1 Wednesday, 1 December 2010
2 [Administrative Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the
7 case, please.
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 Today is the 1st of December, 2010. I would like to greet all
13 the people present in the courtroom, the representatives of the OTP, the
14 associates amongst other people, Mr. Seselj, as well as all the people
15 assisting us.
16 I have several oral decisions to hand down. I shall start off by
17 reading out seven oral decisions. After that, I will mention the
18 Prosecution's submissions, listing 18 pending motions, according to the
19 Prosecution. And the Prosecution will soon notice that it is important
20 to withdraw some of or most of the submissions, in light of the oral
21 decisions I am about to read out. Some will be read out in open session,
22 others in closed session.
23 These are long orders, and I shall read out the first oral
24 decision relating to the annex to the statement of Zoran Rankic, formerly
1 Noting the motion filed publicly by the Prosecution, filed on the
2 1st of June, 2010, seeking that the Trial Chamber admit, based on
3 Rule 89(C), some documents that were used in the prior statements of
4 Witnesses Aleksandar Stefanovic, Ljubisa Petkovic, Zoran Rankic, VS-034,
5 and VS-037, on account of the fact that these documents were commented
6 upon by the above witnesses in their prior statements, arguing,
7 therefore, that they are an integral and inseparable part of the said
8 statements; noting the oral ruling made in open session on the
9 14th of June, 2010, by which the Trial Chamber ruled on motions
10 concerning witnesses Aleksandar Stefanovic, Ljubisa Petkovic, and VS-034,
11 and stayed a decision on motions regarding witnesses Zoran Rankic and
12 VS-037; noting the oral ruling made in open session on the
13 21st of September, 2010, in which the Trial Chamber admitted several
14 prior statements by Zoran Rankic, pursuant to Rule 89(C); considering
15 that the Trial Chamber is of the view that the documents commented upon
16 by witnesses in their prior statements are part and parcel of the witness
17 statements and that they are an integral and inseparable part of the said
18 statements; considering, however, that the Trial Chamber observes that
19 the documents mentioned in the motion bearing the following
20 65 ter numbers, 888, 1549 [Realtime transcript read in error "549"] and
21 2578 -- let me start again with the figures, because I follow what is
22 being said in English and B/C/S. Therefore, I'm going to start again.
23 888, 1549, and 2578 -- that the documents were neither mentioned nor
24 commented upon by Witness Zoran Rankic in his prior statements;
25 considering that the Trial Chamber also observes that the documents
1 mentioned in the motion bearing the following 65 ter numbers, 145, 339,
2 341, 724, 788, and 1800, have already been admitted further to the
3 decision of 14th of June, 2010, through another witness; considering that
4 the Trial Chamber will later rule on the motion concerning
5 Witness VS-037: For the foregoing reasons, partly grants the motion;
6 orders that the following documents be admitted into evidence: The
7 documents used for Zoran Rankic with the following 65 ter numbers, 137,
8 909, 1036, 1445, and 2100; orders the Registry to give an exhibit number
9 to each of the above documents and to register them in e-court as
10 associated exhibits to the prior statements, of which they are part and
11 parcel; stays any decision on the motion concerning Witness VS-037.
12 So much for the first oral decision. I shall now read out the
13 second oral decision. I would like to specify that I mark pauses,
14 because I listen to the translation in B/C/S, to enable Mr. Seselj to
15 follow our decision in his own language. As far as the Prosecution is
16 concerned, it should not be a problem for them, since everything is
17 recorded on the transcript.
18 Oral decision relating to the Prosecution's written statement
19 publicly filed on the 15th of November, 2010, seeking the reconsideration
20 of the decision dated the 11th of October, 2010, relating to the
21 admission of documents presented through Witness Nenad Jovic.
22 Seized of the written motion of the Prosecution filed publicly on
23 the 15th of November, 2010, seeking the reconsideration of the Chamber's
24 decision filed publicly on the 11th of October, 2010, and relating to the
25 admission of documents presented through Witness Nenad Jovic, the request
1 for reconsideration relating to two prior statements of the witness
2 bearing 65 [as interpreted] numbers 7329 and 7554 respectively; noting
3 the case law of the Tribunal whereby a Trial Chamber has the intrinsic
4 power to review its own decisions if the reasoning of the decision in
5 question clearly contains an error or that particular circumstances
6 potentially constituting new facts warrant a review to avoid an
7 injustice; noting Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of
8 the Tribunal whereby the Trial Chamber may admit any new relevant
9 evidence likely to have a probative value; considering that the
10 Prosecution stipulates in support of its request that document --
11 65 ter documents 7329 and 7544 [Realtime transcript read in error "7554"]
12 are relevant and that it is in the interests of justice to tender them
13 into evidence, inter alia, to enable the Trial Chamber to assess the
14 credibility of Nenad Jovic's testimony, as well as its prior statement
15 tendered into evidence under number P1077 -- before I continue, I would
16 like to make a correction.
17 There is a mistake on line 24 regarding the figure "7554." It
18 should read "7544."
19 THE INTERPRETER: "7544," says the interpreter.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] "7544," it should read. This
21 figure was mistakenly recorded on line 8.
22 Let me continue.
23 Considering that at the hearing of 7th of July, 2010, the
24 Prosecution seeked [as interpreted] to have 65 ter document 7544 admitted
25 into evidence, stating on several occasions that it was a non-signed
1 version of a witness statement made in 2003, bearing 65 ter number 7327;
2 considering that in its decision of 11th of October, 2010, the
3 Trial Chamber dismissed this application, having noted that
4 65 ter document 7544 was not signed by the witness and that the 65 ter
5 document 7544 and 7327 were, in fact, two different documents, document
6 65 ter 7327 contained, inter alia, a map which was not included in
7 65 ter document 7544; considering that in support of its motion, the
8 Prosecution admits that these are, in effect, two different documents,
9 but bases its request on the evidence of document -- 65 ter document
10 7544, clearly demonstrates the involvement of Nenad Jovic in the
11 completion of his statement; considering that in its decision of the
12 11th of October, 2010, the Trial Chamber had also dismissed the tendering
13 into evidence of the statement made by the witness in 2005 and bearing
14 65 ter number 7329, having noted that this statement was neither signed
15 by the witness, nor relevant in this case; considering that in support of
16 its motion, the Prosecution indicates that 65 ter document 7329
17 demonstrates that the witness contacted the Prosecution after the
18 statements it made in 2003; considering that the Trial Chamber notes,
19 however, that 65 ter document 7329 does not testify to the fact that the
20 witness is the cause of the contacts with the Prosecution after its
21 statements of 2003; considering, moreover, that the Prosecution states
22 that even in the absence of the witness's signature, 65 ter documents
23 7329 and 7544 are sufficiently reliable and can be tendered into
24 evidence, for the purpose of tendering these documents is not to
25 demonstrate that the witness has testified about the truthfulness of
1 these documents; considering that the Prosecution holds in its motion
2 that it is, therefore, enough for 65 ter documents 7329 and 7544 to exist
3 as Prosecution documents; considering that the Trial Chamber holds that
4 in support of its motion, the Prosecution does not mention any
5 clear errors or new facts that would substantiate the reconsideration of
6 its decision of the 11th of October, 2010: For the foregoing reasons,
7 dismisses the motion.
8 Third oral decision.
9 Oral decision on the lifting of the ex parte status of the
10 medical reports of the accused mentioned in the Trial Chamber's order of
11 19th of October, 2010.
12 Noting the motion presented orally by the OTP at the public
13 hearing of 2nd of November, 2010, to disclose all the medical reports
14 relating to the health of the accused and relating to, let me quote, "the
15 order to carry out a new expert medical examination of Vojislav Seselj"
16 filed publicly on 19th of October, 2010; considering that at the hearing,
17 the accused did not object to the disclosure to the Prosecution of all
18 the documents relating to his health; considering that the Trial Chamber
19 holds that in the absence of any objection on the part of the accused,
20 the expert reports mentioned in the order of the 19th of October, 2010
21 may be disclosed to the Prosecution in order to guarantee fairness of
22 trial and respect for the rights of the parties: For the foregoing
23 reasons, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
24 grants the motion; orders that the ex parte status of the Registry
25 comments recorded or filed on the 18th [as interpreted] of August, 2010,
1 the 3rd of September, 2010, the 10th of September, 2010, and the 30th of
2 September, 2010, be lifted and that these documents be filed
3 confidentially and handed to the Prosecution in this case.
4 There is a slight error on line 20. It's not the 18th of August,
5 but the 19th of August.
6 This is the third oral decision. I still have four left.
7 The three following rulings are important because they relate to
8 Witness VS-026. As far as the first decision is concerned and the third,
9 these need to be heard in closed session.
10 Registrar, can we move into closed session, please.
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 16504-16507 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
14 In open session, I shall read out the seventh oral decision. And
15 I will, by then, be reading out for just about one hour.
16 Oral decision correcting the oral ruling lifting the
17 confidentiality of the transcript of 1st of April, 2008, the decision
18 having been handed down publicly on the 9th of April, 2008.
19 Considering that when the above-mentioned decision was issued,
20 some line numbers were mentioned erroneously: For the foregoing reasons,
21 orders the Registry to lift the confidentiality of the following parts of
22 the 1st of April, 2008, transcript: French transcript page 5571, from
23 line 17 to line 28; French transcript 5589, from line 12 to French
24 transcript page 5590, line 17.
25 All these were the oral decisions we have handed down today. I
1 hope everybody's attention has remained alert throughout my reading. In
2 the event that everybody's attention has somewhat dissipated, I do invite
3 you to read the transcript, which will provide you with all the oral
4 rulings in English, of course.
