1 Tuesday, 2 November 2010
2 [Administrative Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.04 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 Tuesday, and I welcome the representatives of the OTP,
13 Mr. Seselj, and everyone helping us.
14 I would first like to ask Mr. Seselj whether his health is
15 sufficiently good to follow this hearing.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 [French interpretation on English channel]
18 ... makes it possible for me to attend hearings. It has never
19 happened so far that hearings could not be held because of my health.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
21 Mr. Seselj.
22 Before giving you the floor and giving the floor to the
23 Prosecutor, who also needs about 20 minutes, I would like to say the
25 First, the Trial Chamber is now seized of a number of motions, of
1 pending motions. There are eight of them, and in the days to come, we
2 will very quickly rule on these.
3 For your information, let me remind you that the oldest motion
4 dates back to April 9, 2009
5 under Rule 92 quater, of a number of documents regarding Milan Babic, and
6 the Trial Chamber will soon rule on this because deliberations have
7 already occurred.
8 Secondly, another Prosecution motion on VS-010, VS-011, VS-017,
9 VS-026, and VS-032, and VS-034, and this pending motion will also be
10 ruled upon, since the deliberations have already been made.
11 Third motion, dated May 5th, 2010, it's a Prosecution motion for
12 the admission of 15 intercepts. The Trial Chamber has also deliberated
13 on this and will soon rule on this.
14 We also have two pending motions on the admission of a number of
15 documents, notably interviews or speeches made by the accused. This is
16 the -- it's a Bar Table motion. The Judges have also deliberated on
17 this, and a decision will be issued very soon.
18 Then a motion dated June 1st on the admission of 16 documents.
19 There, again, the Judges have deliberated, and a decision is pending.
20 Then another motion on the admission, under 92 ter, of two
21 statements made by the OTP, members of the OTP. Deliberations have also
22 been made on this matter, and a decision will soon be rendered.
23 Then another motion on documents concerning Witness VS-026. The
24 Trial Chamber will soon be able to issue its decision.
25 Furthermore, we also have one last OTP motion regarding a request
1 for disclosure of exchange of mail between myself and the President of
2 this Tribunal. The Trial Chamber has deliberated and has decided that
3 this is not relevant in our case, which is to try Mr. Seselj for facts
4 which occurred in the 1990s. We will soon render a decision on grounds
5 of lack of relevance, and it will be a written decision, of course,
6 with -- and the motivations will be given in this decision.
7 So this settles it for the pending motions.
8 Now, for Mr. Seselj's personal information regarding translation
9 time and so on, the trial -- I would like to say that today the
10 Trial Chamber has filed a redacted decision on the funding of
11 Mr. Seselj's defence. Let me just read the disposition, without going
12 into the grounds, because there is 27 paragraphs. This is what I say:
13 The Trial Chamber, in application of Rule 54 of the Rules and
14 Article 21(B) of the Statutes, orders, proprio motu, the Registrar, as of
15 today, as of November 2nd, and until the end of the trial, to fund
16 50 per cent, 5-0, 50 per cent of the funds allocated, in principle, to a
17 totally indigent accused, to the Defence team for the accused, consisting
18 of three privileged associates, a case manager and an investigator, based
19 on the scheme for persons assisting indigent self-represented accused and
20 on the basis of a determination of the complexity of this case at Level
21 3, unless other information is provided.
22 In this disposition, this is added: Judge Lattanzi attaches a
23 separate opinion to this decision. And this has to do with whether this
24 was proprio motu or not. So Judge Lattanzi will write her own decision,
25 her own submissions on this, which is, of course, marginal compared to
1 the essential element, which is that the Trial Chamber has decided that
2 50 per cent of Mr. Seselj's defence will be funded. The decision will
3 soon be translated, and you will be able to read it.
4 Furthermore, Mr. Seselj, lately I've been receiving personal
5 mail. I don't know why. Let me remind you that there are three Judges
6 on this Bench, so if I get mail, I would like my colleagues to be cc'd,
7 at least, on it or to also be recipients of this mail. But I received a
8 personal letter. Since this was a personal -- this was personal mail,
9 I can either talk about it or not.
10 I received a personal -- some personal mail from your associate,
11 Mr. Mirovic, Dejan Mirovic, sending me a document, which was translated,
12 which seems to be addressed to the UN Security Council, unless I'm wrong,
13 and your associate, in this 17-page letter, is mentioning all points that
14 have to do with your trial, the fact that your detention is arbitrary,
15 that your rights are infringed upon, that this is not a public trial. He
16 mentions also your hunger strike, the 15 months sentence you received for
17 contempt of court, et cetera, et cetera.
18 So this is my question, Mr. Seselj: I'd like to know whether you
19 were aware that this person, that this associate, has seized the Security
20 Council. I would like to know also whether it was the Security Council
21 that was seized. And I would like to know what I'm supposed to do with
22 this letter.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you expect me to respond to this
24 question straight away, I would like to say that I wanted to say
25 something about your decision about financing the Defence, because I
1 received that decision today, an hour before I left the prison. Or do
2 you want me to answer your question related to Dejan Mirovic's letter?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I would rather have you
4 answer first, and then we'll come back to the decision on funding.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Dejan Mirovic, my legal adviser,
6 indeed did send a letter to the Security Council, and he personally
7 delivered the text of that letter, translated into the English and
8 Russian languages, to the ambassadors of the permanent members of the
9 Security Council in Belgrade
10 directly to the Security Council.
11 The essence of this letter has to do with the abuse of law and
12 legal proceedings with regard to witness protection, and primarily
13 inventing a new crime, according to Rule 77; that is to say, disclosing
14 the identity of protected witnesses. That does not exist in any single
15 normal legal system anywhere in the world. It cannot be punishable by
16 seven years in prison. And a person who already stands accused of the
17 most serious war crimes cannot additionally be tried for having disclosed
18 to the public the names of protected witnesses.
19 Somebody has to control The Hague Tribunal institutionally as
20 well. Truth to tell, this kind of control or check has not been
21 envisaged by its own Rules of Procedure and Evidence, but no court can
22 function without this kind of control. As lawyers, if we try to look at
23 this, who it is that could exercise this kind of control over The Hague
24 Tribunal, there is a self-evident answer: It is only the Security
25 Council, which established it in the first place, to leave aside the fact
1 that there is no one to exercise any kind of control over the Security
2 Council and to stop it from establishing illegal courts. But this did
3 happen, the Security Council did establish an illegal court, and now we
4 have to see what should be done with this illegal court. They cannot,
5 though, invent new crimes.
6 The question of respect of law in court cannot be established as
7 an inherent right of a court. However, if the Statute of The Hague
8 Tribunal does not envisage how this is going to be resolved, there is an
9 international legal code. The highest code, the upper-most code that
10 exists in criminal law to date is the Statute of Rome and the Rules based
11 on that Statute, and also a separate legal document that describes
12 particular crimes.
13 The Rome
14 all that there is that kind of a violation or crime such as disclosing
15 the name of a protected witness or identity of a protected witness. A
16 witness has to testify in public, in court, under his or her full name
17 and surname, and then if the witness is in any kind of jeopardy after
18 having testified, then appropriate authorities should do their best to
19 protect that person, to relocate him, to find for him and his family a
20 new environment where they would live, and so on.
21 That is the essence of Dejan Mirovic's letter, and of course he
22 wrote that letter in agreement with myself. As a matter of fact, the
23 original idea was my own, and I stand by that letter.
24 Now, after the letter was sent to ambassadors and delivered in
25 person to some of them in Belgrade
1 President of The Hague Tribunal about this and the President of the
2 Trial Chamber involved in this case. It is a letter that is open to the
3 public. It is not marked as confidential in any way. So the letter was
4 sent to you, Mr. President, on the assumption that you would familiarise
5 your colleagues with the content of the letter. It is not a formal
6 filing by the Defence, because a formal filing by the Defence can only be
7 made by myself, personally. This letter is just a piece of information.
8 I think it's better for you to have been informed of the fact that we
9 sent this kind of letter to the Security Council rather than if we hadn't
10 done that. We expected to inform your colleagues about this, and we
11 expect the President of The Hague Tribunal to familiarise all the Judges
12 of The Hague Tribunal with this letter. Why not?
13 So this is a matter of principle. The letter only contains legal
14 argument, legal argument exclusively. It is -- it has been made public
15 in Serbia
16 that is to say, the paper "Velika Srbija," "Great Serbia." There is no
17 reason for you not to familiarise your colleagues with its content.
18 What is described there are just some of the things, imposing a
19 lawyer on the accused and many other things, and this is just an
20 introduction by way of an illustration. The letter focuses on the
21 invention of a specific crime by the Judges of this Tribunal, something
22 that they certainly had no right to do. And once the Statute of Rome was
23 passed as the top-ranking legal code, in international terms, to this
24 day, The Hague Tribunal had to adapt all of its own founding documents to
25 that and pretend to be legal and legitimate, at least a bit, in that way,
1 since it hadn't been founded as a legal and legitimate court in the first
2 place. Now, why The Hague Tribunal did not do that, that is something we
3 are going to discuss in professional international circles, and that is
4 why we sacrificed a certain amount of money and had the letter -- and had
5 this letter translated into the English language. I hope that its
6 quality suffices for our purposes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 You explained everything about this letter, and now I would like
9 to deal with one penultimate subject, which is your health.
10 I also received a confidential letter from your close associate,
11 Mr. Aleksic, but you always said that everything that has to deal with
12 your health is not confidential. So I can say that your associate told
13 me about your state of health.
14 Now, as you know better than anyone, actually - I think I
15 understood that yesterday you had some surgery - after the surgery your
16 wife said that you were concerned about the post-surgery care which was
17 not done at the jail -- not done at the hospital but at the jail, which
18 was insufficient. And Mr. Mirovic also spoke in the Serbian press in
19 order to give his point of view on this.
