Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17009

 1                           Tuesday, 23 August 2011

 2                           [Administrative Hearing]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 10.02 a.m.

 5                           [The accused entered court]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.  This

 8     is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

 9                           [French on English Channel]

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

11             We shall address administrative issues today.  I will give the

12     floor to the Prosecutor and to Mr. Seselj so that we address the issues

13     we intend to issue -- to address.  In the meantime, I need to correct the

14     transcript.  This needs to be done in closed session.

15             Registrar, let's move into closed session for a few minutes,

16     please.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17010











11 Page 17010 redacted. Private session.















Page 17011

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a comment to make about

 9     this.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.

11             THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues] ... we are in

12     open session.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move back into closed

14     session because Mr. Seselj wanted to make a comment about something which

15     related to what Mr. Marcussen previously said.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Previous translation continues] ...

17     [No interpretation]

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17012











11 Page 10712 redacted. Private session.















Page 17013

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

25             THE REGISTRAR:  We're now in open session, Your Honours.

Page 17014

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session we shall deal

 2     with administrative issues.

 3             First of all, I would like to address on behalf of the Bench the

 4     issue of the 475 motion.  On 13th of June, 2011, Mr. Seselj seized the

 5     Trial Chamber of a motion relating to an abuse of procedure requiring the

 6     trial to be cancelled.  This is a 67-page document with 21985 words, was

 7     written by Dejan Mirovic, the expert on Mr. Seselj's team.  The

 8     Prosecutor responded to the motion.  The Trial Chamber has deliberated on

 9     the matter, and we shall file this in the days to come.  The request is a

10     long one and requires time, and we shall file our decision in a few days'

11     time.  Given that this is a rather urgent matter, I would like to inform

12     Mr. Seselj about the fact that the Trial Chamber has decided to dismiss

13     this motion.

14             That concerns my first point.

15             Now, I would like to address my second point, which relates to

16     Mr. Seselj's state of health.  I would like to say this in public,

17     because Mr. Seselj always wished health matters to be addressed in

18     public, and I agree with him entirely on this matter.

19             As you know, the Trial Chamber had ordered an expertise which had

20     been given to three experts.  The Registry had designated three experts

21     and unfortunately on the panel of experts there was one cardiologist who

22     was British.  The day the cardiologist wanted to examine Mr. Seselj, the

23     accused did not wish to be examined by this British person.  Mr. Seselj,

24     therefore, was not examined by a cardiologist.  Nonetheless, the

25     Trial Chamber waited for the reports of the two other experts to come in.

Page 17015

 1     We examined these reports.  And the two experts tend to conclude that

 2     Mr. Seselj must follow medical -- the medical treatment which has been

 3     prescribed for him and go on a diet.  Apart from that, everything seems

 4     to be running smoothly.

 5             As things stand today, we have no particular reason to be

 6     concerned about your state of health, Mr. Seselj.  I'm speaking on behalf

 7     of the Bench, if I rely on the reports which have been given to us and

 8     which you have also been given.  You took the floor a few minutes ago,

 9     and I find that you are, indeed, fit and well, and I hope it will

10     continue that way and that you will live for many years after today.

11             So much for your state of health.

12             A few days ago, the Prosecutor seized the Trial Chamber of

13     written submissions relating to a report relating to an amicus curiae.

14             Mr. Marcussen, would you like to address this issue now.

15             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             If I may first --

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I address the first issue,

18     since we're moving on to what the Prosecutor is initiating.

19             You raised the issue of my health, and I think that completes

20     what the Trial Chamber has prepared.

21             So in order not to have me speak again about this later, I wish

22     to say one thing.

23             What you said about public session and me being recommended a

24     diet, I think that's highly ridiculous and as a matter of fact quite

25     transparent.

Page 17016

 1             What sort of diet are you talking about?  I'm in prison.  I told

 2     you time and again:  The food that is given to us cannot even be eaten by

 3     swine; it's not even food for pigs.  We all do what we can.  We make ends

 4     meet.  Some people eat canned food, some people are actually able to

 5     cook, and we do what we can.

 6             Nevertheless, the medical report says, first and foremost, the

 7     first and dominant medical problem is an obstructive apnea syndrome in

 8     the patient's sleep.  The diagnosis has been confirmed by sleep

 9     polygraphy.  This is a serious condition and requires serious therapy.

10     This is something that was established at the intervention of a Russian

11     pulmonologist called Dr. Avdeev.  This would have been discovered earlier

12     on if the doctors had taken a sufficiently serious approach to my

13     condition.  It reads:  "The condition is serious and calls for

14     appropriate therapy."

15             I tried the therapy that was recommended, and I sent it back.

16     They kept pumping air into my lungs all night long.  No person on earth

17     can fall asleep under those conditions.  Perhaps there are people who

18     can.  I couldn't.  This is the cause of all of my heart-related problems,

19     or most.  Well, that hasn't been proven, but it's certain possible.  Now,

20     this is one thing that you need to bear in mind:  The Trial Chamber has

21     appointed a special medical team, and obviously that had a huge effect on

22     my overall situation.  Dr. Avdeev, the Russian doctor, forced the local

23     doctors to conduct some serious checks, and it has been found that the

24     condition is serious.  I managed to obtain a medicine which my wife

25     Jadranka brought over from Belgrade, and it appears to help.  It's

Page 17017

 1     actually a much simpler thing than the one that I was offered in prison.

 2     I'll just stick to that, no matter how difficult the situation is.  I

 3     don't think I understand exactly what I've been diagnosed with, but I

 4     think it's quite possible they're talking about my nightmares and bad

 5     dreams causing all of this.  That is a distinct possibility.  That is the

 6     one thing that I wish to add, because a diet that you addressed is not

 7     really what we were meant to be talking about.

 8             Secondly, I'm not fat, I'm not overweight, I'm not obese.  My

 9     body functions quite well, and I'm exceptionally pleased with every

10     single kilo of my body mass.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for these

12     clarifications.  On looking at the report drafted by the Russian expert

13     which I have scrutinised, as you can imagine, from what I understood, he

14     established a connection between apnea, which is a serious condition, of

15     course, and weight, and therefore recommended that you should eat less

16     and go on a diet, which means that you will be able to sleep better after

17     that.  That is what I have understood.  But I'm not a doctor, of course.

18     And the Russian expert was establishing a connection between the

19     difficulties you had sleeping with an overweight problem.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, I hope I'm not interrupting,

21     but there's one thing that I wish to tell you.

22             When we were being served normal food in the prison, and that was

23     the case up until 2005 when food was actually prepared in the prison, my

24     weight was 105 kilograms, because the food was prepared in the normal

25     way.  It was normal food, so you could control the intake.  And all of

Page 17018

 1     the inmates, or most, at least, were happy with the food we were served.

 2     But when they started bringing us food that was prepared months ahead of

 3     time and then frozen and then potatoes heated up just before being

 4     served, no person alive can eat that.  But there's no way you can control

 5     everything if they keep giving you canned food, chocolate, different

 6     kinds of nuts, and that sort of thing.  How can you possibly control your

 7     intake if the conditions are those?

 8             The International Criminal Court has a department in the same

 9     building where we are, and they have much better food than the ICTY.  We

10     are being served rubbish that costs no more than one euro per package.

11     They give it to us, we just bin it the moment we get it.  And that's how

12     it goes.  Those who are actually able to cook for themselves, well that's

13     what they do.  Those unable to cook eat from cans.

14             You can actually eat quite well on cans, you know.  It's quite

15     energising.  You get a lot of physical power, you know, but there's a

16     whole lot of other side effects that perhaps are not so good.

17             This helped me to cure my liver.  It wasn't the doctors who cured

18     my liver; I actually did it myself, you know.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's leave dietary issues

20     aside and address procedural matters.

21             Mr. Marcussen, I will give you the floor again.

22             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23             Before I address the administrative matters, let me just

24     introduce to the Court our new Case Manager, Alma Imamovic-Ivanov, who

25     will be assisting us in the case from now on.