5 I'm now turning to the Prosecution and Mr. Seselj. I am going to
6 take stock of the situation, in the Trial Chamber's view, regarding the
7 recent submissions and filings by Mr. Marcussen that have to do with
8 17 allegedly pending motions. I intend to tell you what the state of
9 process is, how the Trial Chamber is processing this, to show you, to
10 prove to you, that we're not lagging behind, there's no back-log; and
11 we'll show that all of these motions will be dealt with in the coming
12 days or weeks. Should it not be the case, we'll work day and night,
13 every night, to get there.
14 Motion number 1. It deals with Witness Milan Babic. The
15 Trial Chamber is due to file a decision by the end of the week. A
16 reminder: This is the oldest motion in time, but it was a very complex
17 one and it gave rise to long deliberations in the Trial Chamber. But
18 finally we found a solution, and the decision will be filed in the very
19 next few hours.
20 Motion number 2. It has to do with the admission of a prior
21 statement by Witness VS-037 and the minutes or transcript of his
22 interview as a suspect. Here, again, a decision will be made shortly, by
23 the end of next week.
24 Motion number 3, on the admission of MFI Exhibits P326, 327, and
25 328. The Trial Chamber will issue a decision before the winter recess,
1 which is to start in three weeks' time.
2 Motion number 4. It deals with the admission of 15 intercepts.
3 Here, too, the Trial Chamber will issue a decision before the winter
5 Motion number 5. It is the second bar table motion. The accused
6 was to reply by the 19th of November, 2010, to the addendum filed by the
7 Prosecution following the motion. The Trial Chamber is to issue a
8 decision before the winter court recess.
9 Well, I'm reading all this openly, in open session, because
10 there's no protected witness mentioned here, and this is just like
11 stock-taking of the situation.
12 Motion number 6. It is connected to Motion 2, because it, too,
13 has to do with Witness VS-037. The Chamber has, in part, already ruled
14 on the motion by way of an oral ruling on 14th of June, 2010. It has now
15 ruled on the part of the motion regarding Zoran Rankic. Therefore, the
16 only decision to be made is on the part of the motion concerning VS-037.
17 The Trial Chamber has, therefore, joined this Motion number 6 to
18 Motion number 2 and will be ruling on this matter by the end of next
20 Motion 7. It has to do with the admission of 16 documents. The
21 Trial Chamber's decision will fall before the winter recess.
22 Motion number 8 relates to the assessment of witness's testimony,
23 Zoran Rankic, formerly VS-037. The Trial Chamber will rule on this by
24 the end of next week, on this issue.
25 Motion number 9, filed on the 16th of June, 2010, confidentially.
1 This has already been addressed in public session. This relates to
2 judgements handed down by the War Crimes Tribunal of the District of
4 23rd of June, 2009, in the case called Damir Sireta, aka Sica. The
5 Prosecution requested the Trial Chamber to specify which portions of the
6 judgement they deemed were relevant. I shall read out the
7 Trial Chamber's position. You should consider that is to be an oral
8 decision. I shall read this out slowly.
9 The Trial Chamber holds that this motion is moot, since it has
10 already given its view on the relevance of the judgement handed down by
12 they're relevant on the merits and may assist the Trial Chamber in
13 assessing the credibility of Witnesses VS-016 and VS-065.
14 Motion number 10 relates to Witness VS-026. On this specific
15 motion, the Trial Chamber will rule before the winter recess.
16 Motion number 11, filed on 29th of June, 2010. This is an
17 objection raised by the Prosecution to the admission of the
18 aforementioned Belgrade
19 documents obtained ex parte by both parties. This motion is tied into
20 Motion number 9. I shall, therefore, hand down an oral decision relating
21 to Motion number 11. Let me read it out.
22 The Trial Chamber has recorded this objection and has
23 acknowledged that, as far as this case is concerned, it can only base its
24 decision on the evidence that has been tendered into evidence, and
25 nothing else. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber will not tender into
1 evidence judgements which are not final. The Trial Chamber holds,
2 consequently, that this motion is now moot.
3 Motion number 12 aims at providing arguments for Motion number 8
4 regarding the assessment of credibility of Witness Zoran Rankic, formerly
5 VS-017. The Trial Chamber has joined this motion with Motion number 8
6 and will rule on this issue by next week.
7 Motion number 13. This is an addendum to Motion number 1
8 relating to Witness Babic. The Trial Chamber joined this motion to
9 Motion number 1 and will rule on this issue by the end of next week.
10 Motion number 14. This is an addendum to Motion number 8,
11 relating to the assessment of credibility of Witness Zoran Rankic,
12 formerly VS-017. The Trial Chamber joined this motion to Motion number 8
13 and will rule on this issue by the end of next week.
14 Motion number 15 relates to the application by the Prosecution
15 for a disclosure of a letter exchanged between the President of the
16 Trial Chamber and the President of the Tribunal. At the last
17 Administrative Hearing, I mentioned that this motion was the subject of
18 deliberations conducted by the Trial Chamber, that this had been
19 dismissed, and that a written reasoned decision will be handed down soon.
20 Motion number 16 relates to Witness Nenad Jovic. A while ago,
21 the Trial Chamber has handed down an oral decision on this motion.
22 Motion number 17 relates to the Mladic diaries. The
23 Trial Chamber will hand down its decision before the winter recess.
24 Motion number 18. For your information, this relates to five
25 witnesses, and a decision will be handed down before the winter recess.
1 Mr. Marcussen, this is to let you know that the table you have
2 provided contain a number of motions which will be joined to other
3 motions. Some motions have already been the subject of a decision handed
4 down earlier today. The Trial Chamber will rule on the motions before
5 the winter recess, so in three weeks' time, and all the decisions will
6 have been taken by then, which means that on the 16th or 17th of December
7 there should be no pending motion left, and I would like to stress "no
8 motion left," which means that I can tell both parties, the Prosecution
9 and Mr. Seselj, that as far as the 98 bis proceedings is concerned, we
10 only have one hurdle left, and this is on a personal note. My colleagues
11 may not agree with me on this. The hurdle is the following:
12 As you know, the Trial Chamber ordered an expertise given to an
13 expert so that this person may review Mladic's notebooks. He has been
14 asked to provide his report within two months. We are now in the month
15 of November -- let's say November, December. If all goes well, the
16 expert should give us his report in the month of January, after the
17 winter recess. If the expert is able to work quickly, and I'm sure he
18 will, once his report has been filed, it will have to be translated in
19 Mr. Seselj's language so that, if need be, Mr. Seselj is provided the
20 opportunity to make observations, and we can then, in light of the
21 report, start our 98 bis hearings. But given the time-limits, this will
22 not commence before the months of February or March.
23 Experience has demonstrated that when we are faced with very
24 technical expert reports, the experts tend to ask for extra time. I
25 don't know whether this expert is going to be asking for extra time or
1 not. Whatever the case may be, everyone is well aware of the fact that,
2 for the moment, we are dependent on this expert report. And as one says
3 in French, you can't jump the gun.
4 If we were to go faster in order to consider Mr. Seselj's
5 detention, who is remanded in custody now for the last eight years, I had
6 asked the Registry to provide for two days' hearing in January to hear
7 the 98 bis proceedings, on 18th and 19th of January, but I will not -- we
8 will not be able to keep to that schedule because we are awaiting the
9 expert report.
10 On a personal note: I looked into the various possibilities to
11 see how we could move faster and how we could hold our hearings in the
12 future. From a legal standpoint, I don't see any other possibility,
13 pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules and relating to the powers of the
14 Trial Chamber. We are definitely dependent on this expert report.
15 However, if the Prosecution wanted to speed things up, and that would be
16 the Prosecution's wish and not the Trial Chamber's, the Prosecution could
17 withdraw its motion, the Mladic notebooks motion. The Prosecution may do
18 that. And if the Prosecution withdraws its motion, then there are no
19 more problems. But that is something that needs to be dealt with by the
21 I believe I read in the press a while ago that Mr. Brammertz was
22 going to Moscow
23 the proceedings of this Tribunal relating to lengths of trials, and in
24 this article nothing was said about this particular case, and it is
25 surprising that this case was not mentioned. And if some people are
1 surprised by the length of this trial, this has to do largely with the
2 Rules of Procedure, and the Trial Chamber is not responsible for these
3 Rules of Procedure. The Trial Chamber has competence when it is seized
4 of motions filed by the parties. Obviously, in the absence of motions,
5 things would move on faster. Therefore, I would like to tell the parties
6 that it is important to take this on board when filing motions. The
7 Statute of this Tribunal clearly states that expediency is an important
8 factor. We are dependent on the expert report, and so long as this
9 report is not provided to us, we cannot provide a scheduling order. I'm
10 sure you have all understood this.
11 The Trial Chamber has handed out -- will have handed out all its
12 decisions by the winter recess, and there will only be one hurdle left as
13 regards the 98 bis hearing, which are the Mladic notebooks.
14 Let me now move on to an important topic, which is Mr. Seselj's
15 state of health. This is something we address in public session, since
16 Mr. Seselj has always wanted this issue to be raised in open session.
17 Mr. Seselj, the Judges have been informed by the Registry of the
18 findings of a blood test which was made after you discussed the matter
19 and after you discussed a potential blood poisoning. The blood tests
20 were made, and from memory, let me quote, 2.000 substances were checked
21 that could potentially have poisoned you. The expert has found nothing,
22 nothing whatsoever. The expert only found traces of the medicine you are
23 taking, since when you take medicine, there is always a biological trace
24 of it. This has been found, but nothing else has been found. So the
25 conclusion is -- speaks for itself. There has been no poisoning.
1 Second point. We are concerned about your health. We know that
2 you have undergone a surgical intervention recently. This had to do with
3 your arrhythmia, which is your condition. We have received a medical
4 report which seems to indicate that the surgical intervention was a
5 success. This is what is stated black and white. And there's just
6 something which you have to keep an eye on, which is a lack of potash.
