Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 668

 1                          Friday, 3 November 2006

 2                          [Status Conference]

 3                          [Open session]

 4                          --- Upon commencing at 8.05 a.m.

 5                          [The accused entered court]

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7            Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning Your Honours, this is case number

 9    IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11            Mr. Seselj, have you received our -- no, let's first start with

12    the appearances, just to keep matters short.

13            I see, for the Prosecution, it's Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, Mr. Saxon,

14    and case manager, Ms. Katalinic.  Good morning.

15            You, Mr. Seselj, are present; and stand-by counsel present,

16    Mr. Hooper and Mr. O'Shea, and the case manager, if I remember well, is

17    Ms. Kulinowski.

18            Good morning again, Mr. Seselj.  Have you received our Scheduling

19    Order in which you could have read that you are now representing yourself

20    again?

21            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Microphone, please, Mr. Seselj.

23            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I received your Scheduling Order

24    yesterday and I have an objection to its content.  You say here in

25    paragraph 1 that you ordered that the accused person be removed from the

Page 669

 1    courtroom because of disruptive conduct.  That's a lie.  I was not removed

 2    because of disruptive conduct.  I was removed because I requested that

 3    myself because I didn't want to be in the same courtroom with your spies,

 4    who are pretending to be my Defence counsel.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record, Mr. Seselj.

 6            You've also seen what the reason is for this Status Conference, it

 7    being that the Chamber would like to hear from you about your preparedness

 8    for trial.  We are seeking another opportunity to make inquiries of you,

 9    Mr. Seselj, about your preparedness to commence the trial, and if there

10    are any other matters, we would deal with them as well.

11            So, therefore, I'd like to start, as the first item, to receive

12    information from you about your readiness to commence the trial.

13            Mr. Seselj.

14            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I was trial-ready already

15    on the 24th of February, 2003.  Over these four years, you didn't do

16    anything else but search for ways and means of effectively preventing me

17    from defending myself.  It is my right to represent myself and that is

18    undeniable, and I'm not here on my own.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, the Chamber would like to receive some

20    information.  I don't think at this time it is a moment for general

21    statements.  If you'd like to make more general statements, as far as your

22    right to defend yourself is concerned, the Chamber will consider whether

23    or not it will give you an opportunity to do so at another moment.

24            The first thing I'd like to inform you about, before further

25    discussing your preparedness for trial, is that, Mr. Seselj, you will have

Page 670

 1    to familiarise yourself, and that could best be done with the assistance

 2    of the Registry, with the trial management procedures which would allow

 3    you to effectively conduct your own defence at trial.  That would, for

 4    example, include, among other things, issues concerning translation of

 5    documents, as well as how to produce and how to present evidence in this

 6    courtroom.

 7            This is of specific importance because this trial will be

 8    conducted in what we call an e-court - that's an electronic court -

 9    environment.  It is a system which is designed to enable the parties to

10    submit and to possess evidence in electronic form, but an e-court trial

11    does not necessarily mean that a trial is paperless.  All of the

12    Prosecution evidence will be presented electronically and will appear on

13    the courtroom monitors.  Usually, this would also apply to the Defence,

14    and the registrar can assist you in learning more about that system.

15            You don't have to use any of these electronic facilities; however,

16    you'll have to present your material in advance, in translation, so that

17    at least it can be introduced in the system to the benefit of all those

18    who want to use that.  That material will then be scanned so that it's

19    electronically available.  Therefore, that's of importance for you to

20    know, that you should familiarise yourself with the procedures which will

21    apply in such an environment.  That's the first thing I'd like to inform

22    you about.

23            The second matter I'd like to raise is disclosure.  I'd first like

24    to verify whether you've received a recording, whether audio or video, of

25    that Status Conference of last Wednesday, from the moment of -- well, the

Page 671

 1    whole of the Status Conference, including the moments when you were not

 2    present in the courtroom.

 3            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's a very serious problem

 4    there.  In 2003, the then Pre-Trial Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, passed a

 5    decision that I be provided with recordings of all Status Conferences --

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj --

 7            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You haven't even got the patience to

 8    list to me, to hear me out, Mr. Orie.  I'm telling you there's a problem

 9    there.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, if you want to raise a problem, fine, but

11    would you please first respond to my question.  My question was whether

12    you had received a recording of the Status Conference --

13            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I received a videotape and I don't

14    know what's on it at all because my video player is down, doesn't work.  I

15    intervened with the prison authorities several times, telling them that

16    they should get me another one, but they haven't done a thing about it.

17    You are mistreating me in every conceivable way, wherever.  How can I

18    watch that when I haven't got a video player?

19            As for the two Status Conferences held this summer, the Registry

20    gave me forged recordings, where parts of the closed session are missing.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, I'd first like to inquire into the

22    ability you had to review the tape of last -- of this Wednesday.

