1 Tuesday, 18 January 2011
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 4.02 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
9 Good afternoon, Your Honours.
10 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Vojislav Seselj. Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 This is Tuesday, and I wish you all a pleasant year, a good year.
14 We haven't met since the new year, and I wish, thus, the year will be
15 fruitful for all of us. So I wish you the best to all of you, notably,
16 excellent health.
17 And I will now delve immediately into the matter with Mr. Seselj
18 and immediately talk about his health.
19 As we all know, the Trial Chamber rendered a decision ordering
20 the appointment of an expert panel. This was done, and because of an
21 administrative reason, the panel has not been permanently set up. The
22 panelists are still being appointed, and there is still one
23 administrative step that needs to be done. As soon as this is done, the
24 three experts will meet with Mr. Seselj, and then the panel will make a
25 report on Mr. Seselj's health.
1 In the meanwhile, I would like to tell Mr. Seselj that, of
2 course, he can meet with the physicians that he wishes to meet with.
3 Let me read Rule 31 of the Rules on Detention. I will read it
4 slowly. Rule 31 on the medical services:
5 "Any detainee can consult a physician or a dentist of his own
6 choice, if he pays the expense."
7 Which means, Mr. Seselj, that you can ask for any physician to
8 come to examine you, independently of the UNDU's physician or of this
9 expert panel that is being appointed. If you wish, you can ask for a
10 physician from Moscow
11 Now, this being said, we received last week the
12 expert [as interpreted] of the graphologist on the Mladic diaries, on the
13 Mladic note-books, and thanks to this, in the days to come -- hours to
14 come or days to come, we'll be able to render our decision on the motion
15 to admit 13 elements of the Mladic note-books, which means that the two
16 main barriers that were stopping the 98 bis hearing to be held are now
18 As far as Witness 26, for example, his situation has been solved.
19 And we also have the Mladic note-books, but this problem will be solved
20 in the days to come, thanks to the decision rendered by the Chamber.
21 Therefore, the Trial Chamber will now be in a position to issue a
22 scheduling order in order to schedule the 98 bis hearing. But before
23 this, we would like to know for sure whether you actually intend to
24 present your own case. The Judges have consulted on this, but we don't
25 exactly know what your position is regarding this issue. Could you
1 please tell us what is your position on this issue? In Rule 98 bis, this
2 is what is said:
3 Rule 98 bis, judgement of acquittal:
4 "At the close of the Prosecutor's case, the Trial Chamber shall,
5 by oral decision and after hearing the oral submissions of the parties,
6 enter a judgement of acquittal on any count if there is no evidence
7 capable of supporting a conviction."
8 This is Rule 98 bis.
9 The Trial Chamber must make an oral decision, but after having
10 heard the oral submissions of the parties.
11 Mr. Seselj, do you intend to present your submissions orally
12 regarding the absence of any evidence that may support a conviction?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, should I respond to
14 your last question now only, and should I deal with the rest of it later?
15 Mr. President, perhaps this is a bit premature to discuss whether
16 I'm going to present a Defence case or not, because the entire Serbian
17 and Yugoslav public believe --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, you may have misunderstood what the
19 Presiding Judge was just asking you to do. There is a difference between
20 raising a motion for a 98 bis decision at this stage of the proceedings,
21 on the one hand, and, on the other hand, whether you wish to raise a
22 defence at all. These are two separate questions, and we are only
23 dealing with the first question, and that is whether at this point, in
24 your view, some of the counts that are included in the indictment are
25 completely and wholly unsupported by the evidence that we have heard so
1 far. If that is the case, you can present us with a motion orally that
2 you wish to challenge those particular counts, and the Chamber will then
3 render its decision after having heard also the Prosecution. But that is
4 a short and small procedure that applies before we come to the beginning
5 of the Defence case. At that point, you may indicate that you will or
6 will not mount a defence and that you will or will not call any witnesses
7 in support of your case.
8 Is that clear?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, I do understand you fully,
10 Mr. Harhoff, just as I understood Mr. Antonetti. I have understood you
11 fully. There is nothing in dispute there.
12 However, I'm convinced that although when ruling on 98 bis, you,
13 as the Trial Chamber, bear in mind a variant which is the most favourable
14 one for the Prosecution, you nevertheless have no arguments to say that
15 anything has been proven with regard to the indictment, so the entire
16 Serbian and world public following these proceedings are convinced that
17 you are going to pass a decision of acquittal on the basis of Rule 98 bis
18 and also that you are going to compensate me financially because of
19 spending eight years in prison, because of all the risks to my health,
20 also my psychological suffering. I'm suffering every single day, and
21 more so day after day. Then also expenses related to Defence, everything
22 that is considered to be proper compensation in the civilised world to
23 any accused person who is proven to be innocent. And I'm sure that that
24 is the case.
25 However, if some extra-judicial factors get involved and you do
1 not dismiss the entire indictment according to Rule 98 bis, if you decide
2 to keep part of the indictment that you think had been proven by the
3 Prosecution evidence, then I am going to mount a defence of my own.
4 However, I have to see what is left of my indictment and what is no
5 longer there.
6 How can I know, reliably at this point, what your decision is
7 going to be? I know that you have no other elements for deciding on
8 anything but acquittal. However, who knows what you're going to decide.
9 There is three of you, three brains.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to make sure that we are on the same line:
11 Article 98 bis does not require proof of the counts. It only requires
12 the existence of sufficient evidence to support the count. We're not
13 speaking of final proof. It is only if there is, for one count,
14 absolutely no evidence at all, nothing that can support the count. In
15 that case, the Chamber may strike it from the indictment at this point so
16 that we don't have to spend time on it later on. But there's a
17 difference between, I hope you understand, there being some evidence that
18 may support the count, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, full
19 proof of the charges raised in that count.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we are talking about the same
21 thing, Mr. Harhoff. Perhaps there is a problem with interpretation,
22 because I've already said. Perhaps I expressed it in more graphic terms.
23 According to Rule 98 bis, you decide in a sense that is most
24 favourable for the Prosecution. If there is any proof for any one of the
25 counts in the indictment, that count remains, regardless of whether that
1 is sufficient evidence for a final judgement, especially for a
2 conviction. I understand that fully.
3 However, I am convinced that the Prosecution has nothing
4 whatsoever with regard to any one of the counts. They cannot link me to
5 any one of the charges or any one of the crimes. They have not presented
6 a shred of evidence in respect of a joint criminal enterprise. It is
7 just totally hazy, from their point of view. They did not have a single
8 witness who would have been competent to testify about that kind of
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj.
11 I believe Judge Harhoff was very clear, but maybe in the
12 interpretation you didn't understand my request.
13 There are two steps to this process. You have the Defence case,
14 where you present your evidence, but we're not there yet. First we have
15 to go through the 98 bis step, and in order to go through this 98 bis
16 procedure, we must know here -- the Bench must know whether, as you just
17 said a minute ago, you intend during this hearing to say the following:
18 For Count 1, the Prosecution provided no evidence or adduced no evidence,
19 et cetera, et cetera.
20 We have organised to have an entire day of hearing for this
21 procedure, where you will be taking the floor, yourself. And then on the
22 next day, we had decided to give the floor to Mr. Marcussen so that he
23 could contradict your submissions or challenge them. And then, as you
24 asked for, you could also have the floor after Mr. Marcussen to respond
25 to what he would have said. But a few weeks later, we will issue an oral
1 decision either to acquit you of all counts or to partially acquit you of
2 any counts, or possibly not to acquit you, asking for the trial to go on.