7 This is what we have been told. I am happy about this good piece of
8 news, and I would be happier still when we have the official report of
9 the three international experts we appointed in our previous decision and
10 which the Registry is seeking to provide us with. Once these three
11 medical experts confirm that you are fine, I hope that your close
12 associate Boris Aleksic will no longer send us alarming letters on your
13 state of health.
14 This is how things stand from a medical point of view, in light
15 of all the information provided by the Registry and by the document which
16 provided all the information thereto. So there is no need to worry in
17 the near future. So much, Mr. Seselj, about this matter.
18 I shall give you the floor so that you can address some of these
19 issues, and then I will give the floor to Mr. Marcussen, who may have
20 other topics to raise.
21 We started at 2.30. We have been sitting for approximately an
22 hour and a half. It would be better to have a break now and resume in
23 20 minutes' time.
24 We shall have a 20-minute break now and resume in 20 minutes'
1 --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is back in session.
4 Mr. Seselj, you may proceed.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have two questions that I
6 have prepared, and I would speak about my medical condition only after
7 that, because I think that these two questions are far more important
8 than the state of my health.
9 I have received an order of the Trial Chamber making it incumbent
10 upon both sides to inform you two days in advance about topics that would
11 be raised at Status Conferences, as they were called earlier on;
12 Administrative Hearings, as they are called now. However, it was only
13 yesterday and today that I was informed about these questions that I'm
14 going to raise now, so there was no opportunity for me to tell you about
15 that in advance. A few words about the decisions that Judge Antonetti
16 presented and the information he gave. Actually, only two observations.
17 You called upon me to provide the amicus curiae with certain
18 statements that were given to my team by certain witnesses who are former
19 Prosecution witnesses who later became Defence witnesses. However, I
20 haven't been informed yet, Mr. President, as to who this appointed
21 amicus curiae is. Of course, in a civilised society, in a normal court,
22 it would go without saying that an amicus curiae would be a person who
23 would be extremely impartial. I have to know his name, his
24 qualifications, and, most importantly, I have to know which country he
25 comes from.
1 If, for example, it would happen again that a Slovene would
2 appear, then I and my associates, and I'm convinced these witnesses, too,
3 will not agree to talk to him. You had that kind of a situation a few
4 years ago, and that is when this amicus curiae expertise went down the
6 Why does Mr. Marcussen have to get up and obstruct my remarks in
7 this way every time?
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: I do apologise to the accused, and I would have
9 preferred not to be on my feet, but I think that it would be best if the
10 portion of the hearing be stricken from the public record where the
11 accused talked about the potential need not to corroborate with the
12 investigation and sending signals to witnesses that they should maybe not
13 co-operate with the amicus curiae investigator if the accused does not
14 agree with whoever has been assigned. I don't believe there's a
15 Slovenian problem this time, but, nonetheless, these sort of signals
16 should not be sent out in public. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Marcussen. Let's go
18 back a little. You may remember this, maybe not, but I remember this
19 very vividly.
20 Admittedly, in previous complaints, the Trial Chamber had asked
21 that an amicus curiae be appointed. As you know, this -- the
22 Trial Chamber is not the one selecting the amicus curiae; he or she is
23 appointed by the Registrar, who has a list, and somebody is picked from
24 that list.
25 It is true that in the previous instance, in the previous case,
1 the person appointed happened to be a Slovene. It is true that when that
2 person sought to meet with Mr. Seselj, he did not want to. When the
3 Trial Chamber was informed of the fact that the amicus curiae was
4 Slovene, first, as with anybody, I wondered why this person was a Slovene
5 and not somebody else, but the truth of the matter is that the Registrar
6 did not have much of a choice. Indeed, it had to be somebody with
7 skills, investigating skills, and it so happened that this lady was a
8 magistrate in her country and was used to investigating. Eventually, my
9 two fellow Judges and I, we thought that in spite of the issue of the
10 amicus curiae's nationality, what we were after was after somebody who
11 was extremely competent. She did her job, and then Mr. Seselj did not
12 want to meet with her. But that was Mr. Seselj's problem, unfortunately
14 So I'm somewhat surprised, Mr. Seselj, that you do not yet know
15 the name of the amicus curiae. I read a memo by the Registrar saying
16 that you were to meet with the amicus curiae very shortly. So I don't
17 know -- I don't know why you were not told of the name of this
18 amicus curiae.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not even a memo was sent,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please ask the Registrar to
22 receive all the information. I'm not going to state the name now,
23 because it may be that the amicus curiae first asked for their identity
24 not to be disclosed, because the information is confidential so far, and
25 it is ex parte too; in other words, neither you nor the Prosecution know
1 who that person is.
2 Is this so, Mr. Marcussen, or do you know the identity of that
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: I am aware of who the person is, yes.
5 But, Your Honour, I was on my feet -- I think we can be more
6 precise now. I would request the redaction of page 21, lines 17 to 21.
7 This simply is -- I propose that we need to redact what could be
8 perceived as a potential interference with the investigation by
9 communicating to people that they should perhaps refrain from speaking to
10 the amicus. That was my point. It wasn't going back into the history of
11 the previous --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is amazing impudence.
15 It is a first-rate scandal, that the Prosecution knows the name of the
16 amicus and I do not. You see that here there are seven persons sitting
17 on the Prosecution bench, and on the Defence side it is only myself and
18 the court guard, so it is 7 to 2. They have all the information in
19 advance, and we do not get any at all. I think that this impudence
20 should be brought to an end.
21 If you truly approve of this request made by the Prosecutor to
22 redact the transcript, at that very same instant I'm going to withdraw
23 all my favourable remarks about what you were doing. From then onwards,
24 my assessments of your work are really going to be the most -- the worst
25 ones possible, if you really respond to this brazen attempt.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm going to ask my
2 colleagues' view, regardless of the fact whether the remarks were
3 favourable or you viewed them as favourable are not. Our concern is
4 different. I'm going to discuss this with my colleagues.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After deliberating, the
7 Trial Chamber is of the view that there's no need to redact anything.
8 Everything that has been said either way is known to the public; namely,
9 A, that an amicus curiae has been appointed; B, it is publicly known that
10 in a previous case the accused would not collaborate with the
11 amicus curiae. So all this is public. There's no need for a redaction.
12 Please continue, Mr. Seselj.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judges.
14 The second question that you raised, Mr. President, was the
15 question of stating our views on 98 bis and the obstacles that we
16 encounter. I think that these obstacles are artificial ones erected by
17 the OTP and that that is a kind of abuse of process yet again, because
18 the Prosecution is trying to gain time throughout. If we're talking
19 about February and March now, I'm sure that nothing will happen before
21 However, I would like to draw your attention to something really
22 interesting that happened in the international public:
23 The Wikileaks internet web site published a new series of 250.000
24 secret documents of the American Diplomatic Service, and in this set of
25 documents there are several hundred documents that pertain to The Hague
1 Tribunal; correspondence of the American ambassador in The Hague, the
2 American ambassador in Belgrade
3 there are going to be a significant number of documents there that will
4 give direct testament to the ways in which the American government
5 interfered in the work of this Tribunal. Once all of this becomes
6 accessible to the public, it is possible that this Tribunal will crumble
7 like a tower made of cards and there will be no need for us to meet and
8 there will be no possibility for us to meet in April or whenever. That
9 is in God's hands.
10 The first question --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're now speaking
12 of Wikileaks that allegedly has published documents. I did look up the
13 web site, like anybody else, and I failed to find what you have just
14 mentioned. You speak of hundreds of documents related to the Tribunal.
15 How do you know that? Were you told, or are you sort of anticipating
16 that? Because I couldn't find anything.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you could not have
18 found anything anyway because Wikileaks is now besieged by US
19 intelligence hackers and you cannot find anything there. However, the
20 owner of the web site was clever enough to have provided material to
21 certain newspapers in the world, including "The Guardian," and these
22 copies of documents were provided in good time. So, quite simply, it is
23 going to reach us gradually. But what has been disclosed already is that
24 there are several hundred documents that pertain to The Hague Tribunal,
25 and all of the Serbian press has already written about this. That is
1 easy to be checked.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are now saying that the
3 Serbian press has mentioned this. Very well. But I, personally, am not
4 aware of this.
5 Please continue.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we'll see by April. We'll
7 see by April.
8 The first question that I wish to raise and that you have already
9 mentioned in this list of decisions that you are yet to make - I think it
10 was number 17, but I'm not sure, it is a public document, and that is the
11 request dated the 22nd of October, 2010, in relation to the Mladic
12 diaries. That is a Prosecution motion of the 19th of November, 2010
13 received it last night. You see how big this material is.
14 Since arrhythmia troubled me throughout the night, I could not
15 sleep, and therefore I had an opportunity to look through all of this. I
16 skimmed through most of it, and I skipped some parts because the subjects
17 were not interesting, but I did manage to leaf through all of it. I did
18 come to some interesting conclusions that support my old thesis that the
19 Prosecution is obstructing these proceedings in a variety of ways.
20 Right now, the Prosecution proposed to have a new witness heard.
21 Who is that? A man who works for the OTP, who works on the OTP team, who
22 will now explain some things to you, I gather.
23 Tomasz Blaszczyk or Blaszczyk, whatever his name may be. It may be a
24 Czech or a Slovak; it doesn't matter. And now he is supposed to explain
25 to you --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is he Polish?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he may be a Pole as well,
3 yes. And now he is supposed to explain to you how the Prosecution
4 behaved in relation to this question. And then they provided to you this
5 vast amount of material. I assume that you have received the same
6 material that I've received. These are police documents from Serbia
7 Because the Serbian police thoroughly checked all these documents,
8 described them. As a matter of fact, they even gave some comments. Once
9 they checked, reviewed, grouped some of these things, probably added some
10 things, took away others, all of this was submitted to the Prosecution,
11 and the Prosecution submitted all of this to you. And I don't mind that
12 they submitted it to you, but they submitted it to me as well. Now, all
13 of this should be admitted into evidence. Instead of having Ratko Mladic
14 alive - he is free in the mountains of Serbia, and nobody is ever going
15 to catch him, because it is the soul of the Serbian people that is
16 protecting him - they are proffering to us these writings.