23            Mr. Registrar, is there anything known about the non-functioning

24    of a video player and of any request by Mr. Seselj to have it repaired

25    or ...

Page 672

 1            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the information that I received late

 2    last evening about whether Mr. Seselj had the opportunity to view the VHS

 3    tape that was sent to him, I received the information that Mr. Seselj had

 4    made requests to the United Nations Detention Unit in the past, but he was

 5    required to make a formal application in terms of putting in a request to

 6    receive a new video player to view the tapes.  That has not happened.

 7            But I was also told that he has an opportunity to view the tape in

 8    another location if he so desires, but I'm not quite sure, at this point

 9    in time, whether Mr. Seselj has really availed of that situation.  I need

10    to make further inquiries, because it was rather late last evening that I

11    got this information.

12            So, as things stand at this point in time, there is information,

13    at least to my knowledge, that the video player that Mr. Seselj uses is

14    non-functional but he has not made the necessary application to request a

15    new one.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Seselj, this raises a few questions.  My

17    first question would be:  Were you invited to make a formal application to

18    have another video player available to you when you had established that

19    it broke down?

20            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I applied in writing as far back as

21    May or June, and I sent back the recorder that -- the player that was not

22    working, and what I got in return was another one that's broken.  And I'm

23    not going to write anymore applications about that.  I'm not going to send

24    you hundreds of applications about the same thing.

25            On the other hand, you've been objecting that I've been sending in

Page 673

 1    all these applications and motions and everything.  It is for the prison

 2    authorities to check things that are being sent to the detainees, to see

 3    whether they are in proper order.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  If I understand you well, that when the second video

 5    recorder or video player broke down, that you did not wish to make a

 6    further application in writing to have that one replaced.

 7            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You did not understand me properly.

 8    The second video player was not broken down in my cell; it actually

 9    arrived in my cell as it was already not working.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  My emphasis was on whether you did not wish to make a

11    further application to have the one replaced, not where the video recorder

12    broke down.

13            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for the next application, I

14    applied twice again orally to the warden; he promised that that would be

15    taken care of.  And then the third time, to a lady clerk at the prison;

16    she promised that I'd get a new video player yesterday morning.  And then

17    during the course of the day, they came in, telling me that I had to

18    submit an application in writing.  Is this not maltreatment, Mr. Orie?

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Are you going to follow that suggestion, Mr. Seselj,

20    to make an application in writing for another video recorder?

21            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.  You should know, Mr. Orie, in

22    law, an application -- an oral application is the same as an application

23    in writing if it is presented in proper form, and to the authority in

24    charge, just like you state your decisions here orally.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's your view, Mr. Seselj.

Page 674

 1            Next question:  Was an opportunity given to you yesterday to view

 2    the tape of the Status Conference of this Wednesday?

 3            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I did not have an opportunity

 4    because I do not have a functioning video player.  I wanted to but I

 5    couldn't.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  At any other location than at the usual location,

 7    Mr. Seselj?

 8            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.  No one ever mentioned another

 9    location, and I would not have accepted any other location.  I am

10    preparing my defence exclusively in my cell.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's your view.

12            Mr. Registrar, the Chamber would like to be informed about whether

13    there are any reports that such an opportunity to view the video at any

14    other location was given to Mr. Seselj.

15            THE REGISTRAR:  I'll make the necessary inquiries about that.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then hear from you later.

17            Mr. Seselj, as far as disclosure is concerned, you earlier said

18    you are ready for trial, but is there an issue of disclosure, anything at

19    this moment you consider you would need for the start of the trial?

20            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I prepared seven points

21    here stating my position regarding the commencement of trial.  One of

22    these questions is the question of disclosure; however, that is not the

23    only question.

24            All documents have to be disclosed to me in the Serbian language,

25    and still, there is this practice that, in different ways, they've been

Page 675

 1    trying to submit material to me in the English language.  All documents

 2    have to be submitted to me on paper.  Your Chamber ruled last summer that

 3    documents can be submitted to me in electronic form.  It is the same thing

 4    as if you decided that had I to stand on my head in the courtroom.  You

 5    cannot carry that decision through.  You have to change it.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, this Chamber took a decision, on the 4th

 7    of July.  As far as I'm aware, no certificate for an appeal has been

 8    requested in relation to that decision, which means that that decision

 9    stands.

10            I now do understand that you'd rather have it changed.  At this

11    moment, the Chamber has found no reasons to reconsider it, but if --

12            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, that's not true.  I

13    submitted a certification for appeal and I also submitted at the same time

14    the text of the appeal.  First, the certification for appeal has been

15    returned to me with the explanation that I did not have the right to

16    appeal, and after that, the text of the appeal was returned to me as well,

17    which I had submitted immediately, at the same time, in order to save

18    time.  You prevented me from filing an appeal.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, is that because you filed it when counsel

20    was imposed?  Is that the reason?  Then we'll have to look at this, to see

21    whether another opportunity should be given.