Page 17019

 1             As for the administrative matters, as Your Honours indicated, on

 2     the 12th of August, the Prosecution filed a notification pursuant of the

 3     Trial Chamber's order regarding the organisation of the upcoming

 4     hearings.

 5             The Prosecution filed this notice to seek clarification of the

 6     timetable for the remainder of the case and address a number of other --

 7     clarification on a number of other issues.  We filed it, in particular,

 8     in light of the accused's decision not to call a Defence case; the

 9     Trial Chamber's decision from the 29th of June, 2010; and the anticipated

10     amicus report that will flow from that decision which is anticipated to

11     come, I believe, in October.

12             We sought calculation from the Trial Chamber on the proposed use

13     of the amicus report in the final deliberations by the Trial Chamber on

14     the charges in the main proceeding, and the Prosecution sought guidance

15     from the Trial Chamber as to the procedure and schedule that will govern

16     the admission of the report and investigative materials obtained by the

17     amicus on the issues such as whether the report and materials would be

18     disclosed to the parties, whether the Trial Chamber anticipated

19     examination and cross-examination of the amicus or any other individuals

20     relevant to the investigation, and the schedule that the Trial Chamber

21     might have considered for submissions on the use of the investigative

22     materials.

23             So we sought this to -- to seek guidance from the Trial Chamber

24     on these issues.

25             Thank you.

Page 17020

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what is your

 2     opinion on this?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, I have to

 4     correct the Prosecutor.  I have not taken the decision to not present

 5     evidence.  I have been presented from presenting evidence because my

 6     statutory right has been violated to have my Defence properly funded.

 7             I have been hamstrung in this, and now I'm ready to present my

 8     closing argument.  I have been prevented from presenting my own Defence,

 9     and that is going to provide a very strong argument for me both during my

10     closing argument and during the appeals.  I'm not dropping that.  I'm not

11     giving up on that.

12             Secondly, as for what concerns the amicus curiae and his report.

13     I have at no point in time been informed about his work, nor indeed has

14     the amicus seen it fit to contact me or indeed any of my associates.  As

15     far as I know, he never contacted any of the potential witnesses that the

16     Prosecutor exerted pressure upon, the witnesses that I specifically named

17     in my appeals procedure against Carla Del Ponte and her associates.

18     Maybe the amicus will complete his work based on written documents alone,

19     which I hope will include the transcript of this trial.  The transcript

20     of this trial offers a whole lot of evidence on how false witnesses were

21     instrumentalised.

22             I think when the amicus files his report he should appear in the

23     courtroom and he should be ready to answer my questions concerning the

24     reports, since I'm the person filing the motion, and the defendant here,

25     and obviously also any questions to be asked by the Trial Chamber.

Page 17021

 1             Will the amicus examine anyone or examine a witness or not?

 2     Well, that's a different thing.  That's for those to decide who charged

 3     him with his mission.  It remains to be heard that the report produced by

 4     the amicus will be a serious report, although who knows.  I certainly

 5     have my doubts.

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15             Anyway, I have tasked my own assistant, the -- Dejan Milovic to

16     draw up a new contempt request.  This will be served on you by

17     mid-September and will include a total of 40 witnesses, which means that

18     I'm dropping the four that were eventually dropped by the OTP.  I'm

19     offering in that motion specific evidence to prove that they were false

20     witnesses and that they perjured themselves.  Starting with the one who

21     said that the meeting of the Serb Radical Party in Zvornik was held two

22     years after it was actually held, and then including everybody else.

23             You know how many lies have been told in this trial full well.

24     They will start trying me also before publishing that document.  This is

25     another motion that I submitted to the president of the ICTY,

Page 17022

 1     Patrick Robinson.  It has been published in English.  Everyone from the

 2     Council of Europe knows about this, and everyone from the OSCE in

 3     Belgrade was given a copy of the book containing this material.

 4             In relation to that, I would like to file a motion with the

 5     Trial Chamber because I'm facing contempt proceedings number four at this

 6     point.  They're probably about to press charges against Nikola Seselj,

 7     who's my oldest son and who takes care of my web site.  We'll probably

 8     stand together in this courtroom, facing the Trial Chamber.

 9             That all protective measures be dropped.  And this proved to be

10     entirely absurd because all the protective measures were used for was to

11     protect the lies being told in this courtroom.  No witness in this trial

12     ever faced any real danger.  Absolutely no danger at all.  No one was at

13     risk.  And the Prosecutor never gave us a shred of evidence of any risk

14     or threat involved.

15             I had to deal with a specific problem as well in the other

16     proceedings, contempt proceedings, against me.  I brought a total of ten

17     witnesses.  Eight of those enjoyed protective measures.  We had

18     Witness 026 testifying.  Judges, sir, as you remember how adamant I was

19     that the witness should be called, and if he was unable to actually make

20     it here, that he should testify videolink.  And yet you ordered the

21     Registrar to appoint a medical expert to ascertain whether the witness's

22     health allowed him to appear as a witness.  And then this doctor, God

23     knows at whose orders - maybe orders of the OTP, maybe the Registry, or

24     somebody else, I don't really know, so I'm speculating, but I do not wish

25     to speculate any further - the doctor decided that the witness was

Page 17023

 1     neither able to travel nor indeed to testify via videolink.

 2             Nevertheless, no more than a month later the witness is flown to

 3     The Hague, he sits in this very courtroom, spends an hour and a half

 4     answering our question, perfectly composed, perfectly rational, debunking

 5     the OTP case, and telling us in no uncertain terms that he was coerced

 6     into giving evidence in the Milosevic case.  There.  That's what

 7     happened.  Who was it who lied to you in the first place that the witness

 8     was unable to testify?  If you wish, you can look into that.  If not,

 9     not.  That's none of my business.  I have achieved what I set out to

10     achieve.

11             Secondly, Zoran Gavrilovic also came eventually.  You first

12     dropped him, and then he was a protected witness, and he asked, himself,

13     that the protective measures be removed.  You said okay.  And then in

14     your ruling --

15             Am I speaking too loudly?  Perhaps I should speak a little more

16     silently.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  A little slower, please.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try to keep my voice down, but

19     please don't allow Mr. Marcussen to interrupt me, because he always does

20     in a way which doesn't make sense.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What's your problem,

22     Mr. Marcussen?

23             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I tried to intervene when there was a break by

24     the accused.

25   (redacted)

Page 17024

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript cannot be redacted

 5     because I only mentioned that there was a criminal report filed against

 6     44 false witnesses.  I didn't say anything about the actual content of

 7     the document.  It cannot be a secret from the public that I filed such a

 8     motion to the President of the Tribunal.  Not to mention the fact that I

 9     have disclosed the content -- disclosed the document in different ways.

10     But I never mentioned anything here which is protected by the protective

11     measures, and I never retold the content of the document.

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16             Please continue, Mr. Seselj.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I can say that it is the

18     easiest for you that everything should be confidential, that I should be

19     tried in secrecy.  Even the people from the lawyers bar, they also insist

20     on protective measures being imposed on certain proceedings and on

21     certain documents.  Even they.  How long can we take that?  My right to a

22     public trial is constantly being violated.  If you're not trying me in

23     public, then you're not trying me at all.  That just amounts to

24     execution.  There can be no trial without the presence of the public.  In

25     the civilised world, the public can be barred only in the case of sexual

Page 17025

 1     offences and in cases involving minors.  And in some countries it can

 2     also be done if we are talking about espionage.  But no requirement, no

 3     such requirement, has been satisfied here for barring the public.  So why

 4     bar the public?

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21             However, you said that you were going to file a complaint for

22     perjury regarding 44 witnesses.

23             I remind you, Rule 91(F).  You see it's very short.  If a Judge

24     or one or the other of these Judges in trial proceedings with Judges --

25     if that Judge sat as a member of the Trial Chamber for which the witness

Page 17026

 1     appeared, well, that Judge may not sit for the trial of the witness for

 2     false testimony.

 3             So if we apply this Rule, we can only say that we are not allowed

 4     to sit on such case.  And even if we were to have jurisdiction, I would

 5     decide to disqualify myself, because, as you know, Mr. Seselj, I have

 6     always wanted to make a difference between the main proceedings and

 7     ancillary proceedings.  So my position is crystal clear in this matter.