17 I have not spent this sleepless night in vein. I found some
18 interesting things here.
19 For example, on page 13 of this long description of the documents
20 found - 0557-3397; that's the ERN of the Prosecution - it says that a
21 document was also found of the chief of General Staff of the Army of
23 National Defence Council a conclusion was reached to start proceedings
24 against persons who committed crimes in Srebrenica. The date is the
25 20th of March, 1996. The Prosecution delivered this to me by mistake,
1 whereas poor General Momcilo Perisic has not received this document yet.
2 As far as his trial is concerned, that is an exculpatory document.
3 No one in Serbia
4 of fact, official organs from Serbia
5 of the crime be prosecuted.
6 You see how Mr. Marcussen is blushing now. I received a paper I
7 was not supposed to receive by mistake.
8 We also know that the State Security Service was also conducting
9 a pre-trial investigation with regard to that crime, and also the
10 proceedings were initiated against one person who was captured,
11 Erdemovic, and so on.
12 While testifying in the Slobodan Milosevic case, I explained all
13 of these details when, as deputy prime minister of Serbia, I tried to
14 find out as many facts about this as possible in order to -- in order not
15 to have Serbia
16 burning with impatience all night in order to tell you this, because I
17 thought that as serious people and good lawyers, you would be interested
18 in this too.
19 Now, the second thing I've been looking for is the following: I
20 was wondering whether there was any mention of my name in this vast
21 material. Imagine, not a single -- not a single record of Ratko Mladic
22 ever meeting with me anywhere or speaking to me on the phone or having
23 any kind of contact. Now, the two of us, who are supposed to be members
24 of the same joint criminal enterprise, we had absolutely no contacts
1 I'm going to disclose a small secret to you: I happened to meet
2 Ratko Mladic twice accidentally, by chance, in Belgrade when he was in
3 civilian clothes. However, I guess that no one ever took out a notebook
4 to write that down.
5 So my name was never mentioned in any one of his diaries, and we
6 have been wasting six months now on whether this should be included in
7 the material of this trial or not.
8 On page 205 of ERN 0557-73505 [as interpreted], a cassette was
9 found, and it has to do with a conversation taking place amongst several
10 persons unknown. They say that they mention Perisic stating that he is
11 deep in shit and so on. Probably Mladic's intelligence people recorded
12 that conversation and submitted it to him, and we don't even know who
13 these people are. And one of these unknown persons says Vuk Draskovic,
14 Seselj, Djindjic, and others have been entrusted by NATO to destroy the
15 Serbian Army. I was entrusted by NATO with the task of destroying the
16 Serbian Army? Imagine how this particular piece of news is going to
17 resound throughout Serbia
18 at this, even my worst enemies. They are going to laugh at the Hague
19 Tribunal, at the Belgrade
20 to treat this as a serious document.
21 Now, what was this actually about? In 1994, Zoran Djindjic,
22 Vojislav Kostunica, and I met up, and we agreed on technical cooperation
23 amongst our political parties in the early elections that were held in a
24 large number of municipalities. First, Draskovic was supposed to join us
25 too, and then he hindered it to a certain extent, and then
1 Milan Mikovic [phoen] was simply thrown out of one of our meetings, at
2 Djindjic's proposal. So that is the only thing that happened. This was
3 this discussion for the early elections, early municipal elections, that
4 were to be held in Serbia
5 won all of the elections involved, until the West suggested to Djindjic
6 to break up this coalition. After that, things moved in a different
7 direction, it so happened. That is something in this material where my
8 name is mentioned.
9 Now there is another cassette described on page 208. 0557-352 is
10 the ERN number. One person is walking, coughing, and talking to another
11 person. Often it cannot be discerned, and often there are swear words
12 being used. We don't know who these persons are. But as the text says,
13 one of these persons mentions Seselj and then quotes me:
14 "You're going to lose Vojvodina, just as you lost Kosovo. We are
15 going to topple the prime minister and the president of the Assembly."
16 It is not a problem to topple the speaker of parliament. It's a
17 bit more difficult to topple the president of the republic, and that is
18 probably what I said, as well as the prime minister.
19 So some persons are mentioning my name, saying that I had warned
20 that we would be losing Vojvodina, in addition to Kosovo, and I was
21 saying what we were supposed to do. Now, this is a document that is
22 supposed to be admitted into evidence.
23 And there is a reference to me in another place. Let me see if I
24 manage to find it. This is page 213, 0557-3597. This is a political
25 speech, most probably, by Vojislav Seselj given in Republika Srpska.
1 This is Disc 44. Some speech. You don't know when. When could it have
2 been? It could have been given in 1996, when I had over 40 election
3 rallies in Republika Srpska, where our party was also featured in the
4 elections and became a parliamentary party and had a large number of
5 deputies. So my speech was recorded, but it was not transcribed on
6 paper, but we have my name here.
7 And then the disc also contains a conversation between a certain
8 Simic and Ratko Mladic, and then they call on the commanders of all
9 garrisons to come to the meeting at Ratko Mladic's in connection with the
10 political situation in Republika Srpska, and all of this testifies that
11 this is a recording of postwar conversations. The military situation is
12 not referred to anywhere; only the political situation.
13 So these are these three places where my name is mentioned. And
14 because of those three places where my name is mentioned, I had to study
15 last night at least 1.000 pages. I didn't even manage to count them, but
16 I looked at all of them thoroughly. And there are no more than three
17 references to my name, no more than three.
18 And the Serbian police searched through everything and described
19 everything. They assisted the OTP. I don't know if it was the task of
20 the Serbian police exclusively to help the OTP, for them to find their
21 way more easily in Mladic's diaries, recordings, diskettes,
22 audio records, or whether they had some different reasons. Well, that is
23 something that will be established one day in the future. But why are we
24 having to plough through these more than 1.000 pages here, for what
1 You, gentlemen, did not want to accept my original documents that
2 had to do with the situation in Sarajevo
3 where certain members of the Serbian Radical Party were who were not sent
4 as volunteers from Belgrade
5 now this is supposed to be admitted. Who is going to read this material?
6 What is it here that could serve as the basis for the grounds of the
7 Prosecution to tender it? I -- there already have been references to
8 all -- references to the Serbian Radical Party, to Seselj, and so-called
9 Seselj's men in the Mladic diaries. That's already been done. So this
10 is an abuse of the process.
11 I am now going to move to a different topic, and I hope I haven't
12 taken up too much of your time.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, you didn't take any of our
14 time. I just wanted to notice this, and then I'll ask something of
15 Mr. Marcussen.
16 There was a first search on the 4th of December, 2008. The
17 domicile of Mr. Mladic's wife was searched, and documents were found and
18 seized. A list of the documents was drawn up in the presence of Mladic's
19 son, Darko. Under numbers 27, 29, and 30 in the list, there is this
20 concerning the Serbian Radical Party: There is an announcement by the
22 announcement by the SRS
23 Third mention, third document, a letter, an official letter, apparently
24 sent by the SRS
25 So overnight you may not have been able to see all this, but I spent
1 hours pouring and ploughing through all these documents, so I just wanted
2 to tell you that there, where the party -- your party is mentioned.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's possible that this document
4 exists, too. But how far is Kupres outside of the indictment, and how
5 far is Kupres from any location referred to in the indictment? Did we
6 have volunteers in Kupres? Did these volunteers fight bravely there?
7 But what does that have to do with the indictment? Is that proof of a
8 joint criminal enterprise, the fact that volunteers of the
9 Serbian Radical Party fought in radical -- in different fronts? I never
10 disputed that. I'm proud of that fight of theirs.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 I have a question for Mr. Marcussen.
13 Madam Usher, would you mind putting this on the overhead
14 projector for everybody to see. It is a technical question for
15 Mr. Marcussen based on the documents, and the Trial Chamber will have to
16 adjudicate this. But to do this usefully, I first need some further
18 Mr. Marcussen, you have attached this photograph to your file.
19 We can see General Mladic and then a soldier sitting next to him, maybe
20 an officer; I don't know. Well, General Mladic is listening.
21 Just shift or move away the -- or -- well, shift it so that we
22 can see General Mladic's notebook.
23 Everybody can see that General Mladic has a notebook in front of
24 him, and he has an open fountain pen which he has put on the notebook and
25 is listening to somebody. We don't know when this happened, and we don't
1 know who he's listening to.
2 However, Mr. Marcussen, to the left of General Mladic, somebody
3 is taking notes. You can see that there is a notebook, which means that
4 when General Mladic would meet with somebody, there would be an officer
5 accompanying him, probably, who would take notes.
6 So, Mr. Marcussen, does the OTP have in their possession this
7 notebook that we can see? And we could then possibly compare its
8 contents with Mladic's notebook.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, to be quite frank, I am a bit
10 surprised that we have this Administrative Hearing becoming an
11 Evidentiary Hearing. If I had been advised in advance of Your Honour's
12 question, I would have been able to give a more informed answer. I think
13 all I can say now is that I will look into this for Your Honour. I have
14 never heard of this notebook that the other military person we can see on
15 the picture is writing in, but I shall have that checked. With a bit of
16 luck, it can be done quickly, but we will see.
17 Now, we do know when this meeting took place, and we do know who
18 the persons who were present at the meeting were. It is a video from --
19 I believe it's the so-called second Hotel Fontana meeting, which is a
20 crucial meeting in the events that occurred in Srebrenica. We know, as
21 we have explained in our motion that we filed recently, and I believe
22 Your Honours have read the transcript of Mr. Blaszczyk in the Karadzic
23 case about this, who were present; and we know that what is in the
24 notebook about the discussions can be heard on the very video that this
25 still is taken from, Your Honour.