22            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I submitted that appeal

23    when you imposed counsel on me and I'm not going to submit one again.  I

24    cannot pay my legal advisors even for everything they've done so far, even

25    without you maltreating me to submit the same appeals or files all over

Page 676

 1    again.

 2            I will never accept anything in electronic form, and then deny me

 3    my right to defend myself, because I don't like to play with computers.

 4    You can do anything, Mr. Orie, because for you, legal principles do not

 5    exist.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  One moment.

 7                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, the Chamber will consider and further

 9    inquire into the steps you intended to take; that means when you took

10    those steps or tried to take those steps, what caused these steps to fail

11    at the time.  We'll consider that in relation to our 4th of July decision

12    and then we'll see what consequences should be attached to it.

13            My first information, but please correct me when I'm wrong,

14    Mr. Seselj, is that our decision of the 4th of July was received by you in

15    a language you understand on the 7th of July.  It is also known to this

16    Chamber that counsel was imposed on the 21st of August of this year, which

17    would mean that the time to request a certificate for an appeal had long

18    elapsed when counsel was imposed.  So the return of any filing in which

19    you'd request a certificate for an appeal could not have been caused by

20    the fact that counsel was imposed upon you because that decision had not

21    yet been taken.

22            So there must be other reasons.  If you could inform us about

23    those other reasons, for example, whether you went beyond the date limit

24    or whether any abusive language was detected and, therefore, your

25    application was sent back to you, please inform us.  But --

Page 677

 1            THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation].

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  -- Mr. Seselj, let me finish my line.  But imposition

 3    of counsel could not have been the reason to return such an application to

 4    you.  If you could inform us, please do so; if not, we'll continue.

 5            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, you know full well that I

 6    never use the wrong kind of language in my filings; however, as far as I

 7    remember correctly - I haven't got the paper there - the reason was the

 8    word count, that I did not count the words in the motion.  I'm never going

 9    to count words.  That's what my legal advisors do when they prepare

10    documents for me because a computer does this automatically.  But for me

11    to do that kind of thing, no way, I'm never going to do that.  And I asked

12    that if you find that to be that important, you get a court official to

13    count the words.  Since you are duty-bound to provide me with resources,

14    give me a word-counter, first and foremost.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, first of all, you should have told us

16    immediately that this filing was rejected because there was no word count

17    on it.  That would have saved us quite some time.  That's one.

18            Second, if you represent yourself, and if you submit anything, you

19    are the one and the only one responsible for abiding with the rules,

20    including rules of word counts to be in a submission.  That, to be clear

21    to you, if you find other people to do it for you before you file it,

22    fine.  You are the only one responsible for that if you represent

23    yourself.

24            Let's move on.  You said you had a couple of points you wanted to

25    raise.  You talked about seven points, disclosure being one.  I'd like to

Page 678

 1    give you an opportunity to briefly present these seven issues so that the

 2    Chamber is aware of the totality of it, and I would very much like you to

 3    properly inform the Chamber and not, as you just did, give us the wrong

 4    impression that it was the imposition of counsel that would have caused

 5    rejection of your filing instead of the true reason, that is, the absence

 6    of the word count.

 7            Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

 8            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, that's not true.  That is

 9    the impression that you impose because you're the one who talked about

10    counsel imposed, not me.

11            I do not remember the text of the letter of the Registry

12    explaining the rejection of my request for a certificate for an appeal.

13    Perhaps it said "word count" or perhaps it said an "excessive number of

14    words."  I really haven't got the paper in front of me and I cannot

15    remember all these details, because a normal person could not possibly

16    remember all these details.  Had you told me that we were going to discuss

17    this, I could have brought the paper in and then you could have told me.

18    And now what you are imposing on me is some kind of ill-intention, where

19    that is far from the truth.  Please allow me to present the other

20    problems --

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, you have -- how much time do you think

22    you would need to introduce the seven points?

23            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that about 10 or 15

24    minutes will suffice, if you don't interrupt me.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, you will have 15 minutes to introduce

Page 679

 1    your seven points, and whether or not I'll interrupt you mainly depends on

 2    the content of what you are telling us.

 3            Please proceed.

 4            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you interrupt me, that would

 5    mean, Mr. Orie, that you will have to give me additional time.  I know

 6    that it is your right to interrupt me, but if you grant me 15 minutes,

 7    then it's 15 minutes for me alone.

 8            First of all, I don't know what is the content of the indictment.

 9    I have been informed that you have asked the Registry to reduce the

10    indictment and that the Registry responded.  And it appeared in the press

11    also.  But I have not received the new amended text of the indictment, and

12    I don't know what the outcome of your initiative is.

13            If the indictment has, indeed, been reduced, then the pre-trial

14    filing of the Prosecutor must also be reduced as well as the number of

15    witnesses, the pre-trial brief.  I think there were seven decisions, upon

16    the request of the Prosecutor, for protective measures and you ruled that

17    the names of those protected witnesses be disclosed to me 30 days before

18    the beginning of trial.  I still haven't received a single name of a

19    protected witness.