3 And if such is the case, we will go into the third phase with the
4 presentation of your Defence case, and you will give us your witnesses,
5 and so on and so forth. But we're not there yet.
6 All we want to know right now is very simple. We want to know
7 whether you intend to say that the Prosecution did not adduce any
8 evidence that could enter a conviction for the counts in the indictment.
9 If you answer, Yes, to this question, then the Trial Chamber will issue a
10 scheduling order for a hearing during March, in the month of March, so we
11 can have two days of hearing in order to have the 98 bis procedure.
12 So what do you want -- what do you intend to say? Do you intend
13 to say that the Prosecutor did not adduce enough evidence for this or
14 that? This is what we want to know right now.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope it's somewhat clearer
16 now, although the interpreter confused this even more than previously.
17 When you decide on the basis of Rule 98 bis, and if you conclude
18 that parts of the indictment will be left, that is to say, if you do not
19 dismiss the indictment in its entirety according to 98 bis, then I am
20 going to mount a defence case. I told you that several times last year.
21 However --
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I understand, by
23 what you said, that you do not intend to present any submissions. Have I
24 understood you correctly? You do not intend to present any submissions
25 regarding the 98 bis decision?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have that intention,
2 Madame Lattanzi, if you give me time.
3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So why do you continue speaking,
4 then? Why are you talking about your defence case? We don't even know
5 whether we will have a defence case. The Presiding Judge just told you.
6 Before that, we must make a decision on Rule 98 bis, whether to continue
7 or not to continue. And once this decision is made, but we're not there
8 yet, notably if you intend to make submissions on this, submissions which
9 will, of course, be challenged by the Prosecution, but right now we don't
10 know where we stand. We're not talking about your defence case at all at
11 the moment, because we don't know whether it will happen or not as of
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Madame Lattanzi, you are
14 saying in a way that is slightly different the same thing that I have
15 been saying all along. However, Mr. Antonetti and Mr. Harhoff are asking
16 me to say whether after the 98 bis ruling, I am going to mount a defence
17 case. That is the interpretation I received. That is the interpretation
18 that I received.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's try again, and I hope that it will be
20 interpreted to you in a way that is very clear.
21 Do you or do you not intend to raise a challenge in accordance
22 with Rule 98 bis; yes or no?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, and I said that several
24 times last year as well. Yes, I'm going to avail myself of all the time
25 that you give me. And I've already told you that I expect at least four
1 hours. I said that to you once as well.
2 Also, I want to have the right to reply to what the Prosecutor
3 will have to say, and that is what the Presiding Judge intimated here as
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 Mr. Seselj, I thank you for giving us your position. I had
7 already understood that this was your position earlier, but I asked you
8 the question again because we discussed this among each other at the
9 Bench, because some Judges didn't really understand your position.
10 So you will make submissions under Rule 98 bis, and you will
11 present arguments in order to challenge the counts that are against you,
12 saying that there's no evidence to support all this. Very well.
13 We will, therefore, issue a scheduling order for this hearing.
14 This hearing will probably be around March 8 or 9. The first day, you
15 will have four hours to present your submissions, and on the next day the
16 Prosecutor will respond, and you will be allowed to reply. After these
17 two hearings, we will issue an oral decision, which is a few weeks after
18 this hearing. And, as I told you, in this oral decision either there
19 will be a judgement of acquittal, a judgement of partial acquittal, or no
20 acquittal, and the trial will go on. In this case, you will then later
21 give us your witness list, and so forth and so on.
22 I believe that everything is clear now.
23 So until March, we will also issue a number of decisions, because
24 as you might have noted, Mr. Seselj, after our last hearing the
25 Trial Chamber issued a great number of decisions, of written decisions,
1 about 10 of them, and these decisions were filed over the recess. And
2 the Prosecution immediately seized us with a large number of motions
3 either to review, or for certification of appeal, or asking for
4 clarifications. Of course, we will issue decisions regarding all these
5 motions, and these decisions will be issued before the 98 bis hearing.
6 So this is the situation as it stands today.
7 Now, before giving you the floor, I have a technical question to
8 put to Mr. Marcussen. But we need to go into private session for this,
9 but it will be brief.
10 Mr. Registrar, could we please move to private session.
11 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm going to give
20 you the floor because you wanted to deal with some questions. But I
21 remind you that we issued a decision making it compulsory for you and the
22 Prosecutor to tell us, two days before the administrative hearing, the
23 topics you wanted to tackle so that we could meet them, if necessary. I
24 see that you did not file anything, but we are aware of your specific
1 You have problems with your associates. You have a host of
2 administrative problems. We can see that you have failed to meet our
3 requirements, but we take on board the fact that you are faced with
4 various difficulties. And so it is an exception now, and we allow you to
5 take the floor now.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before entering the
7 courtroom a little while ago, I received two documents. One is a
8 Prosecutor's request, and the other one is a voluminous decision of
9 yours. Your decision is a public document. It's a decision on the
10 second request by the Prosecution to submit Bar Table documents. And the
11 second one is a request by the Prosecution. This happened before I
12 entered the courtroom.
13 I don't have any issues, other than these documents that I
14 received since the last status conference until now. So most of those
15 things were delivered to me after the 1st of January. I have a document
16 here of the 13th of January, and I have some more recent documents.
17 There's another one of the 13th of January.
18 The problems that I'm going to be talking about are not new. I
19 have to keep bringing them up.
20 After the last Status Conference, I addressed the Registry in a
21 letter dated the 9th of December. The Status Conference was on the 1st
22 of December. I announced a visit from my legal associate, Zoran Krasic,
23 Boris Aleksic, and Dejan Mijovic, and also of my case manager,
24 Nemanja Sarovic. Before that, I informed the Registry that my legal
25 adviser and my case manager from these other proceedings are also my
1 legal adviser and case manager in the main proceedings, so I still have a
2 set of three legal advisers and one case manager.
3 I scheduled a visit, and I requested the Registry to pay travel
4 expenses and hotel accommodation; not their fees, thus, and not to pay
5 for their work, but only to provide the conditions for them to be able to
6 come, because I don't have the money to pay them. I have become poor
7 over these past eight years. I don't have any resources. The
8 Prosecution has a vast amount of resources and they can help, and they
9 can devote these resources to this case. They are sitting in the
10 courtroom today. So that is why I keep writing motions.
11 I don't respond to a bulk of the Prosecution's submissions
12 because they don't make any sense, it's just a waste of time. You reject
13 one request. Then the Prosecution will issue a request for you to review
14 your decision, and this is an endless process.
15 The Legal Assistants Office chief, Jaimee Campbell, informed me
16 on the 15th of December that Zoran Krasic cannot be granted a privileged
17 visit, and your decision excluded Zoran Krasic only from confidential
18 court hearings. You said that when the Court is in private or closed
19 session, he cannot attend. But in your decision, you did not state that
20 he cannot come to visit me and that visit be of a privileged nature. So
21 they are obstructing the visit of my legal adviser. They would like to
22 control my defence by eavesdropping what I'm talking about with my legal
23 adviser. That is the position of the Registry.
24 Further, the Registry states that the Registrar objected to my --
25 to the decision on the financing of the Defence, and for that reason will
1 not grant that travel and accommodation costs for my legal advisers be
2 covered until that objection is resolved, and they can help only if I
3 co-operate in the establishment of my financial situation.