1 Now, I don't want to continue with presenting evidentiary
2 arguments here, but I just think it's important that we do make clear
3 that we actually do know a lot about this meeting and the document that
4 we can see, the notebook there. And, as has been explained, that the
5 notebook has very significant resemblance to the actual seized notebook,
6 which is not one of those that we have tendered any excerpts from, but
7 certainly all this material was seized together.
8 Now, I will get back to Your Honour about the notes, the other
9 notes that we can see being taken from the meeting, but certainly the
10 contents of the notebook is corroborated by the very video from which
11 this still has been taken. I believe there's a specific discussion about
12 hospitals, and maybe it's -- I don't remember it's -- whether it's
13 16 operations or 16 pieces of [indiscernible], but there's specific
14 statements being made that can be heard in the video, and those very same
15 issues you can see written down by Mladic in the notebook that we can see
16 on the picture.
17 So that is really the point of what we have submitted earlier on
18 this. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. So we know that
20 this happened at the Hotel Fontana. This is what I wanted to know.
21 Well, you stated that you were surprised by this, so let me
22 remind you that this motion was on Point 10 of your document, was the
23 10th motion. I reviewed all the motions when I prepared for this
24 hearing. I shall retrieve the photograph.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] About this remark by Mr. Marcussen.
2 Judges, Your Honours, imagine an elementary school student called out by
3 his teacher to speak, and he says, I've learned all of that, I know all
4 of that, but I don't know how to tell you that. So this is something
5 that Mr. Marcussen's answer resembles. I know everything, but I don't
6 know how to explain it to you.
7 I have a second question that I would like to touch upon briefly.
8 I got this document today. I will give it to you at the end. I
9 have nothing against a copy being made for the Prosecution. This is half
10 a page. The Prosecution for -- the Prosecutor's Office for Organised
11 Crime in Serbia
13 represents me there, in courts there, relating to various private
14 lawsuits and civil cases, among other people, versus the former
15 prime minister, Nebojsa Covic. So this Prosecutor's office says:
16 "In relation to your request," dated such and such a date, "in
17 order to obtain information that have to do with the legal position of
18 Vojislav Seselj in relation to the writing in the media regarding
19 planning of the killing of president of the SNS, Tomislav Nikolic, we
20 would like to inform you as follows: Vojislav Seselj does not have the
21 status of an accused regarding the above-mentioned matter, so accordingly
22 there are no grounds to suspect him on this matter."
23 So there are no suspicions, and I'm not in the -- I don't have
24 the status of an accused. That is how it is according to the Serbian Law
25 on Criminal Procedure.
1 Then it goes on to say that:
2 "The National Council for Co-operation with the ICTY, in the case
3 against Vojislav Seselj, received a letter from the Presiding Judge in
4 that case requiring the submission of all information regarding the
5 alleged participation of Vojislav Seselj in the planning of the killing
6 of Tomislav Nikolic," following which the National Council addressed this
7 Prosecutor's office for further information.
8 So it means that the National Council received the same
10 I'm not sure, Mr. President, that you also received this
11 particular memo or information, so it is my duty, I feel, that I inform
12 you about that today. It is important to do this not only because of the
13 public, but also because of the proper procedure to be followed in these
14 proceedings, so that we can see what the false indictment that was issued
15 against me last summer boiled down to. And it was the result of a
16 specific goal. What did they want to achieve? For the Tribunal to
17 believe that I really ordered the assassination or killing of Nikolic so
18 that measures may be taken in relation to me here, just like I was
19 subject to a ban on making phone calls, a ban on visits, a ban on making
20 phone calls for seven months, and other things. This was something that
21 they wanted to achieve with this.
22 I have to inform you that I submitted criminal charges against
23 Tomislav Nikolic; not because of this false information, that I ordered
24 his killing, but because of a later statement that he made that earlier,
25 at least two years before, I ordered somebody else's killing, too.
1 Through Aleksandar Vucic, I showed you here in the courtroom, and I
2 provided to the OTP my entire police dossier, four volumes of it, which
3 shows what kind of false accusations I was subject to by the
4 State Security Service. Why? Because they cannot cope with me in a
5 public dialogue, in a verbal duel. They cannot have the upper hand.
6 They cannot top my eloquence and my erudition, so this is the means that
7 they resort to. This is what this slander boils down to. This. Had it
8 not been addressed at somebody else who does not have my stamina, who
9 knows what consequences this would have resulted in, in terms of one's
10 family and so on. But I have fought these kind of things for 30 years
11 now, and I will continue to do so. But perhaps time is needed for some
12 things to be clear.
13 I will submit this document to you at the end of the hearing so
14 that it can be copied for the Trial Chamber and also for the Prosecution.
15 And what you asked me to -- what you asked for, my position in
16 relation to my state of health. First of all, the toxicological
17 analysis, Mr. President.
18 The blood for the toxicological analysis was taken from me
19 recently, perhaps a month ago, and it is correct that all the results
20 were negative. There were no toxins found in my blood. Nothing was
21 found other than medicines that are administered to me in the detention
22 dispensary. And it also states in the findings that I was tested for
23 2.000 substances. This was done more than a year after all the symptoms
24 of my poisoning had disappeared. It was more than a year after my liver
25 recovered of its own accord. I did not receive any medication for my
1 liver. It got better when I removed myself from the source of poisoning,
2 when I realized who was poisoning me. Like I said, I don't have
3 evidence, I don't have proof, I don't have a name and a last name. I am
4 too serious a man in order to do that without proof. But I can assume
5 exactly who did that and on whose orders. Once I removed myself from the
6 source, the liver recovered on its own.
7 You listened to different silly things; that I am fat, that I am
8 overweight. This is totally silly. I'm not overweight. I'm not fat. I
9 bear my weight with pride. My blood results are fine. I never had high
10 cholesterol, triglycerides. I never had high blood sugar, and I never
11 had any problems with my blood vessels. During the surgery itself, the
12 doctor who performed the surgery was surprised. He said that my blood
13 vessels are more -- are in a much better state than is normal for a man
14 of my age. And what use is it for me to speak about over -- about being
15 overweight or about obesity? I mean, this is just pure malicious talk.
16 Perhaps I do have slightly more pounds than is of somebody's
17 taste, but that's none of anybody's business and it's not the cause of my
18 illness. It was not the cause of the impaired functioning of my liver.
19 Once I did take some food which I suspected was poisoned, I gave it to
20 the dispensary or the medical station for analysis, and the doctor there
21 said they are not able to carry out that analysis. And they did not make
22 this analysis in time. When this substance was still there in that
23 sample of food, why did they wait for a year to go by before carrying out
24 the toxicology tests, where the testing was done for 2.000 substances?
25 But it was already too late. The liver recovered, and there were no
1 longer any substances to be found.
2 There is a few more things that I would like to talk about. It
3 wasn't my intention to do that, but since you insisted, I'm going to tell
4 you all that I have about these matters.
5 First of all, the Registry is, once more, lying to you. The
6 Registry submitted a report to you, stating that there were no
7 complications during the surgery at the hospital. The Registrar claims
8 that on the basis of that report, and quite contrary to allegations by
9 the accused, there is no evidence that any complications occurred during
10 the medical intervention. And this -- and none were reported in the
11 report. But the fact that none were stated in the report does not mean
12 that they did not happen.
13 I consulted a number of doctors in Belgrade, and each one of them
14 said that loss of consciousness during this surgery was a complication.
15 Each one of them said that lack of oxygen in the blood during surgery
16 constitutes a complication. What does that mean? It means that
17 Ken Roberts is lying deliberately.
18 You said, Mr. President, that you were informed that the
19 operation was successful. Perhaps that did give rise to your good mood.
20 However, the last sentence of this report states that -- it touches upon
21 complications or difficulties that occurred post-surgery. It says that
22 during the ablation there was atrial fibrillation after that, which was
23 followed by sinus junction and fibrillation. It is considered that
24 fibrillation can be maintained under control with medication, and that
25 after ablation it is not possible to have fluttering. After the surgery,
1 treatment can be administered by amiodarone treatment. Should this fail
2 to produce the desired effect, another ablation in connection with atrial
3 fibrillation can be considered. So there can be no talk of a successful
4 surgery here. To say the very least, it is much too early for any kind
5 of conclusion.
6 I am happy to be able to tell you today that I do feel better
7 after the surgery. The tachycardia has disappeared or it occurs very
8 rarely, but the arrhythmia is still there. When I left the
9 Detention Unit, I extended my hand to the prison doctor. He checked and
10 he said that I still had arrhythmia. As soon as I came to the building,
11 I asked to see the Tribunal doctor. She came. She said that the
12 number -- the heart beat count is regular, but there is arrhythmia
13 present. I do have the proper device which I can use to check my own
14 blood pressure, tachycardia, arrhythmia, and oxygen in the blood, on my
15 own, in my cell, so my wife brought it. So no one can lie to me, as they
16 frequently did in the past.
17 Something else that is very negative happened to me in relation
18 to this report by the Registrar.
19 One day, the nurse brought me a number of statements to sign. I
20 signed a statement that a medical report can be furnished to the
21 Trial Chamber. I approved that the OTP could be informed about that. I
22 also approved that these findings be submitted to the Registry. The
23 fourth consent was that the Registry would be free to inform the public
24 about my state of health. I didn't permit that because I am the one to
25 inform the public, and not the Registry, about this. However, I received
1 this medical report only today, shortly before I left for the Tribunal.
2 It arrived today, perhaps at around 11.00 today, and the Registry
3 informed you several days ago. The Registry even informed the public of
5 And this is an excerpt from a Belgrade newspaper, where it says:
6 "Seselj undergoes successful surgery."
7 And there is the interpretation by the Registrar. A doctor from
9 this is much too early for any assessments, and so on and so forth.