20            Number 3, my legal advisors have not been registered yet because

21    the Registry insists my that my legal advisors have to fulfill criteria

22    envisaged by the rules for Defence counsel.  Legal advisors are not the

23    same as legal counsel.  I do not have the funds to hire the kind of people

24    which will fulfill such criteria.  I am satisfied with my legal advisors

25    and they will continue to carry out very important work for me.  I also

Page 680

 1    need to have disclosed confidential documents.  The detention management

 2    asked the Registry, the Registry agreed, and I was legally allowed to take

 3    out of the Detention Centre confidential material and they were never

 4    disclosed to the public.  Now, suddenly, you are accusing me of making an

 5    offence by taking out confidential documents, and I didn't do that on my

 6    own.  Also, I need to be able to have telephone conversations with my

 7    legal advisors and I need to have free visits by legal assistants and the

 8    head of the investigating team.

 9            Number 4, the question of participation in financing my defence

10    hasn't been settled.  I have provided all the information about my

11    property and means, and the Registry continues to refuse to participate in

12    my defence.  I have lost a great deal of money and have acquired high debt

13    during these four years.  The Statute envisages the right to defence, and

14    you can't side-step the Statute.  Yes, you can have funds, but for Hooper

15    or Van der Spoel or I don't know whom.  I'm asking the Registry to approve

16    the funds, and I will give a list of names of the people who have assisted

17    me with their bank accounts and the actual amounts that they need to

18    receive out of the total sum granted.

19            Also, you haven't set a deadline for the pre-trial brief.

20    According to 65 ter, this has to be at least three weeks before the

21    Pre-Trial Conference.  Also, under Rule 67(i)(b), on a number of occasions

22    I have filed to the Prosecution the drafts of my separate defences.  Only

23    one has been translated so far, and I need everything to be translated

24    before beginning of trial so that I can use this when examining witnesses

25    of the Prosecution and witnesses for the Defence.

Page 681

 1            Furthermore, I was not able to attend pre-trial statements and to

 2    examine witnesses under Rule 71.  I was informed on a number of occasions,

 3    that an official of the secretariat has been appointed to do that, but I

 4    was never informed about the names of those witnesses, nor could I request

 5    to attend such investigations, nor could I express such a request to

 6    participate in depositions -- in such depositions.  Therefore, all those

 7    depositions have to be annulled, as I didn't attend.

 8            Mr. Orie, I continue to insist that I should be in the front row

 9    of the Defence section so that the witnesses should see that I am on an

10    equal footing in the proceedings as the Prosecution.

11            I have managed to convey all my views in less than 10 minutes,

12    Mr. Orie, and when you show patience, then I am able to complete what I

13    have to say quickly and efficiently.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Seselj, you kept well within the time limits

15    set.  Thank you for that.

16            Before we continue and before we might have some questions to

17    you ...

18                          [Trial Chamber confers]

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Before we might put some additional questions to you,

20    Mr. Seselj, I would like to give an opportunity to the Prosecution to

21    submit whatever it deems useful to submit in response to the issues raised

22    by Mr. Seselj.

23            Madam Uertz-Retzlaff or Mr. Saxon.

24            MR. SAXON:  Two very short points, Your Honour.  The accused

25    mentioned that he "filed" a separate defence with the Prosecution pursuant

Page 682

 1    to Rule 67.  There was no filing.  Several years ago, the accused

 2    disclosed to the Prosecution what he termed his "special defence," and the

 3    Prosecution is now in receipt of that.  If the accused is concerned about

 4    having an English translation of that document, I can inform him and the

 5    Chamber that, to the best of my knowledge, a large portion of that special

 6    defence, and perhaps all of it - it was several hundred pages long - has

 7    been translated into the English language, so it will not be necessary for

 8    the Registry to take on that burden.

 9            Secondly, Your Honour, the accused mentioned alleged depositions

10    performed pursuant to Rule 71 in which the accused was not present.  Your

11    Honour, the Prosecution has not performed any depositions at all in this

12    case.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Saxon, Rule 67 about additional disclosure

14    gives an obligation to the Defence to notify the Prosecution of its intent

15    to offer a defence of alibi or any other special defence.  I do understand

16    that you have been notified, although quite sometime ago, about the

17    defence.

18            And then, under Rule 67(A)(ii), the Prosecution is under an

19    obligation to "notify the defence of the names of the witnesses that the

20    Prosecutor intends to call in rebuttal of any defence plea of which the

21    Prosecutor has received notice in accordance with paragraph (i) above."

22            Have you notified, in response to the notification by the Defence,

23    about the witnesses you intend to call in rebuttal of any of these pleas?