20 Let me remind you that the Trial Chamber is fully aware of the
21 problem, to the extent that, in a decision, we ordered for a panel of
22 experts to examine you, and we want this panel of experts to tell us what
23 exactly is your health situation and whether you're fit to stand trial.
24 So we asked for this panel of international experts, and I insist on the
25 word "international," experts, be carried out as expediently as possible.
1 Now, the fact that you're in the courtroom today proves that
2 you're doing well. You had the surgery a few days ago, and you're here
3 with us.
4 But I note that your wife seemed extremely worried, as well as
5 your associates. Two associates actually intervened. Mr. Aleksic,
6 through a letter, a letter which I will forward to the President of the
7 Tribunal, because in this letter there is the -- there is mention of the
8 fact that a number of Serbian detainees passed away in jail or right
9 after being in jail, but -- so I will forward this letter to the
10 President of the Tribunal, because I do not feel competent over this. My
11 only competence, as well as the competence of my fellow Judges, is to
12 make sure that you are as healthy as possible to defend yourself, and to
13 self-represent yourself, and to fully exercise your rights.
14 As of today, we are awaiting this letter of expertise, this
15 expert medical evaluation. It's an international panel. They have to
16 meet, they have to discuss all the documents, and then they also have to
17 examine you, so that will probably take some time. But we will soon have
18 this expert medical evaluation made by international experts.
19 So that is what I had to say on your health.
20 And now my last subject before giving you the floor: Scheduling.
21 I'm sure you want to know exactly where we stand now.
22 Now, regarding scheduling issues, as you know, today we're in a
23 standby mode. On the one hand, we're waiting for the filing of the
24 experts on the Mladic diaries. We would like to know whether the Mladic
25 diaries were actually written by his own hand or whether anything was
1 added later on. And an expert has been appointed, and he will answer all
2 our questions, but we cannot do anything while we are still awaiting this
3 expertise. We cannot go forward regarding Rule 98 bis.
4 Furthermore, we have one -- we still have one pending witness,
5 VS-026. I will not mention his name; he's protected. But up until now,
6 he was not available, and an expert had noted and certified that he was
7 not available, but now, just by miracle, obviously, he's healthy again.
8 We checked this miracle, because we really asked an expert to look into
9 this, and we're waiting for the feedback from this expert. So if the
10 expert says that he is fit to testify, probably through a videolink which
11 will be organised, of course, that's one thing; and if he's not fit to
12 testify, then we will admit his statement under Rule 92 ter [as
13 interpreted]. We'll admit his previous statements as well as the
14 statements he gave to your Defence.
15 Then once this is over, we will move to the Rule 98 bis
16 procedure, and we have a scheduling order for the organisation of this
17 hearing. This is how things stand now.
18 Correction on page 10, line 11: It is not "92 ter," but
19 "92 quater." Nothing escapes the Judges, even a small detail, because
20 there's a big difference between "ter" and "quater."
21 So I think we took stock of the situation, as far as the Bench is
22 concerned, unless my colleagues would like to take the floor. It seems
23 that this is not the case.
24 So, Mr. Seselj, now you have the floor, and, of course, feel free
25 to address this issue of financing.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for my -- the condition of my
2 health, I initially pointed out that it has never jeopardised the trial
3 so far, and that won't be the case in the future. As long as I can
4 breathe, I will be able to actually participate in the trial, and you
5 don't need any international experts to ascertain that.
6 However, as you have mentioned, articles in the newspapers and
7 the statements of my wife, Jadranka Seselj, as well as the letter that
8 you received from my legal adviser, Boris Aleksic, I must communicate
9 some things to you.
10 More than ever, I am now convinced that somebody from the outside
11 is manipulating the condition of my health. Two days ago, Nerma Jelacic,
12 the speaker of the Tribunal, gave a statement for the media, probably at
13 a press conference, that my operation on last Thursday was completed
14 without any complications. That is nothing but a lie. Ms. Jelacic lied
15 to the public.
16 During that operation, which lasted three hours, at a certain
17 moment I lost consciousness. That is a very serious complication for an
18 operation of this kind, because this operation is carried out without
19 full anaesthesia. It's a heart surgery, but the chest is not opened, but
20 the heart is accessed through the blood vessels from the groins. The
21 surgeon also informed me later on that I suffered from lack of oxygen and
22 that they had to give me additional oxygen. That, too, is a serious
23 complication. But the worst thing is that I never found out whether the
24 operation was successful or not.
25 Why did I have to be operated upon under a false name? Nobody
1 informed me of it until I arrived there and until I found myself in bed.
2 If I had been informed in prison that I would be operated upon under a
3 false name, I wouldn't have gone there. But having already been there, I
4 thought, okay, let's go through it, and later on I'll raise hell about
5 why this had to be done under a false name.
6 I am proud of my personal name, and I am proud of being indicted
7 of war crimes by the ICTY. I am also proud that I'm being transported
8 through The Hague
9 and I won't allow anybody to manipulate me this wait. Everything I do
10 and everything that happens to me must happen under my full name.
11 And a day after the operation, long ultrasound examinations were
12 carried out, ultrasounds of the heart and the chest. When I asked about
13 the results, they said, The professor will let you know. But when will
14 the professor come? At 10.00. But the professor never arrived. I left
15 the hospital. The report about that operation has still not been
16 forwarded to the Detention Unit clinic, and nothing is known yet. Maybe
17 it was successful, but then my question is: Why do I still feel the same
19 When I arrived at the Detention Unit, I immediately went to the
20 clinic, where I was received by the chief doctor, Dr. Paulus Falke, with
21 two nurses, and I mentioned all these suspicious circumstances to them.
22 I said what was happening, and I said probably the operation was
23 unsuccessful because they didn't say anything to me, they avoided the
24 answer. But the surgeon who operated on me said that they couldn't know
25 if they had been successful and that it would be known only in three or
1 four months. That was suspicious to me as well.
2 Dr. Falke said to me to lie down on the bed to have an ECG
3 performed. The nurse did the ECG, and she was appalled by the result.
4 She said, Some electrode must have fallen off. She checked all the
5 electrodes, but they were all there. She did it again, and the results
6 were again incredibly bad. Then Dr. Falke said, The ECG device is
7 broken, but in these eight years, this has never happened before. And I
8 wanted to see the result. You know that long -- long band of paper. And
9 what I always want to see is a diagnosis which is printed out by the
10 computer at the end. And I see five things are irregular. I don't speak
11 Dutch, so I can't know what it's about, but I did hear that the doctor
12 and the nurse were whispering to each other in Dutch, and I recognised
13 the word "extrasystole." I know what "asystole" is and a "diastole" from
14 my high school days, so I know what an "extrasystole" is. So there must
15 be a disturbing factor causing arrhythmia. And I tell them, The device
16 is not broken, and they said to me, Yes, it is.
17 So Friday, Saturday, Sunday go by, and Monday comes. I always
18 have the same symptoms, and today I'm taken to the same ECG, the very
19 same one. And I was fooling around with the nurses all the time and with
20 the assistant doctor, How is it fixed without ever having seen a
21 repairman? And the ECG now shows bradycardia, that my pulse was around
23 A short while ago, when I was brought to the Tribunal, I
24 immediately wanted to see the Tribunal's doctor, to have him take my
25 pulse. And he said, Now it's 54, which is almost normal, but there's
1 arrhythmia again.
2 And this concealing of the real medical finds is not something
3 that is done to me, exclusively. It was done to General Vladimir
4 Lazarevic all the time. It happened constantly to Jovica Stanisic, and
5 happened constantly with Nebojsa Pavkovic, and some others. These three
6 are in the same block as I, so I have been an eye-witness to the fact
7 that this has been happening to them constantly. The doctors are
8 treating us as if we were even bigger idiots than they are, which I
9 assure you is not true.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Bench
11 discovered that you had surgery under a false name, but this was perhaps
12 for security reasons. We don't know why they decided to send you there
13 under a false name. Perhaps they wanted to protect you from the media or
14 from somebody else.
15 Secondly, we are not medical experts. This is why we asked for a
16 medical expert. What is important is that you are alive, and you are
17 living proof of that because you are here today.
18 According to what you say, you still suffer from arrhythmia,
19 which would explain why the nurse and the doctor were surprised by the
20 results. But as you said yourself, and the surgeons said, that we would
21 see things more clearly in three or four months, so I think the best
22 thing to do is to wait until we get the results from this medical
23 evaluation. But, of course, you can also ask for the operation report to
24 be sent to you, because when surgery is done, a report is produced, and
25 in this report there should be a reason mentioned for why you lost
1 consciousness. There must be a reason for that. And if it was due to a
2 lack of oxygen, one should hope that your brain was fully supplied by
3 blood. Otherwise, there could be an issue. So perhaps you can deal with
4 the doctor and explain to him what you said to us. We are not medical
6 I gave you the floor in order to have a full picture of the
7 situation, and it seems that you are still encountering some problems.
8 Given that everything that you said is in a transcript, and the Registry
9 is following, minute after minute, what you're saying, I'm sure that
10 while I'm speaking some phone calls are being made between the Registry
11 and the doctor in order to check all this.
12 Perhaps we can move to another topic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have to clarify this
14 question pertaining to the letter that you got from my legal adviser,
15 Boris Aleksic.
16 Boris Aleksic sent you a letter in order to inform you about the
17 behaviour of Ken Roberts, Deputy Registrar.