4 I did co-operate in 2003 and 2004 regarding my financial status,
5 and as far as I'm concerned, that task is completed. The Registrar
6 cannot pull my sleeve every day and say, You still have to do this and
7 you still have to do that. I am not available to the secretary of the
8 Tribunal 24 hours a day, and the Registry is not a superior organ that
9 can issue orders to me. They can tie me up, they can put me in solitary
10 confinement, they can put a harness on me when I'm being escorted to and
11 from the courtroom, but they cannot order me what to do. They won't be
12 able to do that, and they will never be able to do that.
13 Furthermore, from December 2006 until September 2008, the
14 Registry regularly covered the travel and hotel expenses of my legal
15 advisers and of my case manager, and then they cancelled that in
16 September, with the pretext that I was abusing my telephone
17 communications with my legal advisers, without any proof. They offered
18 or put forward Tomislav Nikolic as proof. This is an entirely marginal
19 political figure without any honour, without any moral, that cannot have
20 any influence on anything anymore, and now the Registrar will not explain
21 why they did cover the travel and hotel expenses for my legal adviser and
22 my case manager until September 2008, and are now not willing to cover
23 those expenses anymore. And the overall question of the financing of the
24 Defence now is not resolved at all.
25 I need my advisers in order to prepare for my arguments regarding
1 the 98 bis hearing. I need them in order to help them with this other
2 proceedings for contempt of court that are being conducted against me. I
3 submitted my list of witnesses and submitted their preliminary
4 statements, but the Registry does not approve of these expenses, and in
5 this way they're obstructing my defence. The fact that they are not
6 doing this is senseless. And in favour of this is the fact that other
7 Defenses being financed by the Registry have a monthly budget, and this
8 monthly budget is not being spent for travel and hotel expenses. The
9 Registry covers these expenses separately, and this is something that is
10 separate from the fees and the costs of preparation of defence and other
11 types of that expense. Only in my case, the Registry refuses to pay any
12 expenses, and I'm pointing out that this very serious problem exists.
13 I don't know if you will resolve this problem, if the
14 Appeals Chamber or the President of the Court will resolve this problem.
15 This is something that, as an excuse, I'm not interested in. As far as
16 I'm concerned, you are just one institution, the Tribunal, all of you,
17 and this is my position in that -- in relation to that matter. Without
18 assistance or resolution of this question, I have nowhere to go.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you put one and all
20 into the same boat, the Judges and the Registrar together. I don't agree
21 with this.
22 We, as Judges, issued a decision as to funding. It is appealed
23 by the Registry. I don't know what stage of the proceedings the
24 Appeals Chamber is at, but it is the Appeals Chamber that has
25 jurisdiction to settle the issue.
1 You are now telling us that you haven't been able to see your
2 associates because their accommodation costs would not be covered, and
3 neither would their travel costs be. Now, let me tell you this: I heard
4 over the recess that a defence committee for your rights has been set up
5 in Moscow
6 personalities of the economic and cultural circles in Moscow
7 level, these personalities can seize the Registrar of this issue.
8 Since you have behind you people willing to support your rights,
9 we, as Judges, we issued a decision, and it was a very clear one. It is
10 being appealed upon by the Registrar, so obviously he doesn't agree with
11 our decision, and we have no more leeway. For us, it is done. We are
12 not going to come up with our cheques in order to pay your associates and
13 their hotel bills directly. This is to be done by the Registry.
14 I don't know why Ms. Campbell would not have the visit by
15 Mr. Krasic. I don't know why she refused. With regard to Mr. Krasic, we
16 issued a two-tier decision; namely, that he was not allowed to access
17 confidential documents. That's one thing. Secondly, he was not allowed
18 into the courtroom anymore. But he was not prevented or prohibited from
19 seeing you.
20 You have a support committee. Well, let them work. We have done
21 our utmost. We have done all we could.
22 I believe, and this is our common opinion, don't put us all into
23 the same boat.
24 You say that we are part of the institution. Yes, but it is a
25 diverse -- a complex institution. The ICTY is made up of various organs;
1 three, to name them: The Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, and the
2 Chambers. Each of these organs is independent from one another.
3 Therefore, as far as the Judges are concerned, we've done our work, we've
4 done our job.
5 Of course, in my legal system, things would not happen the way
6 they do here, but this is an international institution in which the
7 Registrar has some scope of work in a similar way, and he uses it, saying
8 that you may not see this or that individual. But this is a pending
9 matter before the Appeals Chamber, so, therefore, you could have
10 addressed the Appeals Chamber by way of an expedited motion. But as far
11 as we Trial Judges are concerned, we've done all we could, and you know
12 this. You've known this a long time.
13 Regarding the three Judges before you, what we want is that you
14 can defend yourself in the best possible conditions, and we want the
15 Tribunal to make available to you the same means that were given to
16 Mr. Karadzic. He's not prohibited from having visits, and he has no
17 problem with regard to his associates, so I can't understand that he has
18 no problem at all and you do. It is a total mystery for me.
19 There it is.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I never considered
21 you, personally, to be the same as everyone else in the Tribunal. I
22 could never do that. But as an institution, as far as I'm concerned, it
23 is all one-and-the-same thing. You know what my opinion is about
24 individuals from different Trial Chambers or Prosecutors from different
25 cases. I'm not going to repeat that here, because then you will have to
1 redact the transcript immediately. I never considered you, personally,
2 to be part of the whole. Your Trial Chamber, compared to what others
3 planned for me in these proceedings, to place a Band-Aid on my mouth and
4 to strangle me summarily here, your Trial Chamber, compared to that, gave
5 me an opportunity to more or less adequately defend myself as much as I,
6 as an individual, could do that, even though I did have problems in
7 engaging the Defence team.
8 What I initiated today as a problem is not subject to either your
9 decision, or my appeal to the Appeals Chamber, or my complaint against
10 the Registry. These are expenses that are outside of the Defence budget.
11 Whether you pay for my defence or not, the Tribunal must cover these
12 expenses. Even if I were in a situation to pay for that myself, to pay
13 for the engagement of my legal advisers and the case managers myself,
14 still the Registry would have to cover these expenses. So this is not
15 subject to your decision.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You, yourself, mentioned the
17 reason by the Registrar, the reason why the Registrar decided to stop
18 paying for travel and accommodation costs of your associates coming to
19 The Hague
20 So you can't keep coming back with these questions to the Chamber.
21 If you do not want to use the ways and appeal procedures granted
22 to you by this Tribunal, it is a decision that you make. You give your
23 rights up.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madame Lattanzi, you are giving me
25 guide-lines for an administrative hearing. There are three kinds of
1 proceedings at this Tribunal: the court proceedings, where the accused is
2 being tried and where we are encountering procedural problems; there is
3 the administrative hearing, where the decisions are made by the
4 Registrar, the President of the Tribunal; and there are also the legal
5 proceedings where you, as Judges, deliberate in adopting the Rules and
6 other decisions. I am obliged to participate only in one of these
7 proceedings, and these are the court proceedings, but I don't have to do
8 that. I could remain silent, I could sit in the courtroom the whole time
9 and remain silent, and if you decide you can convict me, and if not I
10 could walk out of the courtroom as a free man, I could use that option as
11 well. I did not wish to resort to that. I wanted to take part in the
12 proceedings in order to demonstrate the senselessness of the indictment.