24            MR. SAXON:  No, we did not, Your Honour, because we did not

25    consider these disclosures provided to us under Rule 67 to be any special

Page 683

 1    defence, Your Honour, within the meaning of this Rule.  They were simply

 2    hundreds of pages of quotations from the accused's books, copies of prior

 3    speeches, et cetera, et cetera.  So we did not respond within the meaning

 4    of the rule.

 5            I've also been informed by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff that the accused has

 6    made additional submissions under Rule 67, but the Prosecution determined

 7    that it was not necessary to translate them because, again, they contained

 8    the same kinds of material - hundreds of hundreds of pages in the Serbian

 9    language of repeated publications of the accused.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11            A question for you, Mr. Seselj, at this moment:  When you notified

12    the Prosecution of what, at least I understand, you considered to be

13    special defences, either the defence of alibi or such special defence as

14    the one mentioned, diminished or lack of mental responsibility, did you

15    give the names and the addresses of witnesses and other evidence upon

16    which you intended to rely to establish the alibi or the special defence?

17    Was that included in your notification?

18            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, clearly Mr. Saxon has not

19    gained insight into this material.  The material contains references to

20    documented facts, and this material will be used by me most for the

21    cross-examination of the Prosecution expert witnesses.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, I'm going to stop you here because -- I

23    will allow you to submit whatever is relevant, but you are invited first

24    to respond to my question and then to add anything that you consider to be

25    relevant.

Page 684

 1            My question was whether the notification to the Prosecution

 2    included names and addresses of witnesses and other evidence upon which

 3    you intended to rely to establish that special defence.

 4            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Not witnesses, but references

 5    to various documents, published books by Serbian, Croatian, Muslim, and

 6    western authors about various questions which are directly related to the

 7    indictment and the expert report that the Prosecution is preparing.

 8    Witnesses are not mentioned, but various books and documents, and it is

 9    clearly specified which book, which publisher, what page.  This was an

10    enormous amount of work.  It took several years.  And all that Mr. Saxon

11    can say is that it consists of hundreds of pages.  He is not at all

12    familiar with the content.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Saxon.

14            MR. SAXON:  Very briefly, Your Honour, the Prosecution team had

15    this material reviewed by persons who are fluent in the B/C/S language and

16    we did not find any material that would fall within the scope of Rule 67.

17    Just to give you an example, a lot of the material contained repeated

18    allegations against the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and that kind

19    of material, and we decided not to go any further with it.

20            JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Saxon, in the estimation, then, of the

21    Prosecution, the submissions made by Mr. Seselj did not fulfill the

22    criteria for special defence under Rule 67, but did you file anything with

23    the Chamber to notify the Chamber of that view?  Because whether it

24    amounts to a special defence would ultimately be a matter for the Trial

25    Chamber.

Page 685

 1            MR. SAXON:  No, we did not, Your Honour.

 2            JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Saxon, that was about the Rule 67 notifications.

 4            I give you an opportunity to respond to other matters as well.

 5    You responded to the depositions under Rule 71.  You said there were no

 6    depositions taken under Rule 71.

 7            MR. SAXON:  Your Honour --

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9            MR. SAXON:  -- if I just may move back to the issue of Rule 67.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11            MR. SAXON:  I was not here at every single Status Conference over

12    the last three years, but my colleague has informed me, to the best of her

13    knowledge, we did say verbally on the record that we did not consider this

14    material to fall within the scope of Rule 67.  But we can check on that,

15    Your Honour.

16            JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you for that clarification.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  So we now have your response under Rule 71.

18            Mr. Seselj, you said -- you referred to not having been able to be

19    present at Rule 71 depositions and -- well, Mr. Saxon tells us that there

20    are no Rule 71 depositions.  Could you inform us on what makes you assume

21    that there were Rule 71 depositions?

22            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On two or three occasions, the

23    Registry informed me about the appointment of certain officers who will be

24    taking these depositions.  These were letters from the Registry that must

25    be in the records of the Registry.  That is a fact.  Now, if no

Page 686

 1    depositions were taken, all the better.  But I have information from the

 2    Registry that persons were appointed for taking such depositions, and

 3    even, if I remember correctly, the dates were indicated, for instance, in

 4    Sarajevo or somewhere else.

 5                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, is there a possibility that you have

 7    mixed up Rule 71 depositions with the appointment of a legal officer under

 8    what, at that time, was Rule 92 bis, to take a statement, which is not the

 9    same as a deposition, under Rule 71; that it was for the purpose of taking

10    such statements which could be admitted later on by a decision of the

11    Trial Chamber, be admitted into evidence?  That you have mixed up these

12    two proceedings and that actually there were no Rule 71 depositions?

13            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These rules are being changed at

14    such speed, almost three times a year, that it is quite possible that you

15    are right.  But for me, what is important is that such depositions were

16    not taken in my absence.  But I think the Registry would be able to tell

17    you that because I don't have all those papers on me.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Well, therefore, at this moment we'll see whether

19    there have been any Rule 71 depositions.