 8             We didn't know.  We did not know that you had this intention of

 9     seizing the Chamber of this matter.  And I also would like you to clarify

10     what you said earlier on.  You said - and this is what you thought - that

11     you were prevented from making your Defence case, and you connect that

12     with a decision on funding; and that is the reason why, as I understood

13     it, you wanted to have some time for your closing argument.

14             Did I understand you properly?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not sure how you understood me.

16     What I said was that I was prevented from presenting a Defence case and

17     that I was already preparing myself for the closing argument.  We had no

18     discussion about the time that we would have available for the closing

19     argument.  If we are already broaching this subject, then I will be

20     asking for ten days for my closing arguments.

21             But I do have to warn you of this decision which you consider

22     confidential.  It's page 3, paragraph 6, where it reads:

23             "Where this authorised person who actually made a decision

24     says" -- because I want to ask you what this means.  And he is actually

25     returning me like a ping-pong ball to you and you are returning me to him

Page 17027

 1     again.  What is stated here is that you are empowered to ascertain

 2     whether there exists sufficient grounds for instituting proceedings

 3     against a person for perjury in a specific moment and then that you can

 4     take specific measures according to Rule 91(C)(i) and (C)(ii).

 5             Well, then, we shall see whether you will refuse my motion, in

 6     which case it shall have been refused twice.  And then the legal

 7     commission of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights

 8     can wonder why that was done.  You have already refused my motion, and I

 9     suppose that your decision will be also -- will also refuse my motion.  I

10     haven't seen it yet, but I have no allusions that it will be such.

11             But you are violating all my rights.  You are violating the

12     European Covenant on Human Rights.

13             The Prosecutor here is invoking some cases from Rwanda.  What

14     connection does one have with the European Convention on Human Rights?

15     If they are not honouring the African convention, that is their problem.

16     They have Jean Bedel Bokassa the first, the tzar of Africa, who was

17     accused of cannibalism.  So was Idi Amin, the dictator.  But that is

18     nothing that concerns me.  What concerns me is the European Convention on

19     Human Rights and the fact that you are ruthlessly trampling upon it.

20     Namely, that I have been here for more than eight years now illegally

21     incarcerated, and you, Mr. Antonetti, in your separated opinion in this

22     decision taken by the Trial Chamber, say that in the meanwhile I was

23     convicted for contempt of court.  But in no proceedings for contempt of

24     court were any orders -- was an order issued for my arrest.  There's just

25     one which was issued by O-Gon Kwon in January 2003.  And I have been here

Page 17028

 1     in detention only pursuant to that order.  You never re-examined that

 2     order.  Only in 2004 did you do so, when you also refused my motion.

 3             And another thing.  Apart from the fact that you are bound by the

 4     Treaty of Rome and the rules of the permanent criminal court to revise,

 5     to re-examine, the detention [as interpreted] decision, I undertook an

 6     experiment this summer, because I knew about this catch that you

 7     processed, that you dealt with in your dissenting opinion.  I actually

 8     asked for annual leave to be granted to me, and the answer I got was that

 9     I had been arrested as part of the main proceedings and it is only this

10     Trial Chamber that can make a decision on that.

11             So never was an order for -- a warrant for my arrest issued

12     within the proceedings for contempt of court.  You shouldn't worry about

13     what will happen after you have handed down your judgement.  I'm here,

14     detained on the basis of an order in the main proceedings and in no other

15     way and on no other grounds.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there's one good

17     thing about you.  As a professor of law, you look into every legal issue

18     from all sides.  And you raise an issue that is not of concern for this

19     Trial Chamber but that is the problem of contempt proceedings, saying

20     that you were never under any arrest warrant for contempt proceedings,

21     and, secondly, that you do not know what the legal situation is actually,

22     whether you have to serve the sentence or not.

23             I raised the issue myself in my dissenting opinion.  I said then

24     that it was in your interest to address this issue with the relevant

25     Chamber, to know whether you are currently serving that sentence or not,

Page 17029

 1     because God knows what tomorrow will be.  But when this Trial Chamber

 2     issues a judgement of acquittal or conviction, if you were to be

 3     convicted, what will happen with the sentences you were convicted of for

 4     contempt proceedings?  If our decision is a decision of acquittal, then

 5     you will sent -- you'll have to stay in prison for another couple of

 6     years because you have to serve the contempt conviction.  And that's the

 7     problem.  That's where the problem lies.

 8             And I tell you, our Trial Chamber is not competent, has no

 9     jurisdiction, to know of that situation with regard to sentences for

10     contempt.  I think you have had a 15-month conviction.  In addition to

11     that, there is another conviction that has been asked for but there's no

12     decision yet.  And I think you need to seek clarification with the

13     relevant Chambers.

14             Now you address a problem that is very familiar to us Judges.

15     That is, the problem of violation of your rights.  You do not ask us to

16     issue another decision, but believe us, we've done our level best to make

17     sure that your rights are complied with.  Your initial right was to

18     represent yourself.  You were given the right.

19             Second right:  We issued a decision on how to fund your Defence,

20     whilst we could have done nothing about it, but we did.  We did venture

21     into that realm of Defence rights.  And we issued a decision, that was

22     confirmed by the Appeals Chamber, that imposes on the Registrar to cover

23     some costs related to your Defence.  But I seem to understand that the

24     Registrar expected from you some invoices, and so far there was none, so

25     that the Registrar was not able to pay anything because he needs to have

Page 17030

 1     receipts, which you have not provided him with.

 2             Of course, in the eyes of the international community you could

 3     say that there's been violations, and an impartial listener listening to

 4     you, to your arguments, also has to look into these scores, if not

 5     hundreds, of decisions we issued in this respect.  And to this date, I do

 6     not believe that we ever impinged upon your rights to defend yourself.

 7             Earlier on you said, Oh, I'll need several hours for my closing

 8     argument.  We're not there yet.  But let me remind you - and maybe you

 9     have forgotten about it - before we come to the stage of the closing

10     arguments, there are closing briefs, final briefs to be filed.  Normally

11     we should have the final brief, the final Prosecution brief, and the

12     Defence, too, has to file one.  Do you plan to file submissions in this

13     respect?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is only the

15     Prosecution that has to file a closing brief.  The Defence is not under

16     that obligation, and I'm not going to file a closing brief because I

17     cannot do so.  I cannot compile it myself.  I need the assistance of my

18     legal advisors.  And I have been denied such assistance.

19             See what has been done here.  That was a co-ordinated action.

20     You gave me a deadline of six weeks to prepare under Article 65 ter a

21     list of exhibits and a list of witnesses.  And you give me such an order,

22     whilst at the same time the Registry is instituting disciplinary

23     proceedings against Boris Aleksic and Dejan Mirovic, my assistants, my

24     legal advisors.  Namely, at that moment they wished to deprive me of any

25     professional, any and all professional, assistance.  Well, that cannot be

Page 17031

 1     done.  That just want do.  I have demonstrated many a time and repeatedly

 2     that I'm much more intelligent than the staff of the Tribunal in the

 3     The Hague, and such ruses really cannot succeed with me because I can see

 4     through them immediately.

 5             And as regards these ancillary proceedings for contempt of court,

 6     you know, Judges, that in the Anglo-Saxon legal system and in the

 7     continental legal system, in the common law system, it is impossible,

 8     during proceedings for grave crimes, to have another proceed for contempt

 9     of court instituted against the accused.  That is impossible because I am

10     here stand accused of the gravest crimes and in addition to that, in

11     parallel, for contempt of court.  How can the accused be punished?  Had I

12     ever obstructed the normal course of proceedings, you could have had me

13     removed temporarily from the courtroom and nothing more.  Nothing more

14     than that.