13 But now you are asking me to participate in the administrative
14 proceedings. I did that on several occasions, but I don't want to do
15 that anymore. I don't have any need to do that. I am now stating my
16 problem as a procedural problem, not an administrative problem, and I do
17 not wish to complain to the President of the Tribunal. I do not want to
18 take any part in administrative proceedings anymore. These are quite
19 distinct things, and you, as the Trial Chamber, are obliged to provide
20 the circumstances for me to be able to successfully mount my defence.
21 I know you're encountering problems, so please understand,
22 regardless of --
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] No, that's not an issue,
24 Mr. Seselj, because you know very well that we have a decision on funding
25 that did just that. So what you say is not substantiated at all.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. If that is not
2 substantiated at all, I have stated the problem.
3 In any case, and I hope now that you're aware of the problem,
4 this is one in a series of problems that are being created by the
5 Registry for me, and that will be the subject of my closing arguments in
6 this trial. I have presented the problem. You don't have a solution for
7 the problem, and so there is no need for me to dwell on that anymore.
8 Regarding what you said about this Defence Committee that is
9 formed in Moscow
10 part of my defence before the Tribunal. This is a political committee
11 that is going to protect my procedural rights and will use that as a
12 means of a political struggle against the Tribunal, as such. That is its
13 role. They are not going to write my motions for me, or proof witnesses
14 for me, or do other things. That committee is going to fight against the
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] We are not interested in this
17 Defence Committee; you're right.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps you are not interested in
19 that, Madame Lattanzi, but Mr. Antonetti is, and I do have to reply to
20 the points stated by Mr. Antonetti. It's a real, actual fact. This is
21 my political support in my struggle against the Tribunal, as such, which
22 I consider to be illegal, illegitimate, and so on and so forth.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me specify something,
24 Mr. Seselj.
25 You know this, and you know this better than anyone because you
1 are an educated man, a man of culture, you are a law professor, and you
2 follow up the news. You know that towards the end of last year, the
3 outstanding members of the Security Council, including the Russian
4 representative, spoke about the duration, the length of your trial, and
5 the eminent member of the Security Council, of course, who answers to the
6 Russian Government, of course, the latter answering to the Russian
7 Parliament, has to answer to someone in your committee who's part of your
8 Defence Committee, so they can answer questions in a way to ask the
9 Registrar to answer -- to say why your essential liberties are being
10 challenged. You must be allowed to defend yourself. And so I see a
11 connection between the two, because, as was stated by my fellow Judge,
12 you are free to challenge decisions by the Registry. You decided not to,
13 but that was a decision of yours, and we told you that we had done all
14 that we could. We can't do anything else, we can't go any further. If
15 you fail to challenge such decisions, and if the Trial Chamber can't do
16 anything, next time we meet we will find ourselves in exactly the same
17 situation. You know this. You know better than anyone what the
18 situation is like.
19 So, please, when you want to challenge a decision, when you find
20 it unfair, use the legal remedies to challenge it. You know that better
21 than anyone because you are a legal expert. You know that when a
22 Trial Chamber claims to be competent to have jurisdiction with regard to
23 your rights, the President of the Tribunal and the Appeals Chamber
24 recalled us that before a Trial Chamber claims jurisdiction, all the
25 procedures under the Rules and other regulations must be complied with.
1 Only then can a Chamber claim jurisdiction. We were reminded of the
2 Rule, and I wanted to remind you of the fact.
3 So thank you for making a clear distinction between the Judges
4 and the Registry, even though we are part of the same institution. One
5 can be part of the same institution and agree to disagree, and that
6 happens among Judges, themselves. We are part of the same brotherhood of
7 Judges, but sometimes we do not agree, and that is shown in dissenting
8 opinions we may draft every now and then.
9 Do you have another subject to deal with?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I still have something to say on
11 this matter, Mr. President.
12 One of my arguments in the closing arguments will be that this
13 trial is irregular. Also, among other things, because the Tribunal did
14 not pay for the expenses of my Defence, and I, myself, was unable to
15 cover those costs. In that case, your argument will not be that I did
16 not appeal the Registrar's decision. I don't have to know that there is
17 even somebody with a title "Registrar." This is not something that I
18 have to know. I am obliged to participate in these proceedings because I
19 chose to actively participate, and I do not have to participate in
20 anything other than that.
21 When the warden in the DU throws a party, I don't have to take
22 part in it, for example. I'm not obliged to participate in anything
23 outside of this courtroom.
24 I will participate in things that go on in this courtroom. That
25 is my choice. But then you cannot turn around and say that my argument
1 does not stand because I did not wish to appeal the Registrar's decision,
2 because the argument is my Defence is not paid, so I was not able to
3 defend myself. We cannot say that the fact that I did not wish to appeal
4 the Registrar's decision even constitutes any kind of argument. That is
5 the essence, so I hope that you understood me now and that the
6 translation was good.
7 I still have a number of questions to state.
8 You set aside provisionally the 8th and 9th of March as the date
9 to speak about the 98 bis matter. And if we don't do that then, we will
10 not continue to the presentation of the Defence case. But what I can say
11 is there will be no defence, because the Tribunal is not covering the
12 expenses of the Defence, so there will be no defence because the status
13 of my legal adviser Zoran Krasic is not resolved. And that would be
14 that, and that would be the end of the proceedings, because in my closing
15 arguments I'm no longer going to deal with what is stated in the
16 indictment or with what the Prosecutor says. In my closing arguments,
17 I'm only going to deal with matters proving that I was not given the
18 right to mount a proper defence. If the Registrar persists in this, the
19 Appeals Chamber will make my defence easier. I was not able to mount a
20 proper defence, and there can be no legitimate trial without the
21 opportunity for a proper defence. There will be no trial.
22 So I still have a number of questions to bring up.
23 I received information from the Prosecutor that they are
24 abandoning one adjudicated fact in the appeals case. Somewhere, you did
25 admit the adjudicated facts from the Mrksic et al case, and because the
1 Sljivancanin case was revised or reviewed, one of those adjudicated facts
2 was abandoned. So this is a perfect example, illustrating how
3 adjudicated facts from other cases mean nothing, particularly because the
4 Mrksic case did not deal with the essence of the problem, the crime at
5 Ovcara, and practically, perhaps unwittingly, this problem was glossed
6 over. The Court in Belgrade
7 keep it under a deep veil of secrecy about exactly who it was who ordered
8 that 200 prisoners be executed. I named those persons here, and
9 everybody pretends that nobody knows anything.
10 I insist to have this third judgement as soon as possible. I
11 have the first- and second-instance judgements. I don't have that one at
12 the third instance. It's very important for me to receive it before the
13 98 bis arguments are heard on the 8th and 9th of May.
14 It's very important that one of the March -- it is very important
15 that one of the witnesses who were protected in this case were deemed
16 unreliable in that case and that the testimony of that witness was not
17 accepted. Regardless of a debacle with that witness in that case, the
18 Prosecution is bringing this witness into this case, and you saw that in
19 his note-book something else was added in a different pen that was not
20 there originally. You saw that for yourself in this courtroom.
21 The Prosecution filed a motion, and then they provided additional
22 arguments, and then they withdrew part of their motion. And all of that
23 happened on the 15th and 17th of December, and I received all of this on
24 the 30th of December, and all of this has to do with one single witness
25 who did not appear in court here. However, they ask that the preliminary
1 statement of that witness be admitted into evidence. And you agreed to
2 that, and you did admit it, although I was opposed to it.