20            Mr. Saxon, you have now responded to two out seven matters raised

21    by Mr. Seselj.  I invite you to proceed and ...

22            MR. SAXON:  I don't have anything more to respond to at this time,

23    Your Honour.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25            Mr. Seselj, one of the issues you raised was that you did not know

Page 687

 1    at this moment what the indictment was at this moment, and whether it had

 2    been changed or not.

 3            At the 65 ter Conference held on the 20th of October, the Chamber

 4    informed then counsel, the parties, of the following, and I'd like to

 5    update you in this respect.  The senior legal officer said the following,

 6    he said:

 7            "In anticipation of the Trial Chamber's decision," which makes it

 8    clear that no final decision has been taken on the matter, "in

 9    anticipation of the Trial Chamber's decision on the Prosecution's response

10    to the Trial Chamber's request to make proposals to reduce the scope of

11    the indictment, I am permitted to inform you of the following:  The Trial

12    Chamber will conclude that the Prosecution shall remove Counts 2, 3, 5, 6,

13    and 7 from the indictment.  The Trial Chamber will also conclude that

14    evidence shall not be presented in relation to the following:  Western

15    Slavonia, Brcko municipality, Bijeljina municipality, Boracko Jezero,

16    Bjelasnica, and Bosanski Samac.  This will not exclude, however, general

17    evidence."

18            That's the information that was provided to the parties at the

19    20th of October and is now provided to you.  The Chamber still has to give

20    a final decision on the proposals made by the Prosecution.  Therefore,

21    this is provisional information, as it was on the 20th of October, and it

22    will soon result in a formal decision.  It also may learn you that apart,

23    perhaps, from some minor clarifications, factual clarifications, that it's

24    mainly a reduction of the indictment rather than anything else.

25            If you would have any need to comment on this or to make any

Page 688

 1    submissions on what the Chamber informed the parties about in anticipation

 2    of its decision, then you'll have an opportunity to do so, not necessarily

 3    immediately now.  But if you need more time -- you don't have to respond

 4    to that.  It's mainly a reduction of the indictment that is in our minds

 5    rather than anything else.

 6            Yes.  Then the protective measures you mentioned, I think you said

 7    that I --

 8            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie --

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Seselj.

10            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I would just like to insist, when

11    you complete your work, which I will not interfere with, I just insist

12    that I get a fully modified text of the indictment - I think I am entitled

13    to that - so that I have a clear text of the indictment.  I don't want to

14    interfere in your work.  I'm not interested what I will be accused of.  I

15    just have to know what I am defending myself from.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  The Rules are clear enough, Mr. Seselj.  As soon as a

17    decision has been given, an amended indictment will have to be filed and,

18    of course, you will receive a copy of that filing so that you are fully

19    informed.  But this is just already for your information, what you could

20    expect that will be omitted from the amended indictment.

21            The protective measures, I just have to look up what you exactly

22    said about that, if you give me one second.

23                          [Trial Chamber confers]

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Seselj, I remember that you said that you

25    had not received the names of witnesses 30 days in -- protected witnesses,

Page 689

 1    30 days in advance of the start of the trial.  Of course, at this moment,

 2    it's not entirely clear when the trial will start, but the Chamber will

 3    give due consideration to that and will ensure that you receive the

 4    information in the time determined by the Court.

 5            Then, the third issue was about your legal advisors.  That is, I

 6    would say, a matter which is primarily in the hands of the Registrar.

 7    This institution has adopted rules on who can act as counsel, rules about

 8    remuneration, rules as to what extent confidential information can be

 9    shared with others.  These rules include qualifications of persons.  This

10    is primarily in the hands of the Registrar, and I take it that by now you

11    know the procedures.  There are a few matters pending as far as

12    remuneration is concerned; that is clear.  But I think that the admission

13    of legal advisors, only in a situation where the Chamber is in a position

14    to review a decision of the Registrar in this respect, that apart from

15    that, that you should address the Registry.

16            The same is true for at least visits.  I saw this morning that you

17    have asked for review of a recent decision of the Registrar on visits.

18    The same is true as well as far as finance of the defence is concerned.

19    But to the extent that finally the matters would affect the fairness of

20    the trial, the Chamber may play a role there.

21            As far as confidentiality of documents is concerned, it's not

22    entirely clear to me what you said.  Confidential documents, you said you

23    were allowed to share them with others but they were still not made

24    public.  That's what I remember you said.  But that's not clear to me.

25    Could you please explain in more detail what you wanted to say at that

Page 690

 1    moment.

 2            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I have never illegally

 3    taken a confidential document from the Detention Centre.  In 2003 and

 4    2004, I think also in 2005, I regularly applied to the management of the

 5    Detention Centre and took out a number of confidential documents and

 6    videotapes.  And this was intended for my legal advisor to assist me in my

 7    defence.  The management asked for the approval of the Registry and such

 8    approval was received, so it was legally taken out; however, in these

 9    decisions of yours, it appears as if I illegally took from the prison a

10    confidential document.

