11 So much for this penultimate question you wished to address. I
12 believe you have got another question.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more. This is a
14 confidential document again, but everything that I have to say about the
15 document I will say in such a way so as not to violate its
17 You'll recall, Your Honours, that we had a witness here a few
18 months ago who publicly testified in many other cases, and he was
19 announced as a witness -- public witness in my case. So we spoke his
20 name publicly for a while, but when he appeared, he practically asked for
21 protective measures outside of the door of the courtroom, and that was
22 rejected, which means that that witness was most probably aware that he
23 would lie here the most. He had appeared in other trials without any
24 protection measures. Only in my trial did he ask for protective
25 measures. And then he said that I, through a friend of his, exerted
1 pressure on him not to testify. I addressed that person through my
2 associates. He gave me a statement, which was certified in court,
3 negating all of that. This is a person that I knew. We were on good
4 terms, but we were not particularly friendly or socialised. We knew each
5 other. We would say, Hello, when we saw each other. And then I
6 submitted this statement to you for your information, and the
7 Prosecution, dissatisfied with the testimony of that witness, asked for
8 him to be heard again or to provide you with a new statement of his after
9 his testimony. And it's like retaking the exam for the Prosecution that
10 they failed first, and this is something that cannot be done like that.
11 And I did not ask for my submission to be admitted. I submitted it only
12 as information for you to see that things like that occur. I have no
13 reason -- since I blasted the false testimony of that witness in my
14 cross-examination, I have no reason to deal with the matter anymore, and
15 that is why I oppose the idea that the Trial Chamber should deal with
16 this witness in the future.
17 Anyway, these are all the matters that I had to bring up for
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as this motion is
20 concerned, it is still pending before the Trial Chamber. We shall hand
21 out our decision, and your position is on the record, Mr. Seselj. You
22 have no more issues you wish to address.
23 Mr. Marcussen, on behalf of the Prosecution, are there any issues
24 you would like to address?
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Just very briefly one issue.
1 The accused indicated today, at page 16, line 13:
2 "I have already decided not to file the 98 bis submission."
3 That seems to be a change from what the accused had indicated
4 before, so maybe it's worth clarifying with the accused whether or not
5 he's not requesting a 98 bis hearing, and, if so, whether we are
6 continuing straight to the Defence case.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen and Mr. Seselj,
8 we'll respond.
9 I understood Mr. Seselj to say that he was thinking about it. He
10 didn't say he wouldn't say -- and he didn't say he wouldn't do anything,
11 but I'm sure he will clarify this for us.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, Judges, I would suggest
13 to you to fire all interpreters and hire new ones. First of all, not a
14 single submission is filed under 98 bis. There's no such submission.
15 There used to be a submission at some point. The Rules have been changed
16 and now there is no more submission. The submission is made orally under
17 the Rules. So there is no submission. Mr. Marcussen still doesn't know
18 it. I could give him a few lessons, if he likes, about the contents of
19 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
20 Second, I said I was thinking about whether I'm going to exercise
21 that right or not. Now, in this changed situation, when I'm deeply
22 dissatisfied about the procrastination in these proceedings without any
23 reason, I'll tell you in September. Until September, you won't know
24 whether I will or I won't. When you say, We are scheduling this for such
25 and such a day, then I will tell you whether I am going to or not, and
1 these three months I'm going to spend guessing what you would prefer,
2 whether that I do it or not. That's what I said. If that was
3 misinterpreted, fire the interpreters, change the interpreters, or change
4 the accused. Maybe I am the greatest bother here for you.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall finish now.
6 Since we are about to finish, first of all, we'll let Mr. Seselj
7 and Mr. Marcussen know and we will tell them whether these two witnesses
8 will come to testify, as planned, at the beginning of July. We don't
9 know. For the moment, there are two possible scenarios. Either the one
10 comes and the other will be heard via a video conference or neither can
12 Second point. Of course, we will wait for the submissions of the
13 Prosecution on the 16th of July. Mr. Seselj may wish to respond to these
14 submissions. A scheduling order will then be issued. If we feel we can
15 move on to the 98 bis proceedings, we will then let the Prosecution and
16 Mr. Seselj know about this and give them the date of the 98 bis
17 proceedings. In that case, during that hearing Mr. Seselj will have the
18 floor, since he will be the first to take the floor, and he will explain
19 why the Prosecution has not proved the counts in the indictment, and
20 Mr. Marcussen will respond. Mr. Seselj may also say, I have nothing to
21 say. I can't anticipate this. Whatever the case may be, we will not be
22 able to have a hearing before the beginning of September, even if we are
23 cutting it fine.
24 Mr. Marcussen, do you have anything else to add?
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, Your Honours, except maybe that it would
1 assist the Prosecution and the accused in preparing for the witnesses if
2 it's possible to indicate which of the witnesses will come first, if the
3 witnesses come, between 26 or 32, and in what order they might be coming.
4 You indicated two dates, and I just wonder whether you have an order in
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, as far as the order is
7 concerned, this has got nothing to do with us. One of the witnesses said
8 that he is undergoing medical treatment, and he has suggested a date.
9 After that, he has indicated that he will not be available because he
10 will be away on holiday or whatever. So that is the case for this
11 witness. And as far as the other witness is concerned, we still don't
12 know what his medical condition is. This is why we have asked the
13 Registry to set the dates, but we actually don't know. The expert might
14 say he can come and testify. This might be at the beginning of
15 September, but I honestly don't know. This will largely depend on the
16 person who will undergo surgery. I am not unravelling a secret. We are
17 asking the Witnesses Unit to speed things up; the sooner the better for
18 everyone concerned. Mr. Seselj is waiting for this. As he has told us,
19 the trial is dragging on. He believes that the Judges are contributing
20 to this, which is not true at all. Our only objective is to move on to
21 the 98 bis proceedings as quickly as possible.
22 That said, I would like to thank everyone, and I hope to see you
23 at the beginning of July. If that is not the case, it will be the
24 beginning of September. Thank you.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Fifteen months
1 imprisonment and not fifteen years.
2 --- Whereupon the Administrative Hearing adjourned
3 at 6.03 p.m.