15             You say, Mr. Antonetti, that I should seek an explanation, a

16     clarification, of this situation.  That is not in my interest.  What is

17     in my interest is for this thing to become as intricate, as complicated,

18     as untangled as possible.  That is why I've decided to institute at least

19     ten, ten, to be the object of at least ten contempt of court proceedings,

20     so that this Court could get mired in a quagmire and that the total sum

21     of my punishments for contempt of court would be much higher, much

22     longer, than the one you planned to mete out to me, of course, I'm

23     speculating, for all my grave crimes.  That is my objective.  I want to

24     dismantle, I want to tear apart, the Tribunal at The Hague to its very

25     constituent elements to smithereens.  I will show that it can kill me, it

Page 17032

 1     can sentence me to life, but it cannot emerge victorious in my regards.

 2     I'm the Viktor here.  I have won the main proceedings and all the

 3     ancillary proceedings for contempt of court already.

 4             And my eldest son Nikola can also sit by my side when he's

 5     arrested.  The Internet site will be taken over by my son Aleksandar.

 6     When he's arrested, by my son Mihajlo.  When he's arrested, my son

 7     Vladimir will take it over.  And eventually when I'm in prison here with

 8     all of my sons, my wife will take over the editing of my Internet site.

 9     And to whose disgrace will that be?  To the disgrace of this illegal

10     Court.  Not on my head.  This cannot be allowed.  The accused cannot be

11     criminally prosecuted for -- an accused cannot be criminally prosecuted

12     for contempt of court.  If I physically attacked someone in court, then

13     it's time you take me to the courtroom bound, tied.  That is the only

14     solution.  Or you keep me in a cage.

15             There are some countries where the accused are held in an

16     aquarium.  For instance, the treacherous regime in Belgrade has

17     introduced an aquarium into their special court courtroom.  All the

18     accused are in this aquarium, and instead of following the proceedings,

19     they're just waiting for -- to see from where the water will flush them

20     out of the aquarium or flood them in the aquarium.  There is no other

21     way.  Ten contempt of court proceedings and the sentences will all in all

22     be over 20 years.

23             The greater the absurd -- the absurdity of it, the greater my

24     victory over this court.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there is at least

Page 17033

 1     one quality with you, because you're frank, and you sort of tell us ahead

 2     of time what you are going to do.  I understood that long ago.  You want

 3     to bother this Tribunal by multiplying the proceedings, the number of

 4     proceedings.  That's the reason why from the word go I disqualified

 5     myself from all the ancillary proceedings, because my only goal is to

 6     conclude the main proceedings, this trial, as quickly as possible, and to

 7     face the charges against you.  Because, indeed, the ancillary proceedings

 8     may take years.  And so you're right.  Contempt proceedings may easily

 9     take two years here, as we saw recently with the Hartmann case.  And --

10     and, indeed, if you want to delay at all, you can.  But I do not want the

11     main proceedings to be delayed any further by these ancillary

12     proceedings.  That's the reason why I have to tell you -- or ask you what

13     you plan to do.  You've just said so and you're right.  You've said, I'm

14     not bound to file any briefs.  Of course.  Fine.  But you said, It's

15     going to take my several hours for my closing arguments.  Well, I take

16     note of what you said.  The Trial Chamber is going to meet as early as

17     tomorrow --

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said ten days, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ten days, sorry.  Well, you

20     know, one day more or less does not matter at this stage.

21             So we're going to meet, because Judge Lattanzi and Judge Harhoff,

22     as well as I, are very well aware of our responsibility in this main

23     trial.  We're going to look at the transcript.  We're going to rule on

24     issues you've raised.  And we have all understood.  You have understood

25     that as well.  We have to wait for the amicus curiae's report.  But you

Page 17034

 1     provided us with totally new information.  I think it's important.  You

 2     said that the amicus curiae did not get in touch with you or your

 3     associates, and, even less, contacted the witnesses.  I think that's

 4     important information.

 5             Mr. Marcussen, following what Mr. Seselj says, do you want to say

 6     what the OTP thinks, or have you got nothing to say either?

 7             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, I, first of all, agree with the

 8     Trial Chamber that the Trial Chamber has gone out of its way to ensure

 9     that the accused can present his case.  The allegations that there's any

10     unfairness are completely unfounded.  And the accused tried to set it up

11     as if he has been prevented from presenting evidence, and now he's

12     prevented from presenting in the case and do a closing brief.  These are

13     really just things that the accused is setting up by, as Your Honour

14     pointed out, for example, not providing the information to the Registrar

15     such as basic invoices.

16             So all these arguments are completely unfounded.

17             It is the Prosecution's submission that the accused has to file a

18     closing brief if he wants to make an oral closing argument.  Or, at a

19     minimum, he -- if he does not file a meaningful brief, he cannot be

20     allowed to do a ten-day closing argument.  It completely defeats the

21     purpose of the Rules.

22             As Your Honours pointed out, or I believe maybe it was in the

23     President's dissenting opinion at the 98 bis hearing, it is difficult in

24     closing submissions to make precise and detailed evidence analysis and

25     provide full references to evidence.  It is an important part of the

Page 17035

 1     closing arguments that the parties and the Chamber be assisted by precise

 2     submissions, oral hearings, to some extent lend themselves obviously to

 3     this kind of presentation.  But, really, on important issues such as a

 4     closing of a case, a brief should be filed.  And it makes no sense to

 5     have a ten-day submission by the accused.  And it's completely unheard

 6     of.  I don't believe there have been any such lengthy closing arguments

 7     by an accused in this Tribunal.

 8             So that's our position on that.

 9             I noted in my earlier -- when I was up last, that we had filed a

10     notice-seeking clarification on a number of issues.  From what I

11     understand, the Trial Chamber will be deliberating on scheduling matters

12     shortly.  But we'll -- will the Chamber clarify in that context some of

13     the issues that we have raised?  Of I'm a little uncertain about what the

14     procedure is going to be following this.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, when the

16     Trial Chamber shall deliberate, it will address all the issues raised in

17     written submissions and anticipates, on the future, by taking decisions

18     so that the trial runs smoothly, like Scheduling Orders.  I can't answer

19     your question now because we shall meet tomorrow.  I'd be anticipating on

20     various people's positions if I did that.

21             Once we get the written submissions, we shall either hand down an

22     oral decision or a written decision.  It might be one or the other.  I

23     don't know.  If we hand down an oral decision, we will then have to hold

24     another hearing.  But we are not there yet, since we have not met yet.

25             You said that nobody has ever had ten days for its closing

Page 17036

 1     arguments in this Tribunal.  I'm addressing the professor of law now,

 2     Mr. Seselj.  Please mark the distinction between closing arguments and

 3     witness testimonies.  Or are you confusing the two?  The closing argument

 4     does not amount to a testimony.

 5             Have you understood this?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I have to point out

 7     the greatest bit of nonsense I've ever heard just uttered by

 8     Mr. Marcussen.  He said, If I don't filed my closing brief, I'm not

 9     entitled to present a closing argument.  This is the kind of nonsense

10     that no living being can put up.  Of course I'm entitled to present my

11     closing argument.  My right to do that is absolute.

12             It down to the Trial Chamber, the Judges, to decide how long I

13     will be allowed to take.  In continental law, as you know, there is no

14     limitation.  The closing argument can go on for as long as the

15     Prosecution and Defence lawyers have anything to stay.  If at some point

16     it turns out that they have nothing more to say and start talking

17     nonsense, the Trial Chamber steps in to prevent that from happening.  If

18     the accused picks up a telephone directory or the Bible and then starts

19     reading everything there is in it, in that case the Trial Chamber is

20     allowed to step in.  Other than that, the closing argument must not be

21     violated and must not be interrupted by either the Chamber or the

22     Prosecutor.  No interventions are allowed.

23             If a closing argument is coherent, it must not be interrupted by

24     saying "This is not true, that is not the way it was," or anything like

25     that.  It is a custom here at this Tribunal that a time-limit is set for

Page 17037

 1     the closing argument.  I asked for the maximum, which is ten days.  And

 2     it is up to the Trial Chamber to determine how long exactly I will be

 3     allowed.  I certainly hope that it will not fall below the ten-hour mark,

 4     the ten days' maximum being one thing, and the ten-hour minimum being the

 5     other.  I certainly did not confuse the closing brief and the closing

 6     argument.  In order to get there, I have to do the examination-in-chief

 7     and then be cross-examined.  I would have been perfectly prepared to

 8     testify, take the witness stand in my own case, had the financing issue

 9     for my Defence been dealt with, because then I could have had my three

10     legal assistants here, with a Case Manager, and they would have examined

11     me in-chief; whereas the Prosecutor would then have had a chance to

12     cross-examine me and so would the Chamber.