11            Secondly, I must have at least two or three persons who will have

12    access to those confidential documents and who will, on that basis, be

13    able to participate in preparing my defence.  Those persons have never

14    disclosed to the public the content of those documents.  I have, again,

15    asked this Registry to appoint Zoran Krasic and Slavko Jerkovic as the

16    persons that I will be able to hand those documents to, as they cooperate

17    with me most closely in preparing my defence, and they are ready to sign a

18    pledge that they will keep the documents confidential, fully aware of the

19    consequences if they fail to do so.

20            However, the Registry continues to claim that my assistants,

21    members of my team, have to fulfill the criteria envisaged for Defence

22    counsel; that they have to know English or French, that they have to be

23    lawyers or law professors, members of bar associations, et cetera.  I

24    don't know by heart all the different criteria.  My legal assistants need

25    not fulfill such criteria.  They are just assisting me.  I am defending

Page 691

 1    myself; they are not defending me.

 2            So this tendentious insistence on the part of the Registry is

 3    making my preparations for the defence extremely difficult.  I can defend

 4    myself literally alone.  You can isolate me and prevent all telephone

 5    communication and all visits.  I will continue to defend myself.  But you

 6    know what the legal consequences are of such an inadequate and

 7    inappropriate defence.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, first of all, you are invited to lower

 9    the volume of your voice a bit, if only for the very practical reason that

10    if you speak that loudly, that we are not able to hear the interpretation

11    anymore.  Therefore, for that reason alone, if you want us to understand

12    your words, we should be able to hear the interpretation of those words by

13    our interpreters.  So too loud a voice would prevent us from hearing the

14    translation.

15            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try, Mr. Orie.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, the confidentiality of documents, I think

17    at this moment the assistance given to you and the limits is, as I said

18    before, primarily in the hands of the Registrar.  But the Chamber will

19    certainly pay proper attention to it, what facilities you have, and to

20    what extent you are or will be allowed to share confidential information

21    with others.

22            Where you said that our decision suggested that you illegally took

23    out of the Detention Unit documents, what is most vivid on my mind is that

24    reference was made to a telephone conversation in which I think you shared

25    with one of the members of your team the name of a protected witness and

Page 692

 1    that the language that followed caused serious concern to the Chamber.

 2            We'll further look into this matter.  I'm not fully aware, and I

 3    think the Chamber would be interested to know exactly to what extent you

 4    are allowed to take out, with the consent of the Registrar, confidential

 5    documents and to give it to whom.  We'll further consider that matter, but

 6    we need some time and some further information to further deal with it.

 7            Yes.  Then the one issue remaining is that you say you should be

 8    able to sit at the front row if you are going to examine witnesses.  Would

 9    you like to further elaborate on that, apart from what you've said

10    already, that that's where counsel usually sits and therefore that's the

11    place that you are entitled to sit in as well?  And if that's your

12    position, could you please give us, perhaps, some authorities, some legal

13    authorities, for this specific question of being seated, if an accused

14    represents himself, whether he should be in the position of an accused.

15    If there is any case law or any practice you know of where an accused is

16    allowed not to sit in the dock but rather to sit at the place where,

17    usually, counsel sits, then we'd like to be informed about it.

18            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is practice in most American

19    courts.  I don't know whether that is the case in all the states of the

20    United States, but in most of them, yes.  I am a trained lawyer, so I know

21    that at least in part.  In the U.S. system, the defence and the

22    prosecution are fully equal parties to the proceedings, and visually, in

23    the courtroom, they are on a footing of equality.  The same bench for the

24    prosecution; the same bench for the defence.  They conduct the defence,

25    and the prosecution, the same way.

Page 693

 1            Now, why is that important for me?  That exists in the American

 2    judicial system.  I don't know, I'm not sure whether it exists in the

 3    British system.  Why is that important?  When a witness comes in here, a

 4    witness, who appears for the first time before a court, is usually a bit

 5    frightened; not always, but usually.  Then they see you wearing that

 6    strange attire, and then if you are scowling a bit, then they are

 7    additionally frightened.  And then there is the Prosecution, who is

 8    wearing these strange clothes, and then they were the ones who were

 9    preparing them, proofing them to testify.  And then they see me, sitting

10    here like a mouse, and from the very outset, this is a very important

11    psychological moment that is treated seriously in every legal system, in

12    every judicial system.

13            I have to be on a footing of equality with the Prosecution.  I

14    guarantee, Mr. Orie, that no witness will ever be under any kind of threat

15    from me.  I will not use bad language.  I will not insult them in any

16    way.  Perhaps I am just going to refute what they were saying, but that's

17    different.  But I, myself, have to feel that I am on a footing of equality

18    with the Prosecution.