18 Ken Roberts, on the 20th of October, addressed Boris Aleksic
19 because in the "Politika" newspaper, Aleksic, as Ken Roberts said,
20 insinuated that my medical treatment in The Hague does not meet even
21 basic prerequisites and that my health was seriously in danger, and also
22 he referred to the opinion of Russian medical specialists, who believe
23 that the doctor in The Hague Tribunal prison had an effect on the death
24 of Slobodan Milosevic and also that there had been manipulations with the
25 late Mr. Milosevic.
1 And now this Ken Roberts, who thinks he is somebody, some kind of
2 a relevant factor, said that these are groundless statements and could
3 diminish the trust of the international public towards the International
4 Tribunal and its staff. This International Tribunal never enjoyed any
5 kind of reputation, so that is totally wrong. As soon as it was
6 established, there were objections voiced about the way in which it had
7 been established, and nothing more than that, especially because such
8 horrible things happened here that should never be repeated again, if an
9 international criminal judiciary survives at all after the experiences of
10 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. And now
11 this Deputy Registrar is worried because Boris Aleksic perhaps violated
12 the Code of Conduct for Defence Counsel, and he signed the obligation to
13 respect these provisions.
14 And then Ken Roberts says, Please bear in mind that on account of
15 such violations, privileged status could be taken away from you, the one
16 that you enjoy as legal adviser to Mr. Seselj, or proceedings --
17 disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against you.
18 First of all, how can disciplinary proceedings be instituted
19 against a legal adviser? Who can do that? Only I can do that. He is my
20 legal adviser, and nobody else can do that.
21 Whatever Ken Roberts does, or his boss, John Hawking,
22 Boris Aleksic remains my legal adviser. No one from the outside can
23 dismiss my legal advisers. However, like until now, they can hinder my
24 communication with my legal advisers and members of my team. That, they
25 can do. That is what this Tribunal has been doing for all of eight
1 years. First, for seven months, and after that, for another two months,
2 I could not even telephone my family, let alone receive visitors or
3 contact members of the team assisting my defence.
4 In this context, Mr. President, Boris Aleksic wrote to you. He
5 informed you about that. He informed you about what was going on in the
6 case of the death of Mr. Milosevic, who was killed here. He was
7 certainly killed here. He was killed at least by denying him appropriate
8 care by a physician, because a few days before his death, in this very
9 same courtroom he said that he felt as if his head had weighed half a
10 ton, he asked for medical treatment, and the Presiding Judge brutally
11 interrupted him then and even said that he was sick and tired of him.
12 That's what he said, I've had enough of you, I'm sick and tired of you.
13 That is what happened in this courtroom, before the eyes of the public.
14 How can that be concealed?
15 Milan Kovacevic was tormented throughout the night and died
16 before daybreak. Everybody knew what kind of problems he had with his
17 heart. Slavko Dokmanovic was ill for months before he committed suicide.
18 He had a psychological condition. Everybody knew that he had a
19 psychiatric condition, everybody knew that he had a diagnosis, and
20 psychiatrists came and treated him. Somebody has to be held responsible
21 for his death as well.
22 If interventions could be made -- if interventions had been made
23 by treating his depression, he would not have been -- he would not have
24 committed suicide.
25 Later on, we realised through these proceedings as well that had
1 Slavko Dokmanovic had nothing to do whatsoever with any crimes in Ovcara,
2 and that one witness who testified in public here in this courtroom, and
3 who was a victim, too, actually thought that he had recognised Slavko
4 Dokmanovic in a uniform of a lieutenant-colonel of the air force, and in
5 actual fact this was a security officer who was wearing an air force
6 uniform, and he came from the 1st Military District. He was in Ovcara,
7 but he was never held accountable for that crime. And now it seemed to
8 the witness that that had been Slavko Dokmanovic. So those were the
9 grounds for indicting Slavko Dokmanovic, there you go, and that is the
10 reason why he committed suicide.
11 Then there was the case of Djordje Djukic, who was held here
12 without any proper grounds until it became perfectly clear that he would
13 die. Then he was released, he went to Belgrade, and he died a month
15 As for General Momir Talic, the very same thing happened.
16 Well, look, when Milan Babic hanged himself, I was the first one
17 to present in my motion the fact that he left a farewell letter. The
18 Tribunal officially stated that there was no farewell letter, and then it
19 turned out, after all, that there was a farewell letter. What was
20 established was that the width of the bruise around his neck did not
21 correspond to the width of the belt that he allegedly used to hang
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor wants to take
24 the floor, Mr. Seselj.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the Prosecution respectfully submit
1 that this is not an appropriate use of the time of the Tribunal and an
2 administrative hearing. This has nothing to do with any administrative
3 issues. The accused has now, for the last five or ten minutes, gone on
4 and on about conspiracy theories against the Tribunal. If he has any
5 administrative points to make from this, he should make it now, and
6 otherwise should move on to a proper point for this hearing.
7 Thank you, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what do you have to
9 say to the Prosecutor, who states that you are talking about conspiracy
10 theory here?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not putting forward any sort of
12 theory here. I am merely stating information that there are various
13 conspiracies here and that they are not happening in my trial only, but
14 that they have been known to happen earlier in other trials, and they are
15 happening in some other trials that are going on parallelly.
16 At the last status conference, I have publicly stated my position
17 on this, because you cannot convict me, because you have no proof for any
18 crime. Of course, you have to kill me, then. How do you get out of this
19 case otherwise? There's no other way.
20 I'm more than ever convinced that my medical condition is being
21 manipulated from outside. I must die, but the medical documentation has
22 to be clean because there must be no evidence.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please move on.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I have to say, from
25 a personal point of view, but I believe that my colleagues will share my
1 point of view: If there was a conspiracy theory in which Judges were
2 involved, because if I read between the lines, that's what you may imply,
3 I was wondering whether I would have mentioned the letter from
4 Mr. Aleksic, I was wondering whether I would have appointed independent
5 medical experts to find out what is really going on, and I was wondering
6 whether I would have allowed publicly for you to say this, if I was part
7 of this conspiracy theory. If I was, I would have stopped you from
8 talking, and we would have moved on. So I do hope that it is very clear
9 in your mind that the Judges are not targeted by what you're saying about
10 the conspiracy theory, because if that's what you're thinking, then I
11 will stop the trial immediately, because I'm sure that you cannot think
12 for one second that -- I could not take part in a trial where you would
13 be a victim of any conspiracy within which I would be part.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I never said that.
15 I haven't mentioned you or your colleagues, Mr. Harhoff and Ms. Lattanzi,
16 by name as partakers to any conspiracy, but I'm stating to you what is
17 happening at the ICTY and at the Detention Unit. I'm speaking the
18 language of facts. I'm not pointing fingers to this or that person as
19 being personally responsible for this or that, because I have no evidence
20 for that. But my evidence are these material facts that cannot be
21 denied. I have facts, and the general public can draw their conclusions
22 from that, and so can you. Is that suspicious to you or not, that's
23 another thing. To me, it's all suspicious. When Slobodan Milosevic
24 died, it was suspicious to me. Even then, I addressed the President of
25 the Tribunal by separate motion. The motion can be found in the
1 archives, so that I wouldn't be speaking about this if you hadn't
2 mentioned the letter by Boris Aleksic, and it was sent to you for your
3 information only, and not as a motion which you will decide upon. It's
4 meant to be a piece of information for you and your colleagues.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 Mr. Seselj, I take note of what you said. And in order to give
7 you full information, as well as to help Mr. Marcussen, I will send a
8 memo to the President of the Tribunal regarding the content of the letter
9 written by Mr. Boris Aleksic, reminding him of the number of deaths that
10 have occurred here, and I will tell him the following, and I will say, I
11 quote: It will be useful to appoint an independent commission in order
12 to do this groundwork and to shed light on this matter. This is my
13 position, and this is what I'll say to the President of the Tribunal. It
14 will then be up to him to do what he deems fit.
15 I have hesitated between two solutions or two options. Either I
16 could have forwarded the letter directly to the Secretary-General of the
17 United Nations or I could have contacted the President of the Tribunal.
18 I felt it was more fit to contact the President of the Tribunal, and this
19 is exactly what I'm going to do.
20 Could you perhaps move on to another topic, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more sentence.
22 This letter mattered to me just because of the letter drafted by
23 Ken Roberts, who threatened my legal adviser and threatened him to cut
24 his privileged communication lines with me. That's what matters for me.
25 You mentioned here that the Trial Chamber is waiting for an
1 expert report about the authenticity of the diaries of
2 General Ratko Mladic. From the point of view of the interests of my
3 defence, it doesn't matter at all whether these diaries are authentic or
4 not. I said that I doubted the authenticity of these diaries and that I
5 had reasons for doubting it. The police searched the house of
6 General Mladic several times, and how come they have just now found the
7 diaries, without having found them earlier? But let's leave that aside.
8 Even if it should turn out that the diaries are authentic, what
9 has that got to do with this trial? You saw what the Prosecution found
10 in these diaries which, according to them, can be used in this trial.
11 Absolutely nothing. Nothing there incriminates me or makes my position
12 more difficult, anything. It's totally irrelevant. But the problem is
13 that we are losing so many months over that. Instead of July, under
14 Rule 98 bis -- Mr. Marcussen and I have been waiting for being heard
15 under Rule 98 bis still, and who knows how long we're going to wait
16 still, and who knows whether we will ever complete our work under 98 bis:
17 That's what the essence is.
18 The essence is that we are unnecessarily wasting time in this
19 trial over Mladic's alleged diaries, and we wasted time earlier. Months
20 are passing, years are passing, and the more time elapses with me in
21 detention and the longer this trial lasts, the less regular this trial
23 If I had defended myself as a free man for eight years, even so
24 my right to be tried within a reasonable time-frame would have been
25 violated. Even if I had been a free man all this while, if I had come
1 from Belgrade
2 reasonable time-frame would have been blatantly violated, but
3 especially -- it's especially so now, because I've been in detention for
4 eight years. In America
5 be released if a reasonable time-period has elapsed. There is no lawyer
6 alive who can responsibly claim that this trial is going on for a
7 reasonable time, especially given the fact that the Defence case is still
8 ahead of us, and then there will be appeals, and the trial will overall
9 probably last for over 20 years.