13             The way it is, I'm unable to appear in my own case because

14     there's no one to do the examination-in-chief.  I can't possibly be

15     expected to examine myself in-chief, can I?  Well perhaps I could, but

16     the public would die laughing.  Although - don't doubt this for a

17     second - I would be perfectly able to do that.

18             Secondly, something I wanted to tell you, Mr.  Antonetti.  We did

19     not waste a single day in the main proceedings because of the contempt

20     proceedings that were underway all the time.  Not a single day was wasted

21     or lost because of my health.  Not a single day was lost because of

22     countless of other disruptions and disturbances put in my path by the

23     OTP, by the Registrar.  There is only one thing that you need to

24     remember:  We started the trial before the OTP had fully complied with

25     all of their commitments.  And then you even made a ruling for the start

Page 17038

 1     of this trial to not be counted as the 7th of November when the opening

 2     arguments were presented but only the 1st of December when the first

 3     witness appeared because the OTP had failed to do the disclosure in time.

 4     I warned you at the time that that was something that mustn't be done,

 5     but you still made that ruling.

 6             There's another thing that I wish to remind you of,

 7     Mr. Antonetti.  You were the Pre-Trial Judge in this case.  You did a

 8     very conscientious job up until the very end, when there was this Council

 9     of Europe resolution that the traitor Tomislav Nikolic was involved in,

10     and then you sort of hastened the beginning of the trial.  You advised me

11     to get a loan from some bank somewhere until the financing issue was

12     resolved and then to pay the loan back at some point.  That was the

13     advice that I got from you.

14             Just imagine the situation.  Had I done that, had I found two

15     guarantors and was eventually unable to pay back that loan, the

16     guarantors would have ended up in an impossible situation and perhaps

17     might have committed suicide out of sheer desperation.  Back where I come

18     from, people commit suicide in many cases because they acted as

19     guarantors in someone getting a loan from a bank, the person ending up

20     being unable to pay the loan back.  And then you have all this currency

21     exchange rate situation.  So what can the guarantor do?  They commit

22     suicide.  They kill themselves out of sheer desperation.  And that is

23     something that is not at all uncommon in my country.  Yet, at the time,

24     you were entirely certain that the financing issue would be dealt with.

25     But we're talking about the pre-trial stage.

Page 17039

 1             Mind you, just imagine what would have happened if I had followed

 2     your advice, if I had taken out a loan.  One of my closest friends would

 3     probably be about to hang themselves right now because that would be

 4     their only way out of this unenviable situation.  I'm very grateful that

 5     I kept my counsel and I protected my friends.  I was clever enough not to

 6     do what you at the time advised me to do.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 8     continues] ... had a question to put to you and will put to you in a

 9     minute.

10             Judge Harhoff is wondering whether you have fully understood the

11     difference between a closing argument and testimony.  These are not one

12     and the same thing.

13             Can you confirm what you said a while ago, please.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Did I confirm that I understood or

15     that I didn't understand?

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You said in your answer to the Presiding Judge

17     that you did not confuse closing brief and the closing argument.

18     However, that was not the question that was put to you by the

19     Presiding Judge.

20             He asked you whether you had fully understood the difference

21     between giving testimony as a witness and, on the other hand, providing

22     your final arguments, closing arguments.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think I've demonstrated

24     that countless times in the trial so far.

25             There isn't a lawyer anywhere to be found in this Tribunal whose

Page 17040

 1     better than me at procedural issues and procedural law.  There is no

 2     lawyer who can stand up to me.  I'm good enough to complete with any of

 3     them and beat them at their own game.

 4             When I'm talking about my closing argument, I will be dealing

 5     with evidence, with witness testimonies, the broader political context,

 6     starting with Carla Del Ponte's book and then on like that.  The work of

 7     this illegal Tribunal, all of that.  But that will not constitute my

 8     evidence.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Your evidence can only be given by way of

10     testimony, that is to say, if you appear as a witness.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Harhoff, I am presenting a

12     closing argument.  I'm not talking about my evidence.  I have been

13     prevented from presenting a Defence.  Earlier on when I still hoped that

14     I might be able to present a Defence, at one point I told you that I

15     would be appearing as a witness in my own case and that my evidence might

16     add up to a third of the total time allowed for my Defence case.  But I

17     was not allowed to present my entire Defence case which included not

18     being allowed to present -- to appear as a witness in my own case.

19             This is not something that you can impose on me.  Maybe it's an

20     interpretation problem.  I'm not sure I understood your words right.

21     You've been interpreted as saying that I could only appear as a witness.

22     I'm not appearing as a witness.  I refuse to do that.  I will appear as a

23     witness if my Defence is financed, if I can have my associates here, if

24     they can have all the questions for my examination-in-chief.  And then

25     they hand me over to the OTP for the cross and perhaps also for the

Page 17041

 1     Chambers's questions.

 2             My closing argument, on the other hand, will be a response to the

 3     OTP's closing argument, the OTP's closing brief, and a response to all

 4     the evidence that has been admitted, as well as all of the testimony that

 5     we have heard in this courtroom.  Being also a response to the broader

 6     context, Carla Del Ponte being given a mission, the mission being to

 7     arrest me.  And what followed from there, what that generated, was a

 8     trial that blew up in the Tribunal's face.  And many of the persons

 9     involved are now sorry that the indictment ever came to be.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

11     continues] ... you give us the impression that you're playing a cat and

12     mouse game.  And when you answered Mr. -- Judge Harhoff's question, you

13     said you can't be a witness because, as a witness, you need to answer

14     questions.  And the questions would be put by your associates.  Since

15     your associates are not funded in any way, I can therefore not be a

16     witness.

17             If we agree that what you are saying is true, I cannot believe

18     that your own associates, Mr. Aleksic or Mr. Krasic, could not come in

19     the courtroom.  They could pay for their plane ticket, for their hotel,

20     and put questions.  Who could reasonably believe that this is impossible?

21             Mr. Seselj, I -- I have had, on very many occasions, the

22     possibility to view your videos on your site, where in the Sava centre a

23     great number of people have provided support, and support you.  I cannot

24     believe that among those thousand people, one or two people could not

25     have given one or two euros to Mr. Aleksic, that Mr. Aleksic comes and

Page 17042

 1     puts a few questions to you.

 2             Therefore, the funding issue, as we have told you many times

 3     already, is only a matter for the Registrar to deal with.  The Registrar

 4     has asked you for receipts.  So he's an accountant, and he's held

 5     accountable for the United Nations.  Since you have given no receipts, we

 6     are in a difficult situation.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not true, Mr. President.

 8     The Registrar never asked me to present any bills except in one case.

 9     There was a submission that I filed, I'm not sure if it was 20- or 30.000

10     euros, it was about the costs of my investigation, what a Registry

11     official was doing at the Ohrid lake and what that had to do with my

12     case.  I'm not mentioning any names here because we would have to go into

13     a closed session.  And they never covered any of my other bills.  They

14     even refused to cover the travel of my associates to The Hague.  Even

15     that.

16             Secondly, my associates are not beggars.  They won't go around

17     the streets of Belgrade begging for money.

18             Thirdly, their salaries.  All four of them are national

19     delegates.  Three advisors, Zoran Krasic, then Mirovic, Boric, Aleksic,

20     and the Case Manager Nemanja Saric.  The people's delegates, deputies.

21     They're paid 1.000 euros a month, and they use that salary to keep their

22     families, to support their families.  They are unable to earmark a

23     portion of their salary to fund their travel to The Hague and their

24     involvement in my Defence.  Secondly, had the Tribunal acted in keeping

25     with the Statute, I would have been able, from day one in the courtroom,

Page 17043

 1     to enjoy the support and assistance of my associates in this courtroom,

 2     not over the phone, me picking up the phone to talk to them every two

 3     minutes just to confer and to consult.