3 Also, that the amicus in the proceedings investigating whether
4 there are grounds for starting contempt of court proceedings, now they're
5 changing something in the statement that he gave to me and my associates.
6 On the 15th of December, this is what the Prosecution filed, and on the
7 17th of December, they withdrew that. This is further proof of the lack
8 of seriousness in the work of the Prosecution. Let us leave aside the
9 fact that in December, you reached a great many decisions, and the
10 Prosecution was dissatisfied with these decisions and they wanted to have
11 them reviewed immediately.
12 This is another practical example which corroborates the doctrine
13 of the abuse of process in its most extreme form and that proves that
14 this is what is happening here, abuse of process. The most flagrant
15 example of this is the case of the witness that we have been discussing -
16 026 is his code - and his testimony in the Milosevic case. All the time,
17 I had a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Milosevic's persistence in his
18 defence case. However, from a professional point of view, his defence
19 was not fully adequate. The fact that that witness had been
20 cross-examined in those proceedings does not mean that this
21 cross-examination was carried out in a top professional manner.
22 Therefore, it cannot be a substitute for having that witness appear in
23 this courtroom.
24 Let us leave aside the fact that this witness gave several
25 statements to the Serbian public and to my Defence counsellors, and in
1 all these statements he denied everything that he had said in those
3 Then there is the 7th of January.
4 There is nothing to be done in closed session. The transcript
5 should not be redacted. I did not disclose the identity of that witness
6 in any way in this courtroom.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I do believe that the motions
9 that --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: -- the accused is referring to are filed
12 confidential, and they were filed confidentially because they referred to
13 confidential decisions by the Trial Chamber. So I do think we need to
14 redact this. It was indeed why I was on my --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have not disclosed
16 any confidential information whatsoever here. I am just indicating the
17 essence of the problem. Even though it may bore the audience following
18 these proceedings, I am just indicating the core of the problem, and I do
19 have the right to present the core of the problem in public, in public
20 session. I have the right to oppose an attempt to be strangled in the
22 I presented the core of the problem here, and on that basis no
23 one can deduce the name or surname of that witness, no one whatsoever.
24 Therefore, there is no reason for any kind of redaction. Everything I've
25 been saying here today is confidential, it seems. This is terrible abuse
1 of process. They write rubbish, and then they declare that it is
2 confidential, and then I don't have the right to state my views on that
3 in public. No way. You should finally react to this kind of abuse of
4 process as well that has to do with confidentiality.
5 May I proceed now?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as Mr. Marcussen
7 just said, this motion of December 17, 2010, was filed confidentially.
8 It deals with a witness, and you gave us the number of this witness. It
9 seems that it's not possible to know who this person is, but still it's a
10 problem. It's a problem of substance, more than anything. So, of
11 course, if you deal with only the substance, without giving us the
12 identity, well, you could say that as far as you're concerned, there are
13 some motions which were an abuse of procedure, and so forth and so forth,
14 but that's your opinion.
15 But what did you want to demonstrate, using this motion? I'm
16 having a very hard time following your logic. What exactly -- what is
17 your point?
18 We will issue a decision on this motion, of course. And since
19 you took the floor regarding this motion, we will decide that you have
20 given us your opinion, as far as this motion is concerned.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall briefly repeat the essence.
22 The Prosecution asked for two things: that you admit into
23 evidence the preliminary statements of that witness given to the OTP, and
24 these statements were written by the OTP, themselves; and also the
25 documents supporting these preliminary statements. Also, they ask that
1 you take out of evidence the documents that are going to be examined by
2 the friend of the Court who is to be appointed and who is going to look
3 into the behaviour of some officers of the Prosecution, to take out all
4 of the statements that were given by this witness to my Defence advisers,
5 and then the OTP withdrew their own request two days later. That is the
7 I received, on the 12th of January, this document dated the 7th
8 of January, so then I'm not asking for an extension of time and I'm going
9 to state my position orally.
10 You decided that the interview of a particular suspect should not
11 be admitted, and this suspect appeared as a Prosecution witness here.
12 You decided not to have this admitted into evidence. Then the
13 Prosecution filed a motion on the 7th of January that you reconsider your
14 decision. You made that decision on the 15th and 16th of December. That
15 is abuse of process, too. You made the right decision. Why? Because it
16 is on the basis of the jurisprudence of this Tribunal as well that if a
17 suspect gives an interview to the OTP, that such a statement or interview
18 can only be used in proceedings against that same individual.
19 Mr. Antonetti, in the proceedings against Prlic et al that you
20 are in charge of as well, you saw the statement given by Prlic to the
21 OTP. When that became a matter that was on the agenda, then you decided
22 that it can only be used in that part of the proceeding that pertained to
23 him and that it cannot be used against the other accused in those
24 proceedings. The same happened in the Milan Milutinovic et al case, the
25 group of Serbian officers and politicians who were charged with alleged
1 crimes in Kosovo. Practically all of them made preliminary statements
2 there, and these preliminary statements could only be used against them
3 personally. That is the case in other proceedings as well. I could give
4 you a few other examples too.
5 The Prosecution, in order to gain as much time as possible, 20
6 days after your decision they are asking you to reconsider that same
7 decision. From July to this day, I have been saying that the Prosecution
8 has been doing all of this in order to extend the time leading to 98 bis
9 as much as possible. This is pointless.
10 This witness appeared in court. He testified here. You saw that
11 I had a great deal of advantage from his testimony and that the testimony
12 only worked to the detriment of the Prosecution. I don't mind if his
13 interview is admitted into evidence. However, that is unlawful, and that
14 is why I'm asking you to prevent the Prosecution from carrying out this
15 kind of abuse of process in the future. It is a typical example of abuse
16 of process. It would be okay if some self-represented accused who was
17 totally unversed in matters of law was doing that, but this Prosecution,
18 which is supposed to be the pinnacle of knowledge, as far as law is
19 concerned, in international terms, cannot do a thing like that.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will issue a
21 decision regarding this issue, and it will render the decision very
22 quickly. As you probably understood, there will be a scheduling order
23 very soon, and we will settle all these matters. But we have noted your
24 comments on the transcript, and they will be integrated in our decisions.
25 Do you have anything else you would like to address?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Judges, if you have the
2 patience to hear me out.
3 There is another example that is even more flagrant, and that is
4 the case of Milan Babic.
5 All of these documents are public, so I can speak about all of
6 this in public.
7 Already a few years ago, you decided that the testimony of
8 Milan Babic in the Milosevic case and in the Martic case should not be
9 admitted into evidence. Milan Babic committed suicide halfway through
10 his testimony there. That was on the 7th of January, 2008, that you made
11 your decision. That is, then the Prosecution asked you to reconsider
12 that decision, and then on the 10th of December, when reviewing that
13 decision, you accepted parts of what they were asking for, to my great
14 surprise, I have to admit. You did admit parts of this witness's
16 And then on the 10th of January, that is to say, eight days ago -
17 the time for me to respond is not up yet, so I don't have to ask for an
18 extension of time - they filed a new request to partly reconsider or
19 review the decisions related to the testimony of the late Milan Babic.
20 Yet another abuse of process, a lot more serious and a lot more
21 unacceptable than the previous one.
22 What is the Prosecution trying to do? They are trying to prove
23 joint criminal enterprise in Croatia
24 Judges, before the war was over, in 1991, the war to liberate the three
25 autonomous Serb provinces in the territory of the former Croatia federal
1 unit, there was no Republic of the Serb Krajina. There were entities
2 that acted independently; Slovenia
3 the Serb autonomous region of Slovenia
4 that is part of my indictment, the counts that have to do with Vukovar.