19            Another important thing that I have to tell you in relation to

20    what was said formerly, just a sentence or two.  Do you allow me to say

21    that, Mr. Orie?

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

23            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A few moments ago, when we referred

24    to the question of sending out confidential material, your decisions

25    contained that question, too, and you were blaming me for things like that

Page 694

 1    and that is why you were imposing counsel on me.  The case that you

 2    referred to from last year was the case when I telephoned a friend of

 3    mine, a party member who is an official of the city government in Novi

 4    Sad, and told him the name of a person who is a criminal and a war

 5    profiteer.  And I heard through the grapevine that he should appear as a

 6    protected witness in some of the trials in The Hague.  I had no idea that

 7    he was meant to be a witness in my own trial, too.  I never saw the man in

 8    my life.  He was involved in business dealings with the city government in

 9    Novi Sad, this man.  And during the previous -- the term of the previous

10    government, he made a lot of money.

11            So my suggestion to my party comrade was:  Stop all dealings with

12    this man.  I will try to speak a bit more quietly.  So when I spoke to

13    Igor Mirovic, from Novi Sad, an associate of mine, I suggested to him that

14    the city authorities should cease all deals with that man, that he should

15    be fully removed from any kind of dealings.

16            THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the speaker please

17    speak slower.  Thank you.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Not only at our request a little bit less loud,

19    Mr. Seselj, but also a bit slower because the interpreters cannot follow

20    your speed of speech.

21            Although there was no need to go into so much detail, the Chamber,

22    of course, first of all, will pay proper attention to the fact whether you

23    were put on notice that the person you were talking about was identified

24    as a protected witness, but perhaps the Prosecution could tell us whether

25    that's the case and where to find it, without going into any further

Page 695

 1    details because otherwise we would have to go into private session.  Or

 2    prepare for the next Status Conference to see whether we ...

 3            MR. SAXON:  It would perhaps to be best to prepare that for the

 4    next Status Conference, Your Honour.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's do so.

 6                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  There's one issue remaining.  That's the filing of

 8    the pre-trial brief, Mr. Seselj.  But perhaps first, the pre-trial brief

 9    was filed?

10            MR. SAXON:  Well, the Prosecution has filed a first pre-trial

11    brief, I believe, two years ago, followed by an addendum to the pre-trial

12    brief, Your Honour, more recently.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.

14            Mr. Seselj, you said a pre-trial brief was due not later than

15    three weeks before the start of the trial.  Well, we have a pre-trial

16    brief and an addendum to that so it's not entirely clear to me what your

17    concern was.

18            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, you did not give me a

19    deadline for a pre-trial brief.  As far as I understood the Rules of

20    Procedure, I also have to submit my own pre-trial brief at least three

21    weeks before the pre-trial conference; however, I insist that the

22    Prosecution now, if the indictment is diminished, that they should adapt

23    their pre-trial brief to the reduced, diminished indictment so that my

24    pre-trial brief would contain my observations, my responses, to what the

25    pre-trial brief of the Prosecutor says.

Page 696

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  It's clear now, at least your argument is clear.

 2                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Some matters still need further attention,

 4    Mr. Seselj, of your seven points.  We are at this moment also looking more

 5    closely at disclosure issues, disclosure issues where we are trying to

 6    identify exactly what we have received, material which is not translated

 7    yet, I take it, but the information of the Chamber about disclosures of

 8    course, it's not -- all of it is not disclosed to us so, therefore, we

 9    need information in addition to what has been attached to the filings made

10    so that we are fully informed about all disclosure issues of which, of

11    course, the Defence is fully aware because everything that is disclosed

12    goes directly to the Defence.

13            I do understand that you have prepared material and that,

14    informally, it has been sent to the legal staff.

15            MR. SAXON:  That is correct, Your Honour, and I also wanted to

16    raise with the Chamber just so that there is a fair record of what has

17    been prepared, whether you want to mark copies of these materials for

18    identification in some way or not.

19                          [Trial Chamber confers]

20            JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will discuss whether that's necessary or

21    not, at least it should be transparent so that the accused is aware of

22    what the Chamber received in this respect.  This, of course, raises also

23    the question of translation, well, some of the schemes, just the titles,

24    translation of the titles would do whereas for others, it would not,

25    although it seems not to be a very complex translation matter.

Page 697

 1            The Chamber will consider and will inform you on whether we insist

 2    on a formal marking for identification but if you would already make

 3    available to the accused the material that you made available to the

 4    Chamber.

 5            I do know that it's not translated yet, so if the accused doesn't

 6    want to receive it, then it's up to him.  Therefore, we'll further inform

 7    you about our position in this respect.

 8            As I said before, there are a few matters which need further

 9    attention.  The Chamber will use the coming days to pay attention to those

10    issues.

11            Mr. Seselj, are there any other matters you would like to raise

12    because they are relevant for the start of the trial, apart from the seven

13    points, some of which we've dealt with already, some