 4             I am probably the only case in which the accused had to stand on

 5     his own.  The OTP has had at least ten people appearing for the

 6     Prosecutor, quite aside from the admin staff coming and going.  Why do

 7     you now raise the issue of my closing argument in this way?  I'm totally

 8     unclear about that.  If the Prosecutor is entitled to a closing argument,

 9     then certainly I am.  And mine has to come after the Prosecutor.  I must

10     have final say.  Why do you find a problem with that?  I really don't

11     understand.  I'm quite far along in my preparations for my closing

12     argument, what's more.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Seselj, according to the information which is

14     available to the Chamber, the Registry has asked you to provide the names

15     of the persons who have assisted you and the number of hours that they

16     have worked for you in preparation for your Defence and the bank accounts

17     to which the Registrar would subsequently send the money, in accordance

18     with the Chamber's decision to allow you 50 per cent coverage of the

19     costs of your Defence.

20             So all you had to do is to provide the Registry with the names

21     and the hours and the bank account to which the money could be paid.

22             Secondly, Mr. Seselj, the difference between your giving

23     testimony as a witness and your presentation of the final arguments is,

24     as you are well aware, that the closing arguments are part of the record,

25     for sure, but they're not evidence.

Page 17044

 1             In contrast, your testimony would form part of the body of

 2     evidence that will be considered by the Court in the end.

 3             So the issue of your testimony could have well been solved by

 4     having, as the Presiding Judge suggested, having one of your assistants

 5     put the questions to you and your providing the answers to those

 6     questions.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You have now several times

 8     mentioned a document that I don't think I've ever set eyes on.  You

 9     assume that the Registrar asked to have information from me as to what

10     exactly my associates were doing, their bank account numbers, and so on

11     and so forth.  Whereas, that is not true.  They asked to have that in

12     2007 when I told them -- because first they wanted to have the name of a

13     particular person who would be receiving money and distributing money

14     based on what exactly was being done.  I came up with Zoran Krasic, and

15     they wanted Zlatko Djezbovic [phoen], saying that the one was a lawyer

16     and the other wasn't.  I refused that.  And you realize that I was right,

17     because I did not entirely trust Slavko Jerkovic at the time.  When push

18     came to shove, he left my Defence team.

19             As for me appearing as my own witness, no one is keener than me

20     to have that happen.  I ran, I didn't walk, to appear as a witness in the

21     Milosevic case, as a Defence witness.  And I did that with great relish.

22     Do you doubt for a moment that I would take enormous pleasure to appear

23     as a witness in my own case, to clash with the Prosecutor about facts and

24     evidence, to take the Prosecutor again through the entire case, if that's

25     what's required?  But my fundamental statutory right has not been

Page 17045

 1     satisfactorily resolved, and that is just one of the flaws in this trial.

 2             I know what rules the Registrar applies in other cases in other

 3     trials, and I'm not minded to allow my rights to be violated like that.

 4     I submitted annual reports on a regular basis to the Registrar about any

 5     services rendered to me by my associates, members of my Defence team.  I

 6     stopped doing that sometime in 2007 or 2008, and the Registrar never

 7     inquired any further.  They can't demand anything of me, and they're not

 8     even willing to cover the travel of my associates.  Well, travel expenses

 9     being covered, well, that really is the condition of all conditions.  How

10     can I possibly ask Dragan Mamirovic [phoen] to write up the questions for

11     me and the Registrar is not even willing to cover his travel?  There were

12     ten witnesses who came The Hague with me, they were supposed to see me,

13     there was supposed to be this schedule drawn up of the two days I was

14     supposed to see all of them, but they wouldn't cover the travel expenses

15     of my associates, so there was nobody to prep and proof the witnesses.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you are saying that

17     all of this is due to the fact that your associates cannot put questions

18     to you because they are not paid for their expenses.  But why didn't you

19     not contemplate the simplest solution of all, which would be to sit here

20     in front of us and to say, I am available to answer your questions,

21     Your Honours.  In that case, I and my colleagues, we would have said to

22     you, Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 6, in section 6 of the indictment, you have

23     been accused of having participated in a joint criminal enterprise.

24     Please explain this to us.  And then you would have answered.  And,

25     little by little, we would have put questions to you.  And I would then

Page 17046

 1     have asked you, What about the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party,

 2     were they under a chain of command which went straight back to the

 3     leadership of the Serbian Radical Party?  And so on and so forth.

 4     Needless for you to put questions, the Judges would have put questions to

 5     you.  I would have then showed you documents and I would have asked you

 6     to look at such and such a document.  And once that phase was over, the

 7     Prosecutor might not have been entirely satisfied with our question and

 8     would have put his or her own questions in that case.

 9             And you are saying that you were unable to prepare a 65 ter list,

10     but you know this better than anyone else.  All one needs to do is to

11     listen to what you have said in the Milosevic case, 1500 pages.  You

12     could have just taken pen and paper and written down your 65 ter number

13     exhibits.  You could have put your name on top of the list and number of

14     hours.  This doesn't cost anything.  That's all you needed to have done.

15     I am just acknowledging this.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, you wouldn't allow,

17     would you, to have a trial flawed like that?  Each testimony has to have

18     an examination-in-chief and a cross-examination.  That being the bare

19     minimum.  And then you can have the Chamber's questions and so on and so

20     forth.  But if you don't have a chief and you don't have a cross, there

21     is no evidence.

22             Secondly, I must be given a chance to co-ordinate with my

23     associates and to come up with a list of questions are of the greatest

24     possible interest to our party.  It is not up to me to choose the

25     questions which might be of particular interest to you or, indeed, to the

Page 17047

 1     OTP.  I am not refusing to answer any questions by the Chamber or the

 2     OTP, but, on the other hand, I must be given a chance to answer those

 3     questions which I and my associates agree are essential to us, to our

 4     case.  And there should -- that should include a correction to my

 5     evidence in the Milosevic case as well.

 6             When I testified there, at the time I was entirely convinced that

 7     the Guards Brigade had handed over the prisoners at Ovcara to the

 8     civilian bodies there.  I was convinced at the time that's what the media

 9     said that was the general atmosphere.  And then I followed the trials

10     here, I saw a lot of evidence, and I realized that the Guards Brigade

11     never at the time handed over the prisoners to any civilian body.  And up

12     until the very last moment during the actual executions, the military

13     security officers there surveyed the scene.  Some of them actually

14     appeared here as OTP witnesses, and I've mentioned one name, one

15     particular name.  And then the other person came along, Colonel Vojnovic,

16     who was commander of the town of Vukovar and three specific locations or

17     villages, including Ovcara, and then he came along.  He did not accuse me

18     of anything at all, as you realize, but he was supposed to be in the

19     dock, not taking that stand, precisely because he tried to conceal a

20     crime, and yet he was here as an OTP witness.  And I myself had never

21     heard of the crime at all until two years later, and I end up facing all

22     these accusations and having to address all the allegations in the

23     indictment that was issued against me.

24             I had never heard about the Borac lake or any other locations, or

25     indeed what happened there, until I ended up here.  Therefore, either we

Page 17048

 1     have a normal trial where I have my Defence witnesses, where I use up my

 2     120 hours for the presentation of my Defence case, a trial in which I'm

 3     able to present Defence documents; or, indeed, there is no Defence case.

 4     You do realize how flawed the trial will be without a Defence case, don't

 5     you?  The one thing that I do know is that in my closing arguments I will

 6     not be presenting any evidence.  I will use my closing argument to

 7     triumph over the OTP and show the public that the indictment is hereby

 8     blown to smithereens.

 9             What will your verdict be?  I really don't care.  I've put that

10     on the record from day one.  I really don't care.  History will remember

11     you Judges simply because you stood in trial over me.  This is not a

12     slight on your previous careers and any work you may have published.