5 And then there was the Serb autonomous province of Western Slavonia
6 the original indictment, it was included too. I'm referring to Vocin.
7 And then that was taken out of the indictment.
8 The Serb autonomous region of the Krajina, although volunteers of
9 the Serb Radical Party fought there as well, and a lot more of them than
10 in Slavonia
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is an administrative hearing, and it seems
12 to me that you are way into explaining some of the points that pertain to
13 the substance of your case. However, this is perhaps not the best moment
14 to do so.
15 So if you have questions that relate to the administrative issues
16 that we are supposed to discuss here today, then I suggest you do so and
17 you focus on that.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Harhoff, basically, this is an
19 administrative matter.
20 You made a decision on the 10th of December, and the Prosecution,
21 on the 10th of January, asked for that decision to be reviewed. This is
22 the third or even the fourth time that the Prosecution is asking you to
23 state your views yet again on one-and-the-same matter. First of all,
24 that is the main problem. That fact, in itself, is abuse of process,
25 especially because everything that has to do with Milan Babic pertains
1 exclusively to territories that are not referred to in my indictment, in
2 the indictment against me. That is the core of the matter of this purely
3 administrative matter.
4 Milan Babic was charged for what he did in the territory of the
5 Serb autonomous region of the Krajina. Not a single little part of the
6 Serb autonomous region of the Krajina is not included in the indictment
7 issued against me.
8 Now, what is supported evidence from their point of view; the
9 statute of the Serb autonomous region of the Krajina?
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, I think you misunderstand the
11 criteria by which the Chamber can determine to review one of its
13 The reconsideration of a decision by the Chamber, itself, may be
14 considered if there is a provable error of law, and I don't see that your
15 discussion about the substance of the original decision has anything to
16 do with whether or not the Prosecution's reasons for wanting a
17 reconsideration are fulfilled.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's not right, Mr. Harhoff. I'm
19 just trying to show you, in a very telling manner, that even in this way,
20 the Prosecution is abusing these proceedings by procrastinating. This is
21 unmeritorious, what they are bringing up, so that you would have as many
22 decisions as possible to make, to review, and so on and so forth. None
23 of these documents have anything to do with the indictment issued against
24 me, not a single one of these documents.
25 What does the statute of the Serb autonomous region of the
1 Krajina have to do with Slavonia
2 area that is referred to in the indictment against me. That's the core
3 of the matter.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: For the third and the last time, the
5 Trial Chamber's decision was concerned with admission of some of Mr.
6 Babic's statements and testimony, and the Prosecutor's interest is to
7 have this decision reversed so as to allow for admission of these
8 statements. The determination of that request does not require any
9 examination of whether or not the policy in Western Srem was correct or
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Babic decision
12 is a decision that took us more than a year to write, which proves that
13 we investigated the matter fully to see whether there was a need or not
14 for review or not. On paragraph 13 of this decision, we explained the
15 criteria for review in a decision, and we did remind that -- we did say
16 that it had been rejected once. We said that the decision could be
17 reversed if there were new facts or new arguments, in order to make sure
18 that there would be no injustice. And the fact is that after the
19 decision to reverse, a decision, some witnesses came to testify, and then
20 these witnesses, as well as their testimonies, were taken into account by
21 the Judges and considered to be new facts that allowed to reconsider the
22 decision to dismiss. This being said, we wrote in our decision that
23 parts of Mr. Babic's testimony could be of interest when it comes to the
24 JCE. Therefore, we decided to maintain a number of elements and to
25 reject others or dismiss others.
1 You just told us that as far as you're concerned, Krajina had
2 nothing to do with the JCE. Well, that's your opinion. You might be
3 right, you might be wrong, but this will be something we will take into
4 account for final deliberations. It's not because a Chamber will decide
5 to admit a piece of evidence that this Trial Chamber has its hands tied.
6 Of course not. Everything will happen at the very end. At the very end,
7 we will look at the two parameters, relevance and probative value. And
8 in the end, we might decide that Mr. Babic's statements and testimony is
9 not relevant in this present case, or we might decide that it is
10 relevant, but it has no probative value or have a low probative value.
11 Therefore, admitting some evidence does not immediately lead to final
12 conclusions; of course not. Everything will be reviewed during
14 You say that the Prosecutor is engaged in abuse of process, and
15 with your written submissions, you're trying to demonstrate this abuse of
16 process. I'm very interested in this, and I'd rather that you make
17 submissions on this rather than go to the substance of the fact, because
18 as Judge Harhoff just told you, this is not the right forum to do this.
19 We're not interested here in matters of substance; we're interested in
20 administrative matters. And if we -- if there is abuse of process, the
21 Trial Chamber can decide to engage sanctions, but you have to give us
22 evidence of it.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you needed almost
24 two years to make this decision. The request by the Prosecution was
25 submitted in March 2008, and you made your decision on the 10th of
1 December, 2010
2 On the 10th of January, the Prosecutor filed a new motion for
3 this decision on Babic to be reviewed, and it is my justified assumption
4 that I will have to wait for another almost two years for your new
5 decision on this motion.
6 What I'm trying to do is to let you know how the documents,
7 themselves, make no sense, and that is it's lacking any seriousness to
8 ask for them to be admitted. One of the documents is the active role of
9 Milan Babic in setting up army training centres, then military and police
10 lines of command, and then current co-ordination among various
11 participants, and so on and so forth. This has nothing whatsoever to do
12 with this indictment, and my indictment does not refer to any single
13 location from the Krajina.
14 So if I need to wait another two years for you to make a decision
15 on that, then, all right, I agree, but I really wanted to bring up a few
16 more examples of how senseless this is, and this is only another way for
17 the Prosecution to gain time.
18 I am going to abandon bringing up other similar arguments,
19 because my arguments will be repeated, even though the documents are
20 different. They deal with different topics, but there are still a lot of
21 confidential documents. But my arguments would be the same.
22 The first question that you referred here was the matter of my
23 health, Mr. President. I'm going to finish this issue now.
24 I received your order of the 12th of January, which states, first
25 of all, that you extended the dead-line for the submission of the
1 specialist decision to the 15th of February. It also states that the
2 Registry sent you a certain confidential internal memorandum dated the
3 7th of January. I did not receive that confidential internal memorandum.
4 From the contents of your order, I can see that my state of health is the
5 topic of that and the forming of the specialists commission. I have to
6 know what this confidential memorandum is. I have to be informed of all
7 the questions that have to do with my state of health.
8 The Registry persistently is trying to keep many things secret,
9 however. Now I have managed to avoid one form of covert murder by
10 striking at my heart. Perhaps the next strike will be at my brain. How
11 do I know?
12 There are internal confidential memos of the Registry whose
13 contents I'm not aware of. Until this internal confidential memorandum
14 by the Registry is presented to me, I will not agree to participate in
15 any kind of examinations by these specialists; absolutely not. And I
16 will not agree that they be furnished with my medical file. I have to be
17 informed about all the confidential matters relating to my health, and it
18 is up to me to agree or not whether the public will be informed about
19 these matters.
20 Mr. President, you also said that I have the right to call
21 doctors of my own choice, dentists and doctors. Yes, that is true, but I
22 don't have the money to pay for that. I have a problem with a tooth,
23 which is the main base for a bridge and also holds -- and I have problems
24 with crowns, and I also have an abscess on that tooth which at any point
25 can cause an inflammation, which would prevent me from participating in
1 the proceedings in the normal way.