10 You mentioned Witness 026. This complicates things further.
11 According to my information, the witness recovered pretty well after the
12 last phase of his treatment. He is not as robust as I am, but he's fully
13 capable of testifying, especially if he will testify by videolink. He is
14 a Prosecution witness. He's important to the Prosecution, to the
15 Trial Chamber, and he's important to me, if nothing else so that he can
16 explain to me here, in this courtroom, how come I blew up the Roman
17 Catholic cathedral in Subotica
18 been blown up by anybody. It's just that I want to make clear, and then
19 we don't need to speak about anything else. And how come that such
20 statements went through the hands of the Prosecutors, and who created all
22 There is also some dark force here. The Prosecutor may call this
23 a theory of conspiracy.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Mr. Seselj.
25 In case of VS-026 testifying, he would testify on what is in the
1 case. You could not ask questions as to which conditions were prevailing
2 when his statement was taken, because this is the sole competency of the
3 amicus curiae, and, therefore, the Judges are not in a position to touch
4 upon this issue. It is solely for the amicus curiae to deal with that.
5 So if he testifies, he will testify on the merits of the case, the
6 cathedral, the volunteers, the war, and so on and so forth, but not on
7 the conditions, because this is not in our realm of competency.
8 My colleague points out --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, you cannot prevent me from
10 challenging a witness's credibility. I can examine that in a positive
11 and negative sense. I can affirm his testimony, I can examine him that
12 way, and I can examine him in another way, by denying his testimony.
13 I have been studying Anglo-Saxon legal procedure here for eight
14 years. It never would have crossed my mind, while I was still a free
15 man, and now I've become an expert in this field.
16 As for this Roman Catholic cathedral, that will have to be
17 discussed. It's part of his previous statement. It has to be discussed,
18 whether it was blown up or not and what actually happened there.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I suggest we wait until the witness is here to
20 discuss the issue.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I understand you, and I
22 fully agree with that, Mr. Harhoff.
23 But I have this other problem now in relation to this witness. I
24 have the impression, because now I have information - I am no longer
25 forbidden from contacting this witness. ^ I am informed about where they
1 are taking him now, to various examinations by specialists to see whether
2 he is capable of testifying or not. At the Military Medical Academy
3 they refused to examine him because they didn't know who would pay for
4 that. Then they took him to the St. Sava Hospital in Belgrade, and that
5 is a hospital for treating brain and blood vessel ailments. Of course,
6 it does have something to do with it vaguely; cardiovascular conditions,
7 but it does specialise in brain and blood vessel ailments, and you could
8 always find a doctor there who would sign a statement saying that he
9 could not testify.
10 There is some dark force in Belgrade that is trying to prevent
11 this witness from testifying, so I'm saying to you that if it so happens
12 that if you get some kind of an opinion from Belgrade, a medical opinion,
13 stating that he cannot testify, that has to be reviewed, because that
14 witness can truly testify. He really is in a position to do so. We've
15 already agreed that it can be done by videolink.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let's move to
3 closed session. I believe that this is why Mr. Marcussen is on his feet.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: Correct, Your Honour, and I believe we would also
5 need a small redaction.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Closed session, please. Closed
7 session, please, Mr. Registrar.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 16448 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, are you finished or
3 do you still have points on the agenda?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is the first topic that you
5 started off with at this administrative hearing today, and that is the
6 question of financing the Defence.
7 First of all, in the text of your decision, there is a problem.
8 There is a reference to this being a confidential document, with
9 confidential and ex parte annexes of the two parties. I did not receive
10 any ex parte annexes. Since it is only the disposition that is given in
11 public, I assume that it is, therefore, public. You read the
12 disposition, and I'm only going to deal with that. I don't know why the
13 entire text of the decision has been declared a confidential document
14 when everything there had to be public, but perhaps you have some reason
15 for that.
16 Also, I have not received the separate opinion of Judge Lattanzi,
17 and I'm very sorry about that, because I'm sure that Judge
18 Flavia Lattanzi was far more inclined towards the interest of my Defence
19 than the majority of the Trial Chamber. But I hope that I will receive
20 this separate opinion and that I'm going to use it to buttress my
21 argument in further proceedings.
22 There is a dilemma here. When speaking of the amount, as stated
23 here, that is usually allocated to indigent accused persons, what is
24 unclear is whether it is an amount -- it is an amount that is given in
25 every particular case there is no Defence team -- or where there is a
1 Defence team and where there is a lawyer, and then 50 per cent of that,
2 or is it 50 per cent of the sum that is received, say, by Mr. Karadzic
3 and Mr. Tolimir? That would be senseless.
4 However, I have to tell you, although I do not intend to appeal
5 this decision at all, it is inapplicable, as far as my Defence team is
6 concerned, because it says here that financial assistance, two legal
7 advisers, to the investigator and case manager, will be paid as of today
8 in the future. Without any retroactive payments for the Defence over
9 these past eight years, my legal advisers will not agree to any kind of
10 payments in the future either. And then you know full well what kind of
11 effect this will have in terms of presenting the Defence case. In that
12 situation, we will not be able to present a Defence case. I am only
13 going to confine myself to an opening statement of the Defence. That is
14 what I'm entitled to. The Prosecutor had an opening statement of four
15 hours, and I hope that you are going to give me equal time, because when
16 I used four hours when the Prosecutor spoke, that was a statement by the
17 accused. Those were -- that was not an opening statement, and that's how
18 we treated it. But now I'm going to be entitled to opening argument by
19 the Defence, and if there is no retroactive payment given to cover the
20 costs of the Defence, we are going to complete these proceedings very
22 Of course, Rule 98 bis can allow us to go on and procrastinate
23 for another year, but I would like these proceedings to be brought to an
24 end while I'm still alive. I know that there are many of those who would
25 not want these proceedings to end while I'm still alive, because that
1 solution would be far simpler. However, I want to be fully victorious in
2 these proceedings, and it's obvious to one and all that I'm only a step
3 away from that victory.
4 Judges, even if you want to declare me guilty and condemn me, you
5 are fully aware of the fact that you have nothing upon which you could
6 base such a decision and such a verdict, so that's -- and that is what
7 the international public is aware of too.
8 That's what I wanted to say to you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I advise you to read this
10 decision as soon as it is translated. I hope it will be perfectly
11 translated, because in all the paragraphs before the disposition, we
12 explain how we came to this decision.
13 In the public version, there are a few redacted excerpts which
14 have to do with elements that are not to be made public outside this
15 Trial Chamber, but the reasoning is public. And you know that French is
16 a very specific language, a very accurate language, just like yours,
17 actually. Every word has its meaning. So read it fully.
18 And let me tell you that it took us a very long time to write
19 this decision. You know, we weighted every word, every comma, and it
20 took us quite some time to render the decision, but it is very
21 comprehensive, everything is included. But you have to read it after a
22 good night's rest because it is difficult to comment on this off the cuff
23 without having the text.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, recently I received
25 these confidential documents. I won't go into their contents. I
1 received a letter from you, sent to the Prosecutor, or addressed to him.
2 I received it in French. I don't speak French, and I received a
3 translation of that letter. In other words, I'm not a chicken, I cannot
4 lay eggs, but I can tell if it's a bad egg or a good one. This shows
5 that a large portion of your letter was left out in the translation, it's
6 missing. Even the previous sentence is not translated as it should be.
7 So it's obvious, at first sight, that it's a bad translation.
8 You may ask the usher to give this to you so you can ascertain
9 after this hearing that what I'm saying is true. So possibly you can
10 send this to me once more, because this is important for my
11 documentation. So you can see what kind of problems I'm facing with
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 I will check whether my letter was well translated, and if there
15 are parts of it that are missing, it will be -- it will be completed.
16 But I don't know your language, so as of now I cannot say whether this
17 was fully translated or not. But let me tell you that we will do all the
18 necessary checks.
19 Mr. Marcussen.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 I think, in light of some of the things that have been said
22 today, I can be briefer than I had expected, which is a good thing.
23 I thought, first of all, I should just put on record that I agree
24 with the accused's submissions about the scope of examination of VS-26
25 when it comes to the issue of use of statements and testing the
1 credibility of witnesses. The accused has very much expressed a view
2 which is similar to ours; namely, that these issues of credibility of
3 witnesses who appear before the Court are key issues that have to be
4 dealt with in this Chamber and cannot be out-sourced to an amicus curiae.
5 So there might be -- there might be -- there is going to be an
6 investigation of members of the Office of the Prosecutor, and that has to
7 run its course, obviously. As has been stated several times by the
8 Prosecutor, the Office of the Prosecutor will co-operate fully with that
9 investigation. But the issues that are raised with respect to the
10 credibility of admitted evidence in the case still have to be tested --
11 have to be dealt with in the context of the case, and the credibility
12 issues have to be settled here.
13 So the Prosecution's position is very much similar to that of the
14 accused; namely, that the evidentiary issues that have been raised by the
15 allegations that have been made in court by witnesses must be tested by
16 the Court. That will apply to VS-26, and that is why the Prosecution
17 have made a request -- requests for leave to amend its witness list and
18 call witnesses who can give evidence about a number of these issues.
19 So I just wanted to put that on record. I appreciate the remark
20 that has been made, that this is something we will come back to in the
21 context of VS-26, if VS-26 is actually going to come.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, very well. I
23 take due note of what you said, and I'm very glad to hear that you have
24 the same -- you are of the same opinion as Mr. Seselj on this issue. And
25 the Trial Chamber will deliberate on this, but I would like you to shed
1 some light on an issue for me.