13     I've even read some work by Ms. Lattanzi, several essays that she wrote

14     about the work of The Hague Tribunal, among other things.  I'm aware of

15     your career as a Judge in France, Mr. Antonetti.

16             Mr. Harhoff, I believe you were involved in research, although I

17     have so far failed to come across a single piece of work that you

18     published.  This is not a slight on that.  I'm not criticising any of

19     you.  But, globally speaking, you will chiefly be remembered by posterity

20     because you stood in trial over me.  And any verdict will not be a

21     verdict on me but on yourselves.  Now you do as you please.  But I hope I

22     have managed to show you one thing:  No one here has been able to fool

23     me.  Not the Judges, not the Prosecutor, not the Registrar.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

25     continues] ... questions to put to you.

Page 17049

 1             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I understand that

 2     you do not wish to present your evidence as part of your Defence case,

 3     but that things are as clear as possible, I would like to specify what

 4     you said.  In the end, you asked for a confirmation.  We were advised

 5     that on the 1st of June you were sent a letter, I believe.  There's an

 6     acknowledgment of receipt of this same letter.  And the translation was

 7     given to you on the 3rd of June.  Letter in which you were asked to

 8     provide the receipts mentioned several times today by the

 9     Presiding Judge.  Receipts relating to expenses you have had from the --

10     the 9th of October onwards, 9th of October, 2010, a date on which you

11     were told that 50 per cent of your expenses would be covered.

12             So I would like to specify that it is not at all true that you

13     have not received anything, regarding any decision at any rate, for you

14     to be able to present your Defence case.  You received a decision that

15     was handed down by the Trial Chamber and a decision handed down by the

16     Appeals Chamber that confirmed this relating to the funding of

17     50 per cent of your overall expenses from the date of the decision

18     onwards.

19             Therefore, not what you had asked for, i.e., since the beginning

20     of the trial it wasn't exactly what you had wished for.  Nonetheless,

21     this was, nevertheless, a form of funding.

22             Also a directive relating to these receipts you needed to

23     provide -- to provide.  On the 1st of June, we received the

24     acknowledgment of receipt of this letter.  1st of June, 2011.  This is

25     nearly two months ago.  And you are telling us that you have received

Page 17050

 1     nothing concerning these funding matters from the Registry since 2007.

 2             Could you therefore please specify all of this and explain this

 3     to us.  You have received nothing?  So what is this acknowledgment of

 4     receipt doing?

 5             Could you explain this to us.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Lattanzi, I'm absolutely

 7     certain that I never read anything of the kind.  Was it perhaps some

 8     paper from the Registrar which I immediately through into the dust bin?

 9     There was some rules that they submitted to me about their method of

10     financing, but I'm not going to talk at all about the presentation of

11     bills for a year.  It is from the 24th of February, 2003, that my Defence

12     has to be paid.  For a third-category Defence, as prescribed.

13             I agree to the 50 per cent, but it has to be from day one.  And I

14     have the substantiation, the concrete jobs, done by my associates.  I

15     have 25 of them now.  Many of them left my team for different reasons.

16     Some of them betrayed me.  Others didn't want to work without any money.

17     And then I was dissatisfied with the work of yet others.  There were

18     different reasons.  But I do have the actual coverage for every cent

19     spent.  Recall all the materials that I used in my cross-examinations of

20     the OTP's witnesses here, et cetera.  But I'm not going to talk about any

21     partial recoupment of the Defence expenses.  My Defence started on the

22     24th of February, 2003, and not in October, 2010, or what have you.  So

23     it's an exercise in futility to talk about this anymore.  Either I get

24     paid for 50 percent of the costs of my entire Defence, and I shall defray

25     the other 50 per cent, I full -- in defending myself.

Page 17051

 1             If the Registrar demonstrates that I should pay for something,

 2     let him actually substantiate his claim.  Let us see how much I have to

 3     pay.  But anything apart from that, for specifically carried out jobs and

 4     work, has to be paid for by the Registry.  My situation is crystal clear.

 5     It is quite clear.

 6             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So apart from the fact that you

 7     have to prove that you are indigent, this being said, I understand that

 8     you say that you have been sort of refunded only as of the day when the

 9     decision was issued and only to the extent of 50 per cent of the costs.

10             There was a letter from the Registrar about the implementation of

11     the decision, and you say you threw it in the bin.  Is that right?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't recall having received that

13     at all.  I should like it to be proven by my signature or in any other

14     way that this is a document that I, indeed, received.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the 1st of June,

16     Ms. Campbell sent you a letter, and you received it; we have proof of it.

17             In the letter, she says that the Registry is going to refund up

18     to 375 hours of work per month, that each individual can have as many as

19     150 hours only.  And if you have any experts, each expert will be paid to

20     the extent of 75 hours of work.  This lady says in the last line of her

21     letter that she urges you to get in touch with her should you seek any

22     further explanation or clarification.  She says she's right outside your

23     cell door willing to discuss issues with you.  And you, you throw the

24     letter in the bin.

25             Well, I can understand why you do not want any follow-up.  You

Page 17052

 1     are always very clear and frank in anything you say.  You explained it.

 2     You say, What I want is for the refund to start as of 2003, and that's

 3     where the problem lies.  But you know that the decision was taken on

 4     refund starting as of your Defence case.  And I can understand why you

 5     didn't get any interest in this letter.  But the Registrar wanted to meet

 6     up with you, discuss matters, and you said clearly -- or it was said

 7     clearly to you, rather, you were entitled to 375 hours on a monthly

 8     basis.  It was around 8.000 euros, if I'm not mistaken.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well it is really pointless to

10     discuss this anymore.  What do I have to do with Mrs. Campbell?  She is

11     actually lodging complaints against my legal assistants.  This is not a

12     question of a bargain.  I am honouring the Statute, and the Statute

13     guarantees Defence funds to me.  Give me those funds.

14             I don't want to discuss any other matters.  I have proven that I

15     have no money, and those who doubt my evidence should investigate the

16     matter themselves.

17             I have presented for inspection all of my property.  There is

18     nothing secret about that.  But, Judges, now for me to juggle with these

19     hours and this and that, this is something I'm not going to do.

20             Do you -- can you bear with me?  Do you have the patience to hear

21     me out?  Can I continue?

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Of course we're listening to

23     you.  We're all ears.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

25     continues] ... trial stage, for 18 months, the pre-trial stage costs

Page 17053

 1     380.000 euros, and it could be extended to a maximum of 24 months.  And

 2     my pre-trial stage lasted almost five years, so at least double the

 3     amount which is 760.000.  50 per cent is to be deducted on account of

 4     myself defending myself, and 50 per cent goes to the members of my

 5     Defence team according to their work done.  And the specification of that

 6     work can easily be proven by papers, whether it is motions or different

 7     statements which they took in my name for me to use them here in the

 8     courtroom.

 9             Further, once the trial starts, 30.000 a month is the amount

10     envisaged for the third category.  20.000 for the principal counsel and

11     10.000 for the co-counsel and 10.000 for the rest of the team.  As I am

12     the lead counsel, I do not take anything.  But the other members of my

13     team, Mr. Krasic being in the status of co-counsel and having done the

14     most work for me, the amount due to him is 20.000 a month.

15             So if you add these sums up for every month, the total sum is

16     about 1.400.000 euros.  That is 50 per cent.  Let us see, of this

17     50 per cent, has the OTP proven that I'm able to pay for something

18     myself.  You know that in America I have 70.000 dollars at the city bank

19     in New York.  In Australia I have 117.000 dollars, and a little money in

20     Serbian banks in foreign currency.  That is negligible; I don't know how

21     much that is.  That is all of my belongings.

22             If I should defray any of the costs from these funds, let the

23     Tribunal issue an order for the funds to be unblocked and then I can pay

24     something, 50 per cent, but the rest has to be paid by the Tribunal.

25     Whichever way you look at it, I know that the Tribunal has to pay over a

Page 17054

 1     million.

 2             I have a good solution.  I know that the Tribunal has no money,

 3     but let all the Prosecutors and all the Judges renounce their salaries

 4     for a month, and we will have enough money to pay for my Defence.