2 First of all, I requested that a new bridge be made. They didn't
3 want to do that. Then I wrote to the President of the Tribunal, and he
4 received a report that I was suffering from gingivitis and that this was
5 the reason why this could not be done. I don't have gingivitis, and I
6 never suffered from that in my life. Well, it's been a year since that
7 problem was uncovered, and this has still not been treated.
8 At the end of December, I had a dental examination. That was the
9 most recent one. There was a very proper dentist from the infirmary at
10 the Detention Unit who said that the only option were two implants. The
11 implants are expensive. The Detention Unit will not pay for it, the
12 Tribunal will not pay for it. The doctor promised that this would,
13 nevertheless, be done. But it's been a year since then, and they haven't
14 even started.
15 I'm informing you about another possible problem which will
16 possibly become a serious problem if it's not resolved. I'm not going to
17 choose my own dentist because I don't have the money to pay him.
18 I also said that a group of eminent Russian doctors, specialists,
19 said it was willing to examine me and to check my state of health in
20 detail. I referred to them at the last status conference. I mentioned
21 their names. I said that I did not have the money to pay for them to
22 come and that I was asking the Tribunal to foot the bill. If the
23 Tribunal should refuse to do that, there is one more reason for me to
24 refuse any specialists that are appointed to this commission by the
25 Registry, and that's that. I don't have any other way to fight against
2 So you issued an order to postpone or extend the dead-line to
3 15th of February, 2011. I'm not sure if it will be possible to have this
4 report submitted to you even by February 2020.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One answer, Mr. Seselj.
6 You want to ask why we extended the time-limits. You know late
7 last year, early January, we learned that after encountering many
8 difficulties, the Registry had been in a position to find three experts;
9 not an easy thing to do, as you can readily imagine. So there are now
10 three experts who are willing and ready to examine you. Only, you know,
11 this famous so-called confidential memorandum, which could have been a
12 public one, tells us that the final decision is within the hands of an
13 ad hoc office or bureau.
14 When we learned this, we thought that we had first given you a
15 certain time-period, a dead-line. But given the lateness of the
16 appointment, we decided to extend the dead-line for the expert report to
17 be filed. That's the reason.
18 Now, why does the Registry take so much time? Well, I think,
19 first of all, because they had to find the three experts, and then the
20 administrative issue arises of the decision having to be confirmed by the
21 ad hoc bureau, something I didn't know anything about. All this would
22 not have happened if Judges could, themselves, appoint the experts. It
23 is not to be understood -- I don't understand why, but the Statute and/or
24 the Practice Directions and the Rules set up another type of procedure
25 which is not very expeditious, but I think we are on the right track now.
1 Secondly, your dental problems. You've set them out. I seem to
2 understand that the Registry is not willing to pay for the cost of
3 implants, and you cannot get doctors or experts at your own cost.
4 Because I read the international press, I understand that there may be
5 dentists or doctors willing to provide assistance throughout the world,
6 paying out of their own pockets. They pay for their travel costs, their
7 accommodation costs, and they devote their expertise to humanitarian
8 tasks, giving people who are in need the help they need, and it may be
9 that there could be an organisation, such as Dentists Without Borders, or
10 Doctors Without Borders might be willing to provide assistance. You
11 might address them. I don't know. It's an idea.
12 You're not without means, you're not deprived of means or
13 destitute, if you say that -- if they say you are not allowed to pay, you
14 can challenge that with the Registry. If you now say you have
15 gingivitis, you can challenge that. You have means at your disposal. We
16 cannot be, Judges, treasurers, dentists, and doctors at the same time.
17 If that had been so, your trial would have been over a long time ago.
18 I'm not a dentist and I don't have a wallet that allows me and enables me
19 to pay everybody.
20 I, as my fellow Judges, have taken note of what you say, but I
21 have a limited -- very limited scope of action in this matter.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am not shocked
23 because you extended the dead-line to the 15th of February, but I am
24 shocked that there is a confidential internal memorandum of the Registry
25 relating to my medical health, to my state of health, and that I am not
1 aware of its contents. I'm not bothered by the fact that you extended
2 the dead-line here. I hereby extend it by another nine years, judging by
4 I am not a social problem, I'm not destitute, to be looking for
5 doctors to treat me without any charge or to a dentist who would treat me
6 free of charge. I am a ward of the United Nations here. For as long as
7 I am here, detained by the United Nations, they are obliged to care for
8 my health in accordance with the highest international standards. If the
9 dentist says I need an implant, then the United Nations have to pay for
10 that implant, and I'm going to insist on that.
11 So, please, do not recommend this medical organisation to me,
12 Doctors Without Borders, or Bernard Kouchner as their main ideologist,
13 because this Mr. Kouchner has proven himself to be or shown himself to be
14 in a very bad light in relation to Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and is
15 seemingly one of the main figures in this whole matter of the in vivo
16 extraction of organs from prisoners of the KLA. If anyone should be held
17 responsible for that, it should be Bernard Kouchner. Unfortunately,
19 very sorry that France
20 sorry, because I consider France
21 In any case, all these things are affecting Serbia, and then
24 At each of our sessions in the future, I'm going to inform you
25 about whether my medical -- my dental problems have been resolved or not.
1 The abscess could burst at any time, and if that happens, I will not be
2 fit to appear in the courtroom. Perhaps some can hardly wait for that to
3 happen, but then you know that the trial is postponed and the proceedings
4 cannot be conducted without me. Perhaps there are some other similar
5 behind-the-scene factors that are trying to pull the strings relating to
6 everything that happens at the Tribunal.
7 This is all that I have to say for today.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
9 Mr. Marcussen, you did not convey any questions to the
10 Trial Chamber, but it may be that you had something which was not
11 scheduled, something that you would have discovered at the last minute.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, Your Honour, but I do have some submissions
13 to make based on what has transpired today.
14 The first thing I would raise is the issue of the parties giving
15 notice to the Trial Chamber.
16 When the Trial Chamber issued its decision requesting the parties
17 to provide it with notice of any issues they would like to raise at the
18 administrative hearing, the accused was in the exact same position that
19 he is in today. There have been no changes in the status, there have
20 been no changes to the level of assistance that he's received, there's
21 been no changes at all.
22 Today, the Trial Chamber waived the requirement of a notice on
23 the basis of the situation he's in. It seems to me that that means that
24 the requests -- or the order that a notice be provided by the parties, in
25 fact, only applies to the Prosecution. I object to that. The order had
1 been issued to both parties, and there is no reason why it shouldn't
2 apply to both parties, as there have been no change in circumstances.
3 The accused was then speaking for the vast majority of the
4 hearing we have had. I stopped keeping count, but he certainly exceeded
5 50 minutes. He started in the transcript at page 13, and he has been
6 going on until page 40, essentially making submissions without having
7 given any notice. Certainly, it would seem to be efficient that the
8 Trial Chamber's order was implemented so that we could address some of
9 the issues that he had raised, or maybe not address them if they are not
10 relevant to an administrative hearing, as the case has certainly been
12 The accused has also actually used this hearing to make a motion
13 for abuse of process, which not only he should have given notice of,
14 but --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you are right as
16 to the merit, as to the substance. However, two new facts have appeared.
17 Firstly, we have learned that the accused had had no contacts with his
18 associates, so it's much more difficult for him to defend himself.