2 I would like you, Mr. Marcussen, to tell us when it's a Chamber
3 witness, because this is a Chamber witness, a Court witness. I believe
4 that in our -- in the practice of this Tribunal - I will not mention any
5 cases - but I believe that the Trial Chamber, since it's its own witness,
6 can limit -- very strictly limit the scope of the examination. And
7 unless I'm wrong, furthermore -- but, I mean, I've been here for seven
8 years, so I don't think I'm wrong -- the way a witness is to be examined
9 is controlled by the Judges at all times.
10 So what do you have to say to this? If you could shed some light
11 on this issue.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, I think there are two -- there are
13 two issues.
14 As to the Judges' powers to regulate the examination of witnesses
15 and the modalities of how witnesses testify before the Chamber, it is
16 obvious that the Trial Chamber retain powers to do so. But the question
17 that the Prosecution is raising is the fair trial rights of the parties
18 to be able to test fully the evidence before the Tribunal, and that means
19 that the parties must be allowed to present evidence and arguments as to
20 the reliability and credibility of all evidence that's being presented
21 before the Court.
22 We have understood, from things -- a number of remarks that have
23 been made in court and from decisions that have been rendered, that the
24 Trial Chamber will be using the investigation as a means to test the
25 reliability of the -- of statements that have been admitted into evidence
1 or that have been tendered by the Prosecution. That is what we say
2 cannot be done.
3 The Prosecution's position is that the evidence has to be
4 presented in court. The parties have the right to make submissions on
5 the impact of that evidence, and the testing of the credibility and the
6 taking of evidence which might be relevant to the assessment of
7 credibility of evidence in the case cannot be out-sourced to someone
8 else. It is the core purpose of the trial to test the evidence in the
9 case. It simply cannot be done outside the trial process. That's the
10 Prosecution's position, and that is why we have requested leave to amend
11 our witness list so that we can call witnesses who can give evidence
12 about a number of the issues that have been raised. And what is going to
13 happen when VS-26 is going to testify, we don't know. Maybe it is not
14 going to become an issue. But if it is, what I'm saying is we fully
15 agree with the accused that he will be entitled and we will be entitled
16 to explore all issues that arise in that context. If allegations, again,
17 are going to be made about how these statements were obtained, whether
18 they are correct or whether they are not correct. And it is a normal
19 step in any trial that if issues arise as to whether or not allegations
20 of that nature are true, investigators or other people with knowledge of
21 these facts can be called, and we submit they should be called in this
22 case. And the fact that there's an investigation, well, that's a
23 separate matter. It cannot replace the testing of the evidence in this
25 That is the core of some of the issues that we have raised --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... I'm not saying
3 that the Judges do not have the power to control the examination of
4 witnesses. That's obvious.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, the Judges will
6 deliberate on this, of course, and you have expressed your opinion. As
7 of now, I cannot answer. We first have to deliberate on this. And when
8 Witness VS-26 will testify, then the Trial Chamber will say exactly what
9 it expects. But we took due note of what you just said.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: I was going to make a request that the
11 Trial Chamber's decision regarding the funding of the Defence be made
12 public. I understand there's a redacted version. We haven't seen that
13 yet, so maybe there is no issue. I just wanted to point, today, the
14 Court's attention to the decision of 20th January 2004 in the Krajisnik
15 case, which is a public decision, which sets out its reasoning for why
16 Mr. Krajisnik should pay part of his Defence himself. And I'm not
17 bringing this up because of the substance of the decision but simply to
18 point out that, in the practice of the Tribunal, these sort of decisions
19 have been public. We submit that the public should be allowed to
20 understand the reasons of the Chamber, and certainly in light of all the
21 times these issues have come up in the case and have been raised both by
22 the accused and the Judges. But we will see what the redacted version
23 looks like, and maybe there is no issue.
24 I was going to address also scheduling issues. I can --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you will also
1 have the confidential version, of course. It's not ex parte, so you will
2 be entitled to have the full reasoning behind the decision.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... I'm talking
4 about the public's access to the Trial Chamber's reasoning. We have
5 received the confidential version. Obviously, we haven't received the
6 ex parte parts of it, but we are informed of the full reasoning of the
7 Chamber. I'm sorry if there was any confusion on that point.
8 As for scheduling issues, it sounds like a lot of decisions will
9 be coming shortly. We tried to count, on the Prosecution side, on the
10 number of pending motions before today, and our understanding -- we came
11 to the number of 14 motions, which I guess then mean there might be 6
12 motions still to be ruled on, but maybe this is something that can be
13 co-ordinated with the Legal Officer if there's an issue there.
14 I'm not going to address scheduling any more, other than just
15 asking clarification on one point.
16 Do I understand correctly that one of the scheduling -- one of
17 the motions that will be ruled on shortly is the Prosecution request for
18 leave to add additional witnesses to its witness list?
19 I see the Judge's nod, so that is the case. Then I will leave
20 the remaining scheduling issues out.
21 There's two more issues left that we would like to address. One
22 is some of the issues that arise out of the Trial Chamber's decision
23 regarding the Mladic note-books and some issues that arise out of the
24 medical examination decision. I will be addressing the first issue, and
25 Ms. Biersay will be addressing the second.
1 Regarding the Mladic note-books, I'm going to say a little bit
2 about the material that has been tendered by the Prosecution, make some
3 remarks about the expert and handling of evidence, and address
5 In reading the Trial Chamber's decision from the 22nd of October,
6 it appears that there might be cause --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection.
8 I demand that Mr. Marcussen delay these requests or proposals or
9 suggestions until the next hearing on the administrative issues, because
10 I haven't received the relevant documents yet and I cannot follow.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, it seems that
12 Mr. Seselj has not received all the Trial Chamber's decisions so far, but
13 maybe you can sum up the substance of the decision. That way, Mr. Seselj
14 will be fully informed. Or I could do it myself.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Surely, Your Honours.
16 And I want to be clear so the accused appreciates what I'm doing.
17 I'm not making submissions as to the admissibility of the note-books or
18 addressing the merit of the decision, and I'm not -- I'm actually not
19 going to make any requests. I'm more addressing a number of issues,
20 which might be informative also to the accused once he gets the decision.
21 Basically, the Trial Chamber has ordered two things relevant --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I've been listening to
23 Mr. Marcussen carefully, and I insist that he put forward his opinion and
24 his information once I get the decision so that I can follow. There's no
25 point in him going on about this here without me having the faintest idea
1 what it's about.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 Mr. Seselj, as you know, following to what you said to us
4 regarding the Mladic diaries, the Trial Chamber appointed an expert. If
5 I had known that this topic was going to be touched upon, I would have
6 brought with me the decision, but I'm sure that the Legal Officer has the
7 decision here.
8 In our decision, we said that we were asking an expert -- there
9 we go. Thank you, Mr. Marcussen, for giving me what the Legal Officer
10 should have given me.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... see if it's
12 actually the right compilation of materials, because there might be more
13 in the bundle so maybe I can put it up to you at the right page.
14 Actually, my case manager is printing a copy for you now, and I think
15 it's coming to -- to me, sorry.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Seselj, I'm going to
17 read the disposition, bearing in mind that I also have a separate opinion
18 of 28 pages. And I'm not going to read the 28 pages on the issue. I'm
19 only going to read out to you the disposition, which sums up the
20 unanimous position of this Trial Chamber, and I should like to point this
21 out. My separate opinion is a separate opinion which actually goes in
22 the same line as the general opinion, but it's a 28-page opinion, and
23 again I suggest that you read it carefully once it's translated into your
24 language, of course.
25 Since the OTP is very efficient, they are going to provide me
1 with my decision. I'm really sorry, I should have brought it with me.
2 I'm really sorry. Usually, I bring everything with me. But I have to
3 say that I didn't do this because I didn't realise that we would come
4 back to the Mladic diaries and that we would revisit this issue, and I
5 made a mistake. And I would like to apologise to the parties, because we
6 are wasting time here.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: The Prosecution wasn't able to be as efficient as
8 we had hoped. But, fortunately, the Registrar is very efficient, so I
9 believe he now has the decision.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 So this is what I'm saying in a disposition:
12 "Orders the Prosecution to disclose to the accused a typewritten
13 hard copy in B/C/S of the entire Mladic note-books."
14 So, Mr. Seselj, you should receive a hard copy of the note-books:
15 "Grants the Prosecution's request to add the documents mentioned
16 in the motion to the 65 ter exhibit list.
17 "Grants the Prosecution's request to add Milanovic and Gallagher
18 to the 65 ter witness list.
19 "Grants the Prosecution's request for admission into evidence of
20 the Milanovic statement and the Gallagher, in accordance with Rule 92 bis
21 of the Rules.
22 "Defers the ruling on the request for the admission of extracts
23 from the Mladic note-books.
24 "Orders the Registry to appoint an independent expert, whose task
25 will be to read, in the original version, the extracts of the Mladic
1 note-books whose admission is sought.
2 "To determine whether General Mladic is the author by comparing
3 them to other documents written by General Mladic in the same period
4 whose source and date are certain, known, and reliable.
5 "To highlight any amendment, addition, or deletion that might
6 have occurred to the documents under examination.
7 "If possible, to determine whether some of the entries were
8 written at intervals over several years by comparing them with other
9 documents whose source and date are certain, written by General Mladic at
10 different times, starting with 1991, and;
11 "To inform the Chamber of any other relevant information with
12 regard to the documents under examination.
13 "The appointed expert shall provide the Chamber with an expert
14 report by no later than 15th of December, 2010.