10 And then, in response to Seselj's claims that he still has
11 difficulties, the same as before the surgery, the doctor said that the
12 results of the surgery are still to manifest. When? Since I have -- I
13 have not given my consent for a post-mortem, so I don't know how this
14 will develop. I gave my consent for the medical diagnosis or findings to
15 be issued to all of you, but also to me. I should have been the first
16 person to be informed about the state of my own health, and I am only
17 learning about it today. This is something that has to do with the
18 seriousness of the work of the Registry.
19 Yesterday I received a submission by the Registry, which you
20 received probably as well. The Registry is sending me a report in Dutch.
21 Am I an idiot? No, actually, I am an idiot and I can read Dutch. How
22 come that I can read it in Dutch? I don't know. Perhaps you received a
23 copy in French or in English. I only received a copy in Serbian today,
24 before I left for the Tribunal. Is this proper procedure?
25 Shouldn't the Registry be subject to some kind of punishment or
1 sanction? They need to be told that they have gone too far with their --
2 their work.
3 On the 19th of October, the Trial Chamber issued a new order for
4 a specialist examination. The Registry informed me that I could ask
5 for -- to choose the doctors who are going to examine me.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was looking at the document
7 relating to the hospital. They sent the report on the
8 16th of November, 2010, to the Tribunal's physician; in other words, more
9 than 14 days ago. So this happened two weeks ago. I assume that on
10 receiving the report, the physician met up with you in order to inform
11 you about what the report contained. I don't know whether he has done
12 this or not. The Trial Chamber received this on the 24th of November;
13 i.e., a week ago.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was just informed
15 that I would receive a translation of this report into the Serbian
16 language, and I received it today. Nothing more than that. You see here
17 the date, on the 1st of December. That's when I received it.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The physician's report,
19 in English, forwarded on the 16th of November, it took the
20 Translation Services two weeks to translate this document, and this is
21 why you have it today. As far as all the documents relating to you are
22 concerned, it would be a good idea if the Registry could have this
23 translated quickly.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since you are
25 fairly conversant in English, I believe, and very conversant, you could
1 also sometimes receive some documents in English, like the medical
2 report, and in that case you would have had it straight away. These
3 documents do have to be translated, however.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madame Lattanzi, even if I wanted
5 to receive it in English, no one had offered it to me in English.
6 Everybody knows that I receive -- that I refuse to receive anything in
7 English. This time, however, no one even asked me. Perhaps I do
8 understand a word or two in English. It does happen. But as for a
9 professional medical report, I am not in a position to read that. I know
10 enough Russian to get by as well - I know it better than English - but
11 even in Russian I cannot go into this specialised medical terminology.
12 So I need a translator for that as well.
13 This has to do with an expert report, but it is a report -- or,
14 rather, a profession that is far away from my own. I cannot even read
15 professional legal texts in English. I can read it, but I do not know
16 many terms, and then I would need to use a dictionary. I never brought a
17 dictionary. I never even brought one from Belgrade when I first came
18 here, and I'm never going to do that. I know enough English to make
19 myself understood to guards or perhaps some other members of the prison
20 staff, nothing more than that. I am not going to use English for
21 anything else.
22 And you know what my emotions are vis-à-vis that language. Let
23 me not repeat that, because maybe you're going to take offence again.
24 Believe me, I'd much rather be speaking Italian than English. As a
25 matter of fact, it would be easier for me to learn Italian. However, I
1 never had the need to learn Italian in my life. However, I did study
2 Latin, so I assume that that would be a good basis for learning Italian.
3 Since you have issued an order to establish this commission of
4 physicians, three specialists with an international reputation, I have
5 not been informed as to whether these doctors have actually been
6 appointed. However, I have stated, since the Registry informed me in
7 writing, that irrespective of the doctors that they appoint, I have the
8 right to call doctors of my own choice as well. However, they also
9 showed me the rules on detention, stating that I have to pay for all of
10 that myself. Then I did not go into it, because I don't have the money.
11 The Registry is only prepared to accept doctors from Serbia
12 proposed by the National Council for Co-operation with The Hague
13 Tribunal, and they invariably propose doctors from the
14 Military Medical Academy
15 because it is reasonable to assume that this would be regime doctors, and
16 I do not accept a single doctor from the Military Medical Academy
17 There was also mention of some Russian doctors, perhaps French
18 doctors as well. My friends contacted some very important medical
19 persons in Russia
20 would accept, if the Registry were to appoint them and if they were to
21 cover all of their expenses. Finally, I gave Taipovich [phoen], doctor
22 of medical sciences, head of the Scientific Department of the
23 Russian Cardiology -- the Russian Cardiology Production Complex, then
24 Sergej Nikoliovich Avrev [phoen] --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you may give us the
1 names again, but Mr. Marcussen is on his feet.
2 What did you wish to say, Mr. Marcussen?
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the accused has now been going for
4 the last hour and we are approaching the end of the hearing. I was going
5 to ask how much time I have. We did give notice of a number of issues
6 that we wanted to raise, and I believe there are only 10 minutes left of
7 the hearing.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will have some more time.
9 Mr. Seselj, could you give us --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm dealing with this briefly. I'm
11 about to finish. I just want the transcript to reflect this.
12 I gave this on paper to the Court Deputy, and he can give it to
13 you and to the Prosecutor. However, I just want this to be reflected in
14 the transcript.
15 The second doctor is Sergej Nikoliovich Abdev [phoen], doctor of
16 medical sciences, professor, deputy director of the Scientific Research
17 Institute of Pomology
18 And the third doctor is Andrej Stanislavovic Beljevski [phoen], doctor of
19 medical sciences, professor of university, and the chief pomologist of
21 So if the Registry makes it possible for me to be visited by them
22 and -- so they could examine me and look at the report - I also need to
23 have a translator from Russian - I am prepared to receive doctors from
24 other countries, except for the ones that I have mentioned, and I've
25 explained the reasons. If I cannot meet up with these three
1 world-renowned Russian doctors, in the future I'm going to refuse to see
2 any other medical experts. I'm not going to agree to a new ablation
3 before I consult these three doctors, before they confirm to me that this
4 ablation is necessary. Because although ablation is not considered to be
5 very complicated surgery, it is, nevertheless, risky and quite
6 unpleasant. And, anyway, they have burned the centre for love in my
7 heart, and in this way they may even destroy the centre of hatred that I
8 have, and I'm going to fight for that because that is what keeps me going
9 and keeps me alive.
10 That is what I wanted to say to you today.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One point of clarification.
12 These three Russian physicians, you would like to have all three
13 at once, or would you like just one of the three?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want all three of them to come at
15 once, all together. I want all my medical files to be made accessible to
16 them. I want to be given the opportunity to have a lengthy discussion
17 with them and to give me a translator who will help me with these medical
18 terms, because even in Russian I cannot discuss medical topics and I
19 don't know proper medical terms. I could discuss military or political
20 topics, but not medical ones.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 The accused wished the trial to finish. So wants the
25 Prosecution. If we weren't discussing other cases, like the Perisic
1 case, Wikileaks, and other things like that, we could certainly get
2 things done quicker.
3 Your Honours, the Prosecution wishes this trial to be completed
4 as possible and would like to move to the 98 bis phase as quickly as we
5 can, without prejudicing any parts of the proceedings.
6 The Prosecution has the right --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then only Mladic's diaries.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let him be. He may have some
9 good news for you.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: The Prosecution files motions that are necessary
11 for the presentation of evidence in the case. It is being implied that
12 the Prosecution is filing motions to somehow obstruct the proceedings.
13 That is certainly not the case, Your Honours. The Prosecution have
14 rights to present evidence and to be heard in the case. We have only
15 filed motions to those ends.
16 The last Evidentiary Hearing was in July this year. The case has
17 been in a pause since then. Your Honours have issued an order for a
18 medical examination, and Your Honours gave the medical experts an
19 extension of time to file their reports on the 15th of January. So the
20 trial cannot proceed until then. That is not something that has to do
21 with the Prosecution.
22 Moreover, it is the Trial Chamber, and not the Prosecution, who
23 have designated a handwriting expert in this case. The Trial Chamber
24 found that the Mladic diaries were relevant, did not dismiss the
25 Prosecution's motion for admission of the diaries, but decided that a
1 handwriting expert should be assigned. That is the Trial Chamber's
2 decision; it is not the Prosecution's decision. And I take strong the
3 issue with the fact that that is now being imputed to the Prosecution as
4 some sort of delaying tactic which really just could be overcome by the
5 Prosecution withdrawing the motion.
6 Moreover, the Trial Chamber granted an extension of time for the
7 expert to file his report. He was initially given 30 days; he was then
8 given 30 extra days. We disclosed to -- we provided the
9 medical expert [sic], as quickly as we could, material for his
10 examination. I believe he got it in the middle of October, which will
11 enable him to finish his report in the middle of January.
12 And I apologise, I said "medical experts." That should have been
13 "handwriting expert."
14 The fact of the matter is that we still are waiting for a
15 decision on about 250 exhibits and whether or not they can be admitted.
16 I understand they will now be --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, there may have
18 been a slight mistake. You mentioned 30 days, but the Trial Chamber
19 granted 60 days. It did grant 60 days because the expert asked for a
20 time extension. Yes, so it is upon request by the expert. It was not
21 the Trial Chamber that decided, because otherwise, failing that time, the
22 expert could not do his work.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour, the initial dead-line was
24 mid-December, and the expert asked for more time, and he was given more
25 time. My point is: This has -- this whole process has been set in
1 motion not by the Prosecution, but by the Trial Chamber. And to suggest
2 that it is now us who are causing the delay, I take issue with.
3 We filed a motion showing that the Trial Chamber's decision on
4 the Mladic diaries and their admission is based on an error in the
5 understanding of what material General Milovanovic looked at, and
6 provided the additional thousand or so pages that the accused talked
7 about to provide the Chamber with the material that it considered to be
8 missing in order for it to be able to fully assess the reliability of the
9 material. And, therefore, we sought reconsideration. That would be a
10 way of speeding up the proceedings, I would respectfully suggest.