19 Secondly, over the recess, you and your fellow Prosecutor swamped us with
20 motions that have to be translated, and the accused is entitled to
21 respond to the motions. So those are translations problems, problems
22 with the time he has at his disposal, problems with his associates. So
23 he replied to your motions using, as you said, pages 13 to 40 in the
24 transcript. However, at least I have now on record his positions as to
25 all the pending motions for reconsideration and appeal certification,
1 including the famous Babic decision that you ask us to reconsider.
2 So I think this was a useful part, because we have now on record
3 the accused's position, so we can issue our decision very shortly, so
4 that by the 8th of March, we can move on to the 98 bis part of the
5 proceedings. I thought that was understood by you.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I maintain my position that
7 certainly the accused is in a position where he can file a notice
8 indicating, for example, which of the Prosecution's motions that he
9 wished to respond to orally and which oral motions he intends to make.
10 Certainly, he has been -- he has proven himself very capable today of
11 making lengthy arguments, and he certainly -- when he wants to, he files
12 motions with the assistance of various assistants in Belgrade, and I find
13 it hard to believe that he wouldn't be in a position to file a short
14 notice saying, I'm going to raise the following five issues.
15 Be it as it may, I was going to respond to a few things that the
16 accused said today.
17 The accused made a motion for abuse of process. He referred to
18 various motions. The accused is mistaking, simply, the facts about the
19 chronology of one of the motions, the one that concerned VS-26, and I,
20 frankly, don't understand the chronology of what he brought up.
21 I should also, just to assist the Chamber, say that the motion
22 regarding the suspect interview that he referred to is actually relating
23 to a decision from the 22nd of December, and not the 15th and 16th of
24 December, as the accused seemed to be saying. I don't know quite what
25 his argument was on that, but certainly we filed our motion, as we have
1 done with all our other reasonably-filed motions, within the time-limit
2 prescribed by the Rules and the extension of time order that the
3 Trial Chamber kindly enough granted the Prosecution over the holidays.
4 Now, lastly and most importantly, the accused predictably made an
5 attack on the Prosecution which is completely baseless and nonsensical.
6 The Prosecution filed a number of motions which are recent. We
7 have explained in the motions why we seek certification or
8 reconsideration of various issues. I cannot, in open session, discuss
9 this because we've had to file the motions confidentially, but certainly
10 our motions set out the reasons for why they have been filed. There is
11 no attempt to abuse the process. We are making ourselves -- sorry. We
12 are using the Rules to file motions that are necessary to file to ensure
13 the fairness of the trial or to correct what we perceive to be errors
14 that have snuck into various decisions. We've pointed these things out
15 in our filings, and there is absolutely nothing abusive about that. And,
16 of course, there are certainly decisions that we haven't challenged, and
17 some of the decisions that we have challenged were partially challenged
18 because we do not see a basis under the Rules for disagreeing with some
19 of the decisions that have been ruled on, and some of them we agree with.
20 So I want to put on record that we oppose the motion for abuse of
21 process and submit that it should be denied. And I hope that next time
22 we will be able to be given notice of these kind of motions if the
23 accused would like to make any oral motions at administrative hearings.
24 Thank you, Your Honours.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, I have to deal with something
2 Mr. President, very briefly, Mr. Marcussen precisely demonstrated
3 very convincingly that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
4 In relation to Witness 026, he says that the dates that I
5 mentioned were not true. I mentioned the 15th of December and then the
6 17th of December as the other motion. He said that it was on the 22nd of
7 December, and that is the -- and he said that that was the suspect
8 interview. No, that refers to Witness 037. Mr. Marcussen, in his mind,
9 does not make a distinction between 026 and 037, those two witnesses.
10 Witness 037, on the 22nd of December -- Judges, look at the
11 transcript again. You will see that all of it speaks of 026,
12 Witness 026, and the date is the 22nd of December.
13 As for Witness 026, there is a motion filed on the 15th of
14 December and two filed on the 17th of December that I successfully mocked
15 here as proof of the lack of seriousness of the OTP. Witness 037 was
16 treated in the motion of the 22nd of December. It has to do with his
17 suspect interview. That is proof for you that Mr. Marcussen has no idea
18 what he's doing, but he is doing it making every effort, because his
19 objective is to drag his feet as much possible, not to achieve anything.
20 For a long time, everyone in the OTP has been aware of the fact
21 that they have nothing to look forward to in this case. They have
22 suffered a fiasco in these proceedings.
23 As for lack of notice coming from me as to what I'm going to do
24 today, Mr. Marcussen bringing that up, that is such insolence. He is
25 sitting there with six people today, six co-workers. And since these
1 proceedings started, I have been sitting here on my lonesome with just
2 one guard sitting next to me, and the guards change all the time. And
3 now he is objecting.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It was told to me that we only
5 have a few minutes left.
6 Mr. Marcussen, as to the 22nd of December decision, it was a
7 confidential one. I am not going to name it. It had to do with the
8 Prosecution's motion for leave to admit the prior statement and the
9 suspect interview of Witness VS-37. I have the decision here in front of
10 me. It is dated the 22nd of December, 2010. So everything is clear, and
11 everybody is now on the same page. There's a decision concerning VS-026
12 and another decision regarding VS-037.
13 The Trial Chamber is seized of the motions of Mr. Seselj's
14 position and of your position, Mr. Marcussen's, and now we are going to
15 issue our decisions. At least there will have been some news to the
16 administrative hearing. We now have all the pieces we need.
17 Mr. Marcussen.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm glad the accused is now on the same page as
19 the Prosecution.
20 I just wanted to put on record something that the accused had
21 brought up earlier; namely, all the people in the courtroom who are here
22 representing the Prosecution.
23 I'm today in court with Ms. Biersay and our case manager, and
24 there are other people who I believe are interns from the Chamber, and
25 they are not part of the Prosecution, although they do sit behind us.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was about to say so.
2 Mr. Seselj, there are only three representatives of the OTP.
3 There may be many more in the offices, which is my opinion, but here in
4 court there are only three of them, and you are all alone, that's for
6 It is now time to come to an end. The Trial Chamber is going to
7 issue a series of decisions --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just half a minute.
11 But in addition to the court reporter, who I know and who has
12 been working on our case all this time, we have these other four persons
13 who have not been introduced to us, and they are sitting in the part of
14 the courtroom that is reserved for the Prosecution. I think that that is
15 a perfectly legitimate assumption. If they come from Chambers, they
16 should be sitting in front of the Trial Chamber.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just for your information, they
18 are interns of the Trial Chamber. They couldn't be put anywhere else.
19 They were not going to be put next to you, at your side, so that was the
20 only place where we could put them. The courtroom is not big enough,
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, Mr. President, why aren't two
23 or three of them there and one or two on that side? So why haven't they
24 been distributed throughout the courtroom.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll keep your suggestion in
2 I wanted to say this: We're going to issue our decisions very
3 shortly. There will be a scheduling order as well, and I'm sure we will
4 reconvene in March for the 98 bis hearings. But it may be that we'll
5 hold another administrative hearing in February. I don't know. It will
6 all depend on sort of topical events or not. But we are working hard on
7 all these new motions, and we should be able to issue our decisions very
8 shortly. Rest assured, we're not going to take two years to reconsider
9 or to issue an order on the Babic decision.
10 Thank you very much. We shall reconvene very shortly.
11 The hearing stands adjourned.
12 --- Whereupon the Status Conference concluded
13 at 5.53 p.m.