15 "Orders the Prosecution to hand over immediately the original
16 copies of the Mladic note-books, together with any other document that
17 might be necessary for the successful completion of the task upon request
18 from the appointed expert.
19 "Presiding Judge Antonetti attaches a separate opinion to this
21 As I said, this separate opinion is 28 pages long, and I'm not
22 going to read it out, even if it was very interesting.
23 Yes, Mr. Marcussen.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: Would the Chamber like us to have a break before
25 I start or is it not quite time yet?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if you are very quick,
2 perhaps we can conclude without any break. And, of course, Mr. Seselj
3 has to have a rest.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tendered a rather
5 limited amount of material when it tendered its evidence relating to the
6 Mladic note-books. And reading the Trial Chamber's decision, that it
7 seems that might have given rise to some confusion and also maybe to an
8 impression that the Prosecution is withholding relevant evidence from the
9 Trial Chamber, which certainly is not the case.
10 The Prosecution, in light of the late stage of the proceeding,
11 has made an effort to limit the amount of evidence that we tendered in
12 relation to the Mladic note-books, so we limited ourselves to a few
13 extracts and to the evidence of two witnesses. This was not done in any
14 way to try to keep anything from the Trial Chamber, but simply to try to
15 be efficient.
16 Now, one of the -- there are two points I would like to just
17 clarify so there is not confusion about the material that has been
19 One thing is: In paragraph 33 of the decision, it is stated that
20 the Witness Mihajlovic [sic] did not recognise the handwriting in certain
21 parts of note-book number 18. That is not the case. Milovanovic looked
22 at a scanned range of material -- sorry, it should be "Milovanovic," in
23 line 4 of page 42. That is not the case, Your Honours.
24 The witness Milovanovic looked at a scanned bundle of documents.
25 That document included a note-book and then other material. And among
1 that other material were a number of documents which are not part of a
2 note-book and which clearly have been written by someone else, and it is
3 not the Prosecution's position that these other materials are part of a
4 note-book, nor that they bear Mladic's handwriting.
5 For example, there are letters. One is a letter that is written
6 in the Latin script and not in Cyrillic.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Marcussen, I really don't want to interfere
8 with this, but I think it would be prudent, perhaps, to reserve these
9 questions until there is the declaration from the expert, because only
10 then we would be able to determine what to make of Milovanovic's
11 decision. At this point, it's really open, and unless you have any
12 strong needs to invoke this at this moment, I suggest we drop it. But
13 I'm not sure of the reasons why you are raising it, then.
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: The reason I'm raising, and that's what I'm
15 getting to now, is that when the expert gets material, he will not get to
16 see -- he or she will not get to see these other things. This other
17 material is not part of the note-books. So the point I'm clarifying is
18 that the actual note-books do not contain these other documents which do
19 not bear -- which have someone else's handwriting on them. So when we
20 provide note-books to the accused -- to the expert, that material isn't
21 going to be there.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Marcussen, the decision only suggests
23 that the note-books be submitted to the expert, and nothing else.
24 [Interpretation] "The Chamber orders the Registry to appoint an
25 independent expert, whose task will be to read, in the original version,
1 the excerpt of the Mladic note-books whose admission is sought."
2 In other words, no other submission will be made, no other
3 documents handwritten by Mr. Mladic. We're only talking about the Mladic
4 diaries, so I hope that there is no confusion regarding that.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: The disposition, we understand, and we will
6 submit only the note-books.
7 There seemed to be a confusion in paragraph 33 of the decision,
8 though, because there it is stated that there were parts of Note-book 18
9 which Milovanovic was not able to identify as being written by
10 Mr. Mladic, and that it was someone else's handwriting. The point I'm
11 making is --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Again --
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]...
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I have to intervene.
15 What is being debated here are things that I am not versed with
16 at all.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I think it has been
18 said already by yourself --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be all right if the
20 Prosecutor interrupts me all the time and I cannot interrupt him? He
21 interrupts me all the time, and whenever Mr. Marcussen is on his feet,
22 you give him the floor. And now he's complaining because I am
23 interrupting him. I am not providing counter-arguments. I'm not
24 interrupting him that way. I'm just raising an objection. I'm saying
25 that he is speaking about things that I don't know of at all, and could
1 all of this be halted until I've been given a copy of your decision?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you mentioned
3 paragraph 33 of a document which the accused does not have, so there is
4 an issue here. Judge Harhoff said that it was premature and that we
5 should wait until the expert opinion has come back to us in order to
6 state your position.
7 And I believe that Judge Lattanzi also wants to take the floor.
8 But before I give her the floor, you are mentioning that in
9 paragraph 33 we are talking about pages that would not have been
10 handwritten by Mr. Mladic, but you can also send to the expert what you
11 want to send to him as part of the decision from this Chamber. So you
12 are raising an issue which I believe is non-existent. And if the expert
13 has any problem with that, perhaps this person would be able to contact
14 you, because you have stated in the disposition that the expert could be
15 in the position to also make comments on other things. So they can also
16 provide the Chamber with any other information that would be useful to be
18 So what you're raising, if the expert feels that there is an
19 issue, they will say something.
20 I give the floor to Judge Lattanzi.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I would like to
22 have some clarification on one point.
23 I would like to know: What is the purpose of your submission
24 here? Do you want the Trial Chamber to give some clarification on the
25 decision or do you want the Trial Chamber to reconsider its decision? I
1 don't quite understand the purpose of why you have taken the floor right
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: The Prosecution does not want there to be any
4 misapprehension as to what material we understand is covered by the
5 decision, and we would wish to clarify what appeared to be perhaps a
6 misunderstanding, which might have been caused by the Prosecution, but a
7 misunderstanding as to what material Mr. -- General Milovanovic has
8 looked at, what is part of the note-books and what is not.
9 If the Chamber thinks that there is a note-book which we will be
10 providing to the expert, and that note-book contains seven pages which
11 have been written, according to the witness, by someone else, then that
12 is not the case. I hope that's clear.
13 What I -- there are a number of other issues. Maybe the best is,
14 and also in light of what the accused has said, is we will be addressing
15 these issues in writing so there is no misapprehension of what the
16 process is going to be.
17 I would like to point out at this stage that we would also be
18 addressing some practical issues about how this evidence has to be
20 The Mladic note-books are -- it's admitted evidence in other
21 cases. It's potentially evidence in the case against Mladic, should he
22 get arrested. A number of technical precautions have been taken to
23 preserve the evidence, and the Prosecution will corroborate with the
24 appointed handwriting expert, but there will be technical issues that
25 have been to addressed. It is not just a question of the Office of the
1 Prosecutor taking these originals out of its evidence collection and hand
2 it to an expert, who can go out somewhere, do his or her analysis of the
3 evidence, and come back with an opinion. There would also be issues
4 about potentially finding a sample that can be used for comparison. We
5 will address these things in a written filing, but I want to reassure the
6 Chamber that we do this not in the spirit of hampering what the Chamber
7 has ordered, but there are some real, practical evidentiary precautions
8 that have to be taken, and I'm sure the Trial Chamber fully appreciate
9 that as well as the Prosecution does, and there are issues -- well, let
10 me not get into that now, but there are a number of real, practical
11 issues that we would have to deal with very carefully in light of the
12 nature of this evidence.
13 And what we would be suggesting is once the expert is assigned,
14 that the Prosecution be provided the CV of the expert and is given an
15 outline of what the expert would like to do with this material so we can
16 work with the expert to find a way in which the examination of this
17 sensitive material can be done in a way which does not prejudice its
18 evidentiary status in other cases.
19 So I just seize this occasion to bring it up. We will, as I say,
20 address you in writing on this, but there are some issues that we will
21 have to address. And --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I fully
23 understood what you just said, and I fully understand that you are not
24 planning to hand over the original documents and then there is a burglary
25 at the expert's premises and everything disappears. I fully understood
1 you. You do not have to even go as far as primary school to understand
2 that. And I'm sure that with the expert that will have been appointed,
3 you will make sure that the evidence is preserved with the help of the
4 Office of the Prosecutor. But you're fully aware that an expert can only
5 work on original documents. Therefore, at some stage he will have to --
6 he or she will need to have a look at the original documents. Perhaps
7 this can be looked at within the premises of the Tribunal, but this is
8 something that you can look into with him or her.
9 We are talking about highly technical issues here, and, in fact,
10 I suggest that you read the 58 pages that I have written in another case,
11 and the 28 pages that I have written for this case, in order to
12 understand what is an expert opinion. But I'm sure that your fears will
13 be alleviated.
14 Mr. Marcussen, we are beyond the time that was allocated to us
15 for the first session, so don't you think that we should have a break in
16 order to resume later on? I believe that Mr. Seselj wants to take the
18 So we're going to have a 20-minute break.
19 --- Recess taken at 4.50 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 5.11 p.m.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
8 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, we will make efforts to assist you
10 in determining what material is actually on the internet and get back to
11 you. We should not, maybe, take up time here now with that.
12 Your Honours, I just have one brief more piece of information,
13 maybe, and then I'll hand over to Ms. Biersay.
14 The Prosecution was ordered to disclose to the accused the
15 transcripts of the Mladic note-books. I don't know whether the accused
16 has received that material yet, but we -- it has been sent off from us.
17 So he would get it today, if he hasn't received it. But I want to
18 clarify that the Prosecution has transcribed only the note-books that
19 were seized this year. So the five note-books that were seized last
20 year, there is no transcription of those. We have not prepared that,
21 and, therefore, that material has not been disclosed.
22 Sorry, I'm getting it wrong. It was two years ago, not last
24 But my point basically is that we have disclosed what we have
25 transcribed, that has been given to the accused, but it does not cover
1 the five first note-books because we have not prepared transcriptions for
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Marcussen, have you submitted the parts that
4 you seek tendered into evidence?