11 Your Honours, the oldest of the motions relating to evidentiary
12 issues that you will rule on shortly, I understand, is from the
13 9th of April, 2009.
14 Now, a lot of what has been said today, I don't want there to be
15 any misunderstandings about what happens if the Prosecution find it
16 necessary to take other steps after Your Honours rule on decisions --
17 sorry, rule on the motions that are pending. But, for example,
18 Milan Babic provides important evidence about the JCE in the case. The
19 same could be said for -- or could not -- is the case for VS-037, who
20 provides important evidence not only in relation to the Seselj crime
21 base, but also in relation to the existence and implementation of the JCE
22 in the case.
23 Now, there are some issues in relation to his evidence. His
24 evidence is also partly corroborated by VS-0 32. However, the
25 Trial Chamber seems to have doubt about the veracity of the statements
1 provided by VS-032, because he's now subject of the investigation that
2 the Trial Chamber ordered on the 29th of June.
3 So all this leads the Prosecution in the position where it may
4 seek -- may have to seek to tender other evidence to replace evidence
5 which might not be admitted from these and other witnesses and also from
6 some of the evidence that has been tendered with the bar table motions
7 that we have filed. So that might happen. There might also be other
8 evidentiary or appellate issues that have to be dealt with.
9 On the 29th of June this year, the Prosecution objected to the
10 Trial Chamber consulting and obtaining material ex parte. I would note
11 that in addition to the examples given in the motion, it seems that the
12 Trial Chamber may have obtained and have had translated a judgement from
13 the Belgrade -- one of the Belgrade courts in relation to events in
14 Zvornik. Reference was made to such a judgement on the 13th of January
15 this year, transcript page 15012, where the Presiding Judge said:
16 "The Chamber has been appreciated of a judgement made in
17 Belgrade. I think this judgement is still being translated. As soon as
18 it is translated, the Chamber will peruse it with great attention."
19 Moreover, we've just learned from the accused that the
20 Trial Chamber has written the National Council of Co-operation, although
21 it is probably on a matter which is peripheral to the actual trial; and
22 in his separate opinion appended to the Trial Chamber's decision on the
23 admissibility of the Mladic diaries, the Presiding Judge made extensive
24 references to material which is not on record in this case.
25 The Prosecution considers that it has the right to obtain all
1 material that the Trial Chamber consults and obtain, and so has the
2 accused. Parties should obtain this material so we can assess what
3 material the Trial Chamber looks at and we can make submissions on its
4 relevance to the case or not, and that is why we have asked for the
5 disclosure of all material that the Trial Chamber has consulted or
6 obtained ex parte, or requests for evidence that it has made, all
7 material that it has received in response to such requests, and have
8 asked that the Trial Chamber inform the parties of the intended use of
9 the sought material.
10 We also request that the Trial Chamber inform the parties of the
11 issues and the evidence in the case to which the Trial Chamber consider
12 the material to be relevant. The parties, as I've said, have a right to
13 this material so they can exercise their right to be heard, and all the
14 other fair trial rights.
15 We respectfully request the Trial Chamber to urgently rule on
16 these matters so that any appellate issues that may arise from the
17 decision can be settled without causing further delays and for the
18 parties to assess the impact of the disclosed evidence to decide whether
19 or not either of the parties wish some of it to have admitted onto the
20 record, wants to object to its use, and things like that. Before these
21 kind of issues are settled, we cannot proceed with a 98 bis hearing.
22 I now turn to another issue, but, again, it concerns evidence --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Marcussen.
24 Back to what you were saying just now, the Belgrade judgements.
25 It was obvious for the Trial Judges that it was in the interests of
1 justice, that it was necessary for facts that had been adjudicated
2 regarding the takeover of the Vukovar Hospital be known to everybody, to
3 you, to the accused, and to the Judges. It is true that judgement
4 arrived. I don't know how it did. Quite innocently, I thought that you
5 had imparted it to the Trial Chamber. It is a judgement in B/C/S, and we
6 sought to have it translated. So it was translated. It is several pages
7 long. And since we handed out a decision earlier on, we said that we
8 would only admit final judgement, so not under appeal, only those where
9 there has been an appeal already. I think everything is said.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And before we decide on the
11 admissibility, we would seek the views of the parties.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, indeed, and the parties have
14 My -- I want to reiterate that the request that we made on the
15 29th of June this year is broader than just the two Vukovar judgements.
16 As I had made clear, we submit that the parties have the right to all
17 material that the Trial Chamber consults and obtains so the parties can
18 know what material the Trial Chamber considers when it is being -- when
19 it is informing itself of the case. I noted that the Trial Chamber has
20 rejected our requests, that the Vukovar judgement not be admitted, but
21 that's only part of the motion. And I would request that the
22 Trial Chamber issue a written decision on this particular motion - which
23 is the one, I believe, we talked about today as number 11 - so the
24 parties can understand the reasons of the Trial Chamber in full. And as
25 I said, there are also additional issues. There's a -- quite a volume of
1 material that the Trial Chamber has --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me reassure you,
3 Mr. Marcussen - at least I'm going to try to reassure - but as far as I
4 know, the Trial Chamber did not ask any evidence from anybody. The only
5 evidence the Trial Chamber has are facts that are notorious, that you can
6 find out if you read a book. They are publicly known. We did not turn
7 to the Office for Co-operation to obtain evidence. If we have anything,
8 everything we have has been disclosed. We do not hide anything. There's
9 nothing that we would not have made known to you or to anybody else. We
10 have nothing else in our possession. We only have what you give us, what
11 the accused gives us, or judgements issued by this Tribunal, for
12 instance, in the Mrksic case, and that is a final judgement that can be
13 accessed by anybody. This is a fact of common knowledge.
14 So I don't know why you are worried or what you're worried about.
15 Maybe you are under the impression that we have entire records full of
16 evidence. No. All we have is what you give us.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] At any rate, we do not analyse
18 anything towards a judgement. Nothing will be analysed for the sake of
19 the judgement that will not have been admitted into evidence. If it's
20 something for -- to be admitted into evidence, should the Trial Chamber
21 to admit any evidence proprio motu, it would first seek the views and
22 arguments from the parties. So I fail to understand the source and the
23 cause of your concern on this specific matter. I may understand other
24 things, I may be on your page, on your side, on other things, but I don't
25 understand your concern here.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the Prosecution does not know what
2 the Chamber have or does not have. We have referred to some instances in
3 our motion, and I cited some other instances just now.
4 The Prosecution's position is that anything that the
5 Trial Chamber looks at to inform themselves about the case, the parties
6 have the right to receive and should be informed of. If that is publicly
7 available books, that is hearsay evidence, I assume, that has some
8 relevance, but the Trial Chamber needs to inform the parties.
9 So I believe that is a basic fair trial issue that is being
10 raised now. I don't quite -- I think we have --
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Well, each -- I don't know what
12 each and every Judge does, of course, but I can assure you,
13 Mr. Marcussen, that the Trial Chamber, as a whole, will only look at the
14 evidence on record, and I think that's only natural, the most normal
15 thing you [as interpreted] can do. We can't look at anything else. I
16 mean, the Trial Chamber, as such, as a whole. I mean, I think you may
17 have ideas that -- I mean, if, individually, you may have ideas. It's
18 not at all relevant. The Trial Chamber only analyses the evidence on
19 record. You know very well that I, personally, made a stance in court on
20 many occasions. I don't understand your concern.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me add to this, yes.
22 If there is something of relevance to the case, if the
23 Trial Chamber has any intention, proprio motu, which is not the case yet,
24 then, of course, it would seek the views of both parties, should an
25 important piece of evidence be admitted. But right now we've got nothing
1 that we're hiding. So that's how things are right now.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I have made my position clear, and
3 there is a distinction between material that's been consulted and
4 material that ultimately is admitted into evidence. I, of course,
5 appreciate that fact. Again, we submit that all material that the
6 Trial Chamber or the individual Judges consults, in the view of informing
7 itself about the case or with a view to find out whether or not there are
8 things out there which they think should be admitted into evidence, the
9 parties should know about.
10 The --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, does this -- is
12 this tantamount to saying -- sometimes it's difficult to understand you,
13 but does this mean, for instance, that -- it was said by Mr. Seselj that
14 Wikileaks had been sort of been taken on by the Serbian press, and
15 mention was made of documents coming from the Dutch Embassy that may be
16 related to the Seselj case. Does this mean that in the ICTY press
17 review -- I've read that article, I must tell you that I've read it - is
18 that what you mean to say?
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: I don't believe, Your Honours, that the Wikileaks
20 issue have any relevance to the merits of this case, so obviously that is
21 a completely different matter. But if the Trial Chamber is looking at --
22 to inform itself about issues related to the case within the time-frame,
23 within the geographical scope of the case, with a view to better
24 understand who players are, what actually happened, anything like that,
25 the parties should be appraised of. And the Prosecution have simply
1 asked that any such material be disclosed to the parties.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please move on, Mr. Marcussen.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I think we should move on.
4 But, Mr. Marcussen, just one small example. Mr. Seselj's state
5 of health. He spoke of arrhythmia, of heart problems. So there are two
6 possibilities. Am I not entitled to seek some information as to his
7 complaints by reading scientific literature on the topic? Or if I were
8 to read the definition given to "arrhythmia," do I have to tell you that
9 I read something about arrhythmia? Do you seek to control what a Judge
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: Again, Your Honour, I don't think the current
12 state of health of the accused has anything to do with the charges
13 against him in this case, so I don't -- I don't -- my answer to your
14 question about the medical issues would be, No. We're not seeking to
15 control what the Judges do. We are seeking disclosure of information
16 that the Judges look at that's relevant to the case, and not other
17 issues. I don't know how else I can explain it. I ...
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have made your point clear, Mr. Marcussen.