 5             I believe that this is an excellent solution and that everybody

 6     will be satisfied.  Short of that, we cannot proceed.  I have entrenched

 7     myself in this trench.  I have fortified myself with these arguments.

 8     The Statute of the Tribunal is my principal weapon, and there you are.

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted).  Ms. Campbell is the one in charge within the

18     Registry of such matters, and this is the reason why she wrote to you.

19     So let's not beat around the bush, Mr. Seselj.  You said so, you wrote

20     so, because I'm privileged enough as to have read everything you wrote.

21             You want to get 1 million 400.000 euros from this Tribunal.  You

22     think the Tribunal owes it to you.  But obviously if the Registry is

23     willing to do so, no problem with me.  But obviously the Registry is only

24     willing to pay the amount of 375 hours for your associates.  That's the

25     whole problem.  And we're going to waste a lot of time because of this.

Page 17055

 1     This was to be anticipated.  I've said so in writing already, and you're

 2     using the proceedings -- the procedure.  It's your perfect right.  You

 3     say, I can't mount a Defence case because I don't have money.  And then

 4     we are -- when you are asked how much you need, you say 1 million 400.000

 5     euros.  You have some advantages representing yourself, but there are

 6     disadvantages as well, and when you made such a decision to defend

 7     yourself, you should have thought it.

 8             If I had realized that you were unable to defend yourself, I

 9     would have followed the Prosecutor.  I would have said, No, he needs to

10     have a stand by counsel or a lead counsel representing him.  But I

11     realized that you were able to represent yourself because you have the

12     intellectual capacity for it, you are clever, you are in the know of all

13     the events, and you proved it when you testified in the Milosevic case.

14             So that's it.  Now you're using all the tricks in the legal book

15     to try to appeal to the public opinion to say that you're deprived of

16     your defence rights.  But you can, very well, in front of me, in front of

17     my fellow Judges, you can answer any question.  If I ask you about

18     Zvornik, you're going to say, Well, Arkan did this; the other one did

19     that in Zvornik.  You know everything, but you just don't want to.

20             It's nearly midday.  You have to finish.  So what is your last

21     word?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, my last words for today, of

23     course -- no, generally, I hope.

24             Mr. Antonetti, I'm not availing myself of any legal tricks.  What

25     I'm using are firm legal arguments.

Page 17056

 1             The fact that I have decided to defend myself is my sacrosanct

 2     right.  This was the only way -- the only way for this -- for me to be

 3     deprived of this right is my physical liquidation.  The fact that I'm

 4     self-defending doesn't mean that I have to be alone.  I have to have a

 5     structure to work on my behalf and for my benefit in the field.  You

 6     wouldn't give me, for instance, two years for me to go and inspect the

 7     locations of crimes, collect statements from witnesses, such evidence,

 8     et cetera, myself.  As you haven't made this possible for me, what you

 9     have to do is make it possible for me to be assisted by people who will

10     work according to my instructions and work for my benefit.

11             The OTP, the Prosecutor, is not alone against me.  He has a huge

12     apparatus behind him and his apparatus is well paid.  Mine isn't paid at

13     all.  That is the difference.  Is that the principle of the equality of

14     arms?  I'm not asking for the kind of money that the Prosecutor's budget

15     was in my case, although I asked for that piece of information and I

16     wasn't given it.  I was -- only wanted it by way of comparison because I

17     wanted to say that I required just 5 or 10 per cent of that sum for my

18     needs.

19             So these are not tricks.  From day one, I raised a question of --

20     before you for -- of the payment for the Defence, and you took it in a

21     cavalier fashion.  You thought that I would be easily duped by either the

22     Registry or the OTP, but this is -- this just won't do.  I warned you

23     several times, and I'm -- I said that I would not be raising that

24     question anymore.

25             Now we have come to the stage of the Defence case, and what do we

Page 17057

 1     have?  You are giving me six weeks for a list of the witnesses and the

 2     preliminary statements of witnesses.  Who will take the 80 preliminary

 3     witness statements?  How can that be done in six weeks?  How am I

 4     expected to obtain all that evidence within six weeks?

 5             This is an absurd situation.  I'm not complaining because of the

 6     level of absurdity.  The more absurd it gets, the more procedural

 7     benefits for me, in fact.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Seselj, in my view, but I

 9     believe my colleagues agree with me, the absurd thing about it is that

10     we've been sitting for years, and we've been having these conferences for

11     several years.  Now, I can't believe that you did not have enough time

12     throughout all these years to obtain statements from witnesses.  And you

13     did so anyway.  Because we've got scores of statements that you added to

14     your motion against the Prosecutor.  You demonstrated this, and I must

15     say that I was absolutely flabbergasted.  From memory, I remember a

16     hearing, and your associates on that very evening went to the Belgrade

17     prison to obtain the statement of a witness, and the very next day you

18     could produce that statement that had been stamped by the Tribunal in the

19     meantime.

20             When I saw that, I thought, Well, he has considerable means at

21     his disposal.  And now you said, Well, I didn't have time.  But we've had

22     years.  Years.  And your primary concern should be to defend yourself.

23     Of course, you're right.  I mean, the onus of proof lies with the

24     Prosecutor.  You could just rest, hands crossed, and your alleged

25     responsibility has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.  You could

Page 17058

 1     just rest on your laurels, and the Trial Chamber would have to make a

 2     decision, to enter a decision of acquittal or not.

 3             Now you say, Well, we haven't received 1 million 400.000 euros.

 4     But let me remark that associates are MPs, Members of Parliament, and,

 5     still, they help you.  Pro bono, I guess.  And you want a MP to be paid

 6     additional expenses by the Tribunal, which, in itself, could be a

 7     problem.

 8             So that is the situation as it is.  We have taken note of

 9     everything you have said.  We're going to meet tomorrow in order to see

10     what is to be done.

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17059

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

 5             MR. MARCUSSEN:  For whatever it is worth, the Prosecution

 6     completely agrees with Judge Lattanzi on this.  It has no place in a

 7     courtroom to make these kind of comments.

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted).  It has nothing to do with the trial.  We have to finish

11     now.

12             Do you have anything to add, Mr. Marcussen?

13             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I just wanted to seek the Trial Chamber's

14     clarification that my understanding of what is happening next is correct.

15             I understand the Trial Chamber will be considering various issues

16     after today's hearing.  I thought to understand that the Trial Chamber,

17     in doing so, will address the issues that we raised in our notice.  Is

18     that correct?

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  We are convening tomorrow, and

20     we will look into everything.  Everything.  Including your submissions.

21             [In English] Do you understand?

22             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I do understand.  What I'm not sure about is

23     whether the Prosecution and the accused will be heard on issues, such as

24     admissibility, whether the Prosecution and the accused will be told about

25     the forecasted use of the amicus report, and these sorts of things.  But

Page 17060

 1     maybe that is -- I am being told we will learn more about this later.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Later on, indeed.  And when

 3     the amicus curiae files his or her report.  He should file it in October.

 4     We're not too sure, first week or second week of October, and once the

 5     report has been filed, we're bound to have a hearing, a so-called

 6     administrative hearing in October.

 7             So, Mr. Seselj, we're going to meet again.  Unless something

 8     unexpected happens before, we should meet again in October.

 9             Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

10             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Is the Chamber, in light of what was just said

11     about this stage of -- this part of the proceedings, will the amicus

12     report be disclosed to the parties before that hearing?

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Of course.  Because the amicus

14     curiae's report will be filed and given to the parties.  Then it will

15     have to be translated for Mr. Seselj.  Because the amicus curiae is an

16     (redacted), so it has to be translated.  Of course, you'll get it.

17             You're reassured?

18             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I'm grateful for the clarification that will

19     assist in -- on issues of scheduling thank you.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, let me thank everybody,

21     especially -- I was going to say "witnesses," but interpreters.  Well,

22     they are witnesses to the proceedings, of course.  And I wish you all a

23     very good day.  We are bound to meet again in October.

24             The hearing stands adjourned.

25                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.55 a.m.