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Already when we tendered the excerpts that we
6 wanted to propose as evidence in the case, that was provided back then in
7 hard copy to the accused already, so we're talking -- right. And none of
8 the excerpts we have tendered come from the first seizure. The excerpts
9 that we have selected are only from the new seizure of material.
10 I just wanted to clarify that so it's clear what has been
11 disclosed to the accused. Of course, all the material is available on
12 the EDS
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is to say, for the photocopies of the
14 entire --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the Judge.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.
17 Can we just clarify that photocopies of the entire set of
18 note-books is available on the EDS
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Correct, Your Honour, scanned -- scanned versions
20 of it, yes.
21 I'll hand over to Ms. Biersay if there's nothing else on this.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, good afternoon.
23 We haven't heard you for a while, and it's a great pleasure for me to
24 give you the floor once again.
25 MS. BIERSAY: May I please request that we go into private
1 session to discuss a short matter pertaining to VS-026.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could we move to
3 private session, please.
4 [Private session]
11 Pages 16473-16477 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.
16 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 As Mr. Marcussen indicated, I am going to very, very briefly
18 address the issue of the medical assessments that have been ordered
19 proprio motu by the Trial Chamber, and specifically the Prosecution
20 respectfully requests that, as has been done in other cases, that it be
21 given the material underlying the Trial Chamber's orders about those
22 medical assessments, and that is so that the Prosecution can fully
23 exercise its rights to be informed and to be heard regarding these
25 Now, I am quite sure that the Trial Chamber is aware of another
1 case before the Tribunal, in the Stanisic/Simatovic case, and in that
2 case the health of one of the accused was a central issue, specifically
3 as it pertained to the accused's ability to stand trial and also the
4 scheduling and modalities of that trial. In that case, it was the
5 accused who made a motion that resulted in the litigation of
6 health-related issues, and in that case the relevant medical reports and
7 assessments given to the Trial Chamber were also disclosed to the
8 Prosecution. In that case, no decision on modality or fitness to stand
9 trial, or even provisional release, none of those decisions were taken
10 without the Trial Chamber first hearing from the Prosecution and the
11 Defence. When reports in that case were submitted by the reporting
12 medical officer on issues of modalities of the trial and fitness for
13 trial, the Prosecution and the Defence were always afforded the
14 opportunity to propose questions to put to the medical officer.
15 Also, in that case, the Defence, the Prosecution and the
16 Trial Chamber each had their experts contributing to the process of
17 assessing that accused's health condition. This is a little bit
18 different from where we stand today in this case, where I do not believe
19 that Mr. Seselj has made a motion to the Trial Chamber for any kind of
20 medical assessment and the decision was taken proprio motu by the
21 Trial Chamber.
22 Specifically, the Trial Chamber's orders, and I'm referring to
23 primarily the one issued on October 19th, 2010, but there was also
24 another that I won't go into -- that that order was based on information
25 that the Prosecution has never received. And, finally, the Prosecution
1 was given notice of the issue discussed in that order only after the
2 order was issued.
3 So for these reasons, we are asking that we be given the material
4 that, I believe, until now has been dealt with in an ex parte fashion;
5 namely, the reports on Mr. Seselj's health that have been given to the
6 Trial Chamber.
7 And I believe the Presiding Judge indicated that the purpose of
8 the assessment was to make sure that Mr. Seselj, of course, remained
9 healthy and that he remains able -- fit -- and that he remains fit for
10 trial, and that he is able to represent himself, and these are all
11 pertinent issues to both parties in the case.
12 So for these reasons, we believe that it would be appropriate to
13 disclose the underlying material on which the Trial Chamber relied to
14 render its previous decisions so that we can meaningfully and fully
15 exercise our right to be heard.
16 Fairness would also require that both the Prosecution and the
17 accused be given the opportunity to participate in a transparent process
18 of selecting the members of the medical expert panel. Now, we're quite
19 open to the modalities of how the parties can participate in the
20 selection of the panel, but we are requesting that there be some
21 participation by the parties in this process.
22 And with that, I will end my comments. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay -- just a minute,
24 Mr. Seselj. I'll give you the floor in a minute.
25 Ms. Biersay, when you're taking the floor, I'm always listening
1 to you with great attention because what you're saying is always
2 extremely interesting.
3 I fully understood that the Prosecution wanted to be made aware
4 of all the documents, all the underlying documents, and I'm 100 per cent
5 in agreement with you. However, there is a small item that could lead to
6 many discussions, but we're not going to open this today, this discussion
8 You say that the Prosecution and the accused would like to
9 participate in the appointment of the expert panel. It's quite
10 attractive as an idea, you know. However, according to the Rules and the
11 directives, as of today the Trial Chamber is entitled to decide that an
12 expertise is required, that an expert evaluation is required, and the
13 expert or the experts are to be appointed by the Registrar, who can
14 consult the Chamber if it wishes to.
15 Now, the Rules could have provided for what you want. You know,
16 when there is to be an expert opinion, the parties can suggest their own
17 experts to the Trial Chamber. It could have -- it could happen. Why
18 not? But it's not stated in the Rules.
19 Furthermore, you know that we are in a mixed system, with a
20 combination of common law and civil law. I'm sure you know that in civil
21 law countries, the three countries of the three Judges on this Bench,
22 it's up to the Judges to appoint experts. The parties must remain
23 silent. If they are not happy with the situation, they can request a
24 counter-expertise to challenge the conclusions drawn by the first expert.
25 This is a possibility. But in the first place, it's up to the Judges to
1 control the selection of the expert.
2 So it's quite -- what you're saying is very interesting, but it
3 should be in the Rules, and unfortunately, it is not stated in the Rules.
4 Furthermore, thinking about Mr. Milosevic, I don't remember that
5 at the time, the Prosecution asked for a Prosecution expert to be
6 appointed to check on Mr. Milosevic's health. I don't think so. And I
7 don't think that Mr. Milosevic also would have appointed his own expert,
8 either. I believe it was the Trial Chamber which appointed the experts.
9 I may be wrong, but I'm saying this off the cuff.
10 But I took due note of what you said, but we have rendered our
11 decision, and I believe that the Registrar is looking for these three
12 experts at the moment.
13 MS. BIERSAY: I appreciate your comments, Your Honour. And
14 certainly to the extent that the parties or a party is allowed to
15 participate in the assessment of experts, that, in fact, it would not
16 just be one party participating in that process. And to the extent that
17 it's being a list, or I'm not sure exactly what it would be, is being
18 reviewed by a party, it should be reviewed by both parties. I say that
19 just to make sure that we have that on the record.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 Mr. Marcussen.
22 MR. MARCUSSEN: I apologise. We had promised to finish.
23 I have now received a redacted version of the financing decision
24 that we discussed earlier, and I've looked at the redactions that have
25 been made. And in light of those redactions, I would like to maintain
1 the Prosecution's motion that the full decision be made public, or at
2 least that paragraph 21 be made public in its entirety.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We take due note of
5 what you said, and when we rule on this --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I fully agree that all documents
9 pertaining to my health be placed at the disposal of the Prosecution, or,
10 rather, that they be photocopied and submitted to the Prosecution so that
11 they could have full insight. I have no reason to keep secret any
12 information about the state of my health, none whatsoever. I also have
13 no reason to exaggerate the problems that I am facing. I would not have
14 raised that issue had it not been raised by the Trial Chamber.
15 I forbade the Secretariat or the Registry to provide information
16 about my health to the National Council for Co-operation with The Hague
17 Tribunal in Belgrade
18 particularly forbade them from providing information to the Military
19 Medical Academy
20 about the inhumane and unprofessional behaviour of Major Mirko Jevtic,
21 head of the Medical Military Academy
22 Defence intervened -- interfered, and there was this doctor who presented
23 an opinion on my report last year of over 60 pages, and they did not let
24 him give information to my associates. Of course, I also condemned that
25 doctor who asked the commander to give him permission to behave
1 ethically. But that is the problem with physicians who have officers'
2 insignia. There will either be a doctor or an officer, and what prevails
3 in their case is the consciousness of an officer, and that is limited.
4 I never want to deal with doctors like that anymore. I also, in
5 particular, do not want to have any dealings with the National
6 Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal, especially now that they have
7 engaged head-hunters to search for the glorious Serb general
8 Ratko Mladic, and they promised a prize of 10 million euro. Of course,
9 they will never find him, but what they did is immoral.
10 What I would like the transcript to reflect is that I want the
11 cardiovascular clinic in Moscow
12 medical documentation. It is my understanding that they're going to
13 address the Registry during the next few days. I am saying that now, and
14 this is recorded in the official transcript. I agree that my entire
15 medical file be provided to them.
16 I'm just asking for one thing in the future; that all reports
17 about the state of my health first come into my own hands, or
18 simultaneously in my own hands, the hands of the Trial Chamber, the
19 prison warden, and so on. What happened before was that all others would
20 get this before myself. Of course, I signed consent for my medical
21 information to be provided to others, but I have not been given full
22 information about medical matters.
23 So the Prosecution can be made fully aware of all of this, and in
24 this particular case, the Prosecution will not face any attempt on my
25 part to stall these proceedings, or stop them altogether, or delay them,
1 on account of my health. No one can conduct these proceedings without
2 me. Don't think that under the pretext of my health conditions, someone
3 will impose counsel on me. I will stop taking all medication, I will
4 stop eating, and then you can try vampires, ghosts, whoever, but you're
5 not going to try me any longer. You are not going to try me with any
6 kind of scum sitting in this courtroom pretending to be my lawyer. If
7 you did not manage to do that during the Prosecution case, you will
8 succeed even less during the Defence case.