19 Let's move on to something else.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, there is another important pending
21 motion. Again, I understand that a decision is imminent. It is the
22 decision on the Prosecution's motion from 20th of July this year, where
23 we seek to add additional witnesses to our witness lists to testify or to
24 provide evidence about tendered statements and admitted statements into
1 We believe that we have the right to present our case in full.
2 Our fair trial rights require that we're allowed to call these witnesses.
3 And as I mentioned earlier, once we get the decision, we will obviously
4 look at it. It may raise some appellate issue, but there's another
5 issue, which is that the Prosecution has, as you know, refrained from
6 contacting any of these witnesses -- potential witnesses about their
7 knowledge of the allegations made by the particular witnesses. We have
8 done that in order not to be seen to in any way interfere with the
9 investigation that Your Honours ordered on the 29th of June, 2010
10 what I want to alert the Trial Chamber to is that it means that if the
11 motion is granted, the Prosecution will have to go and determine whether
12 or not there are people who have knowledge of these events that can be
13 called. So if the motion is granted, we would need some time to do that.
14 That is not an attempt to obstruct or delay things. It is simply a
15 necessity for us to be able to present the evidence.
16 The final thing --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, earlier on I was
18 saying that we were at a stage of the 98 bis proceedings, and now you are
19 speaking about witnesses that you plan to call. I remind you that you
20 have rested your case. A decision has been issued that as of the
21 1st of June you were not allowed to seek to adduce new evidence, and
22 I think you've totally forgotten about it. I'm wondering whether you are
23 not sort of linking this up to the fact that the 98 bis proceedings are
24 just about to be held, and you don't want them.
25 You mentioned a pending motion. You are going to have a
1 decision. I told you that all the decisions would be issued before the
2 winter recess. They'll be none left.
3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that we
4 have still some major motions to adjudicate, so I'm not quite sure -- I
5 can't say that everything is done now, that everything's finished. We'll
6 see. I mean, that's my personal opinion.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection or a remark.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. You
9 will have time to answer. But let Mr. Marcussen finish, because he's now
10 tackling a very important matter.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He interrupts me. I'm also
12 speaking about important things. When he interrupts me, you immediately
13 allow him to speak. I always speak about more important things than
14 Mr. Marcussen does. What he has been saying now has nothing to do with
15 anything of importance.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, we're now doing
17 extra time. I just wanted to remind you.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: I have a clarification to ask.
19 Is it the Chamber's view or is it the President's view that the
20 Prosecution has requested to call additional witnesses because we want to
21 delay the 98 bis hearing?
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is not a decision of the Chamber.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is a personal opinion, my
24 very clear personal opinion.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, Your Honours, that's certainly not the
1 case. The motion was filed as soon as these issues arose -- was filed as
2 soon as these issues arose. They came up with the last court witnesses
3 that testified, and actually the motion -- initial motion was made within
4 the dead-line set by the Trial Chamber of the 1st of June this year. So
5 not only was the motion filed on time, it was filed as soon as the issues
6 arose. We supplemented the motion as soon as the last witness had
7 testified, where these issues also arise. So I take strong issue with
8 the characterisation of this as being some delaying tactic. It's
9 completely proper filings we have filed. We have not closed our case.
10 It may be that the Trial Chamber thinks that the Prosecution case is
11 over. The Prosecution has not closed its case. The Prosecution has made
12 clear all the time that it cannot close its case until these evidentiary
13 matters have been settled.
14 Now, a few issues came up today with respect to VS-026. The
15 Prosecution would request disclosure of the medical reports that the
16 Trial Chamber have received so we can understand the Trial Chamber's oral
17 decision about his ability to testify.
18 I would also note that the Prosecution also tendered VS-026's
19 testimony in the Milosevic case on the days of 3rd, 4th, and
20 10th June, 2003
21 a decision on that. But it's still our position that we think that
22 testimony should be part of the evidence in the case.
23 The final thing I'd like to raise is the issue of -- maybe,
24 actually, we need to go into private session for this, very briefly.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, let's move into
1 private session.
2 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you take the floor,
19 Mr. Seselj, in open session: As far as the appointment of the
20 amicus curiae, confidential and ex parte, the Trial Chamber has decided
21 to lift the ex parte portion of this document. So you will be provided
22 with the Registrar's document and information about the amicus curiae.
23 Mr. Seselj, this is what I wanted to share with you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will tell you very quickly what I
25 have to say.
1 First of all, let me inform you that I handed over to the
2 secretary of the Chamber this document, this letter of Jovica Jovanovic,
3 to my lawyer, Milan Terzic. So they are going to distribute that to you.
4 Photocopies have been made for the members of the Trial Chamber and for
5 the OTP. I want the transcript to reflect that.
6 Secondly, at the outset the Prosecutor said that the trial cannot
7 go on without a medical report. That is simply not true. I insisted
8 here several times that the state of my health has nothing to do with the
9 proceedings. Even today, I was more than capable of taking part in the
10 proceedings, and you saw that for yourselves. They say that my life is
11 not threatened. If somebody were to examine Mr. Marcussen now, perhaps
12 you would find out that he is in a far more difficult situation than I
13 am. If you just look at his face, the redness of his face, I am
14 concerned about his health. But there's lots of them on the OTP --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, don't be witty.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not going to go into that
17 anymore. I am going to allow you to finish this administrative
18 proceeding, and I will just say something about what Mr. Marcussen said.
19 Mr. Marcussen said that the Prosecution is asking for more
20 witnesses to be added. I do not remember receiving this motion. If I do
21 not remember receiving it, that means that I never received it. If I did
22 receive some motion to that effect, the names of these new witnesses had
23 not been mentioned. I oppose that sharply.
24 The Prosecution has had all of eight years to find witnesses, to
25 instruct them, to prepare them, to lead them and so on. Now, eight years
1 later, for them to be looking for new witnesses, this is a new scandal.
2 In 2003, if they did not have witnesses to support their
3 indictment that would lead to a finding of guilty, it is way too late
4 now. You saw that in 2003, they had nothing. They were walking around
5 like geese in a fog. The indictment was issued without them having
6 anything. Judge O-gon Kwon confirmed the indictment just off the cuff,
7 and then they tried to find witnesses in this and that and every other
8 way, and this has been tellingly demonstrated here in the courtroom. And
9 now they want new witnesses. Well, these new witnesses can only be OTP
10 officials. Or they should take Tomislav Nikolic and Aleksandar Vukovic.
11 They would be prepared to testify to anything now. When they were
12 prepared to plant this kind of lie, that I was preparing somebody's
13 assassination, they will not stop at anything. One of them was my deputy
14 and the other one was my secretary-general. Ideal witnesses. They will
15 say anything you want them to say. However, I think these things have to
16 be brought to a halt.
17 Why would I cross-examine these new witnesses? Why would I
18 bother with these new witnesses? I am not going to bother with them at
19 all. What do you mean, new witnesses eight years later? Eight years
20 means almost 20 years after the war developments that the indictment
21 pertains to. And now they have found new witnesses. I do not believe
22 that. I really think that they are inventing this. I'm convinced that
23 they do not have any new witnesses at all.
24 Again, they are reaching out for this and that and the other
25 thing, like geese in the fog, as I said, because after a 98 bis hearing,
1 nothing else could follow but an acquittal. The Prosecution knows that
2 even if you wanted to make every effort to find me guilty, you have no
3 grounds for doing that, and that is their nightmare.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Maybe the accused has finished, but I think
6 all -- everything he has said has been based on a misunderstanding.
7 There is no new motion that has been filed. It's a 1st June motion that
8 you were given in August; I think it was on the 13th of August. So --
9 and I believe you addressed the same motion at the last admin hearing.
10 So, yeah, I hope that could take care of it.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not received a list of new
12 witnesses. Now, whether that exists in that motion, that's what
13 Mr. Marcussen has to say to you.
14 Did you include that in that motion of yours?
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, a motion was filed;
16 that is true. The Prosecution wishes to add two witnesses to its 65 ter
17 list. And as you receive or get acknowledgments of receipt, I believe
18 you signed these two acknowledgments of the receipt, one on the
19 8th of July and the other on the 16th of August, and you have not
20 responded. You have been informed of these motions. Maybe this has
21 escaped you, since we are dealing with a great number of documents. The
22 Prosecutor is seeking leave to hear two witnesses, and the Trial Chamber
23 is about to rule on this. You haven't -- you didn't respond, and you
24 respond belatedly to say that you don't wish to hear these witnesses.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is that Mano Milovanovic? Sorry, I
1 do not know these names. Are these protected witnesses?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into closed session.
3 The Prosecutor will give you the two names.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It seems that he doesn't know their
5 names either.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, if the name has been
15 mentioned in public, an order needs to be issued with a view to redact
16 this name.
17 All you need to do, Mr. Seselj, is to look at the first and last
19 Mr. Seselj.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have that. It's not
21 unknown to me. I thought that these were actually new witnesses, new
22 real witnesses. The fact that the OTP is going to hear itself is
23 something that is going to bring great joy to me here, fun and games. It
24 so turned out that they do not have a single witness for any one of my
25 crimes. Perhaps I've committed a great many crimes, but they don't have
1 a single witness. So now they are going to bring themselves in as
2 witnesses. Fun and games. However, please bear in mind that you have to
3 do that in public session when you are hearing the prosecutors as
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will issue a
6 decision on this matter. Whatever the case may be, I have stated that we
7 had planned to hold a hearing on the 18th and 19th of January. One will
8 be an administrative hearing. We will meet then, because we shall have
9 the winter recess in the meantime. We shall meet again mid-January for
10 an administrative hearing, and I hope that by that time all the decisions
11 will have been handed down. Things will be much clearer then. And by
12 the 19th of January we might then have the expert report.
13 I apologise to the interpreters, who thought they may finish at
14 5.30. I apologise for this, and I wish all and everyone a very pleasant
16 --- Whereupon the Administrative Hearing
17 concluded at 6.05 p.m.