9 Since you've extended this hearing, and since you've given the
10 Prosecution the opportunity to say things that were completely out of
11 order and that did not have to be discussed at all today, I needed to add
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber
14 notes that you see no problem to have all your medical documents
15 disclosed to the Prosecution. Tomorrow, we'll take a look and see what
16 has not been disclosed yet. Normally, we communicate -- we disclose
17 everything, so I can't see what hasn't been disclosed yet. But we'll
18 look into this to make sure that the Prosecution has absolutely
19 everything. As far as I'm concerned, you know that I'm in favour of
20 transparency, and I don't see why we would hide anything.
21 However, as far as Witness VS-026, I have something to add, so I
22 would ask Mr. Registrar to please move back into closed session for a
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 16486-16487 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we're back in open
22 session. Do you have anything to add?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
24 I always feel best in this courtroom, and in this courtroom I
25 certainly -- I don't run the risk of sustaining a heart attack. But if I
1 wait for several months for the following hearing, then there is such a
2 danger. Why do we wait so long? And I believe that we will lose time
3 with this witness until May. You will see. And how long is this -- will
4 this be going on?
5 I appeal to you to hurry up and finish this trial while I'm still
6 alive. I suppose that it would be awkward for you, if you couldn't
7 complete this trial, irrespective of the intentions within this Tribunal
8 and outside and who knows which dark forces. I hope that it's in your
9 personal interests to bring this trial to a regular end. But then,
10 again, maybe not. How should I know?
11 Here's what I wanted to say: I hear for the first time today
12 that five alleged diaries of General Ratko Mladic were found two years
13 ago, and the remainder this year, so the first thing I would like to know
14 is whether they were found in the same house belonging to General Mladic.
15 If, two years ago, five diaries were found and the remainder of
16 20-odd - who knows how many there were - where were these diaries two
17 years ago? Is there an explanation for that? If these five volumes were
18 found two years ago, why hasn't the OTP had this retyped for us to be
19 able to use it more easily? And why haven't they been translated into
20 English, if you needed it? Why wait? It seems completely illogical to
21 me that five of Mladic's diaries were found two years ago, and the
22 remaining this year, and it would seem in the same place. How come? Is
23 there some sort of manipulation there? Of course, the regime is involved
24 in this.
25 Now, the question is: Who wrote those Mladic's diaries, and to
1 what end, and how much time was required for an officer to be found who
2 is capable of imitating Mladic's handwriting? There will be many
3 questions that will be raised there.
4 And I have two brief matters to put forward.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead for the two
6 brief matters.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the 14th of October this year,
8 2010, I received a confidential letter from you, an internal memorandum.
9 Your confidential letter is dated 13 October 2009, so I received it after
10 exactly one year, translated into Serbian. And the internal memorandum,
11 from which we see that officials acted in line with your letter, is dated
12 13 November 2009
13 a total of five pages, five pages of material which is extremely
14 important to me, because it shows beyond any doubt that Witness 008
15 provided false testimony. And I received this one year later, because
16 probably the Registry was unable to have it translated sooner.
17 You know when I got angry when you refused to admit this set of
18 documents that referred to the Sarajevo
19 stopped tendering any documents. I never had anything translated,
20 either. I completely unburdened the Translation Service. But they could
21 have translated this much earlier, since it is so important to me, and
22 not have me receive it one year later. I could have used it several
23 times in this trial.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I do not remember
25 this internal memo dated 13th of October, 2009, dating back to over a
1 year. But according to what you say, it took over a year for the
2 translation. I don't understand. The Legal Officer will check tomorrow
3 with the Translation Service.
4 What is the last point that you wanted to raise, please?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in that letter, you raised a
6 few questions in relation to that witness, and then the officials of the
7 Tribunal went to the witness to put these questions to them directly.
8 From the answers, one can see that the testimony was quite false.
9 Perhaps I have reminded you by saying this now.
10 I also want to say something that at first I thought I would not
11 bring up, in the belief that this status conference would last only for
12 an hour and a half, which is customary. However, since it's taken a bit
13 longer, I've changed my mind, and I decided to voice my protest over the
14 decision that you have passed to admit into evidence, without hearing
15 this person again, the statement that this witness gave to the OTP after
16 he had been examined in this courtroom, because the Prosecution was not
17 happy with the effects of the questioning of that witness.
18 I had very little time with this witness; only about half an
19 hour. I disqualified him completely, but very swiftly, and then the
20 Prosecution felt the need to talk to him afterwards again so that the
21 witness could deny some of the things that were quite clear here in the
22 courtroom. And then the Prosecution addressed you with this motion to
23 admit into evidence this subsequent statement.
24 May I remind you that I sent you a statement of a man that this
25 witness had falsely referred to with relation -- with regard to certain
1 matters. That did not go into evidence. It was verified. As for the
2 statement that the Prosecution provided to you, we're supposed to take
3 their word for it that that is authentic. You neglected what I had
4 offered to you, and you admitted into evidence this statement that the
5 Prosecution did.
6 Theoretically, there's another thing that's possible. Eighty
7 witnesses were heard in this courtroom. The OTP suffered a fiasco in
8 each and every one of these cases.
9 MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues]... Dr. Seselj. I'm
10 just trying to ascertain whether or not you're talking about two
11 different witnesses or one.
12 The letter, I believe, addressed VS-008, but I believe he's now
13 talking about 1033. So I'm not sure if we're talking about the same
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, you understood it
16 properly, Ms. Biersay.
17 MS. BIERSAY: We have not tendered any subsequent statements from
18 VS-008, so that's the source of my confusion.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's no reason for you to be
20 confused. It's this other witness that I'm talking about. We've
21 finished dealing with the 008 a long time ago.
22 I am presenting all of this very nicely, but perhaps you have not
23 been following me in a focused manner. Perhaps you have a bit of a lack
24 of oxygen too.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I was also
1 wondering what other witness you were mentioning. But if I understand
2 correctly, it's Witness 1033. We all agree; right?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that's his code, the one
4 who came from that faraway country to testify here, if you remember. I
5 cannot mention his name, and there is no reason for me to do so.
6 In the beginning of the trial, we had this problem when the OTP
7 asked for Judge Harhoff to be recused. I hope that you will now
8 understand who I am referring to. So we had this mess with the OTP at
9 the very beginning of these proceedings with regard to this matter, and
10 ultimately it proved to be totally unnecessary.
11 Now, theoretically, it is possible, because the Prosecution
12 suffered a fiasco with regard to each and every one of these 80
13 witnesses, that they could talk to all of them yet again, take new
14 statements from them in which they would deny everything that they said
15 during cross-examination, that they will ask you to subsequently to
16 subsequently admit this into evidence, according to this very same
17 principle on the basis of which you admitted this one statement into
19 That is the protest that I wanted to voice to the Trial Chamber.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is all in the
22 But I, unfortunately, do not have before me the decision
23 admitting the statement made by -- to the Prosecutor after the hearing.
24 Whatever the case may be, the probative value of a statement under oath
25 is always more important than a statement made without any oath. This is
1 a rule. Therefore, when we will have our deliberations, when we weigh
2 all the various aspects, we will look into this.
3 So I don't remember exactly why we admitted this statement that
4 was made after the testimony. There is probably a reason for that, but I
5 don't have it at hand. Whatever the case may be, as I was saying,
6 anything said under oath will be more important, unless we are talking
7 about a false testimony. So I cannot imagine that, under oath, someone
8 would say something, and after they would say to the Prosecutor the
9 opposite, which would then expose them to a prosecution because of a
10 false testimony, so this is something that would be very strange to
12 I do not have those statements before me here. I do not remember
13 exactly why we admitted this subsequent statement. But during the
14 deliberation, we will give different weight as to what has been made
15 under oath and what has been made without an oath. But I will look at
16 what you say, because your case has been going on for several years and a
17 lot of motions, a lot of decisions, have been issued, and we can
18 potentially lose track. And sometimes the parties are here to refresh
19 our memory when those memories need to be refreshed.
20 So there we go.
21 I believe, Mr. Seselj, that you had concluded. Apparently not.
22 Go on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, let me just add one thing,
24 Mr. President.
25 In these proceedings, indeed, there were many witnesses who
1 undeniably perjured themselves, and no contempt proceedings were
2 initiated. One even brought a lawyer here when the OTP established that
3 part of the testimony provided was false, and then that lawyer was
4 supposed to defend that witness from my possible examination going in
5 that direction. Just remember that. And remember those two other
6 witnesses, 008 and another one, that the OTP gave up on themselves
7 because they realised the testimony provided had been unreliable. Then
8 remember the witness who moved the rally of the Serb Radical Party in
9 Mali Zvornik two years ahead and misrepresented the speeches made at that
10 rally, and all of these speeches were published in "Velika Srbija."
11 Remember all the things that happened here; the man who wanted to kill
12 his wife with an axe, and the one who wanted to throw a hand-grenade on
13 the mosque in Belgrade
14 one who ran across fields in order to participate in the execution of
15 detainees in Ovcara, and then he was a protected witness in Belgrade
16 he sent other people to prison. We've had all sorts of things here,
17 haven't we?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I remember everything, because
19 you know that I devote my entire life to reading all those documents.
20 And as you said, I wish, like everybody else, for this trial to be
21 brought to an end as soon as possible, but we need all the procedural
22 matters to be concluded. And before the 98 bis order hearing, you know
23 that depends on what happens with Witness VS-026, as well as the Mladic
24 diaries, but you said this was a secondary matter.
25 Now, I would like to know whether the Prosecution wishes to say
1 anything more.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
4 Thank you very much to everyone, and this trial stands adjourned.
5 --- Whereupon the Administrative Hearing
6 concluded at 6.11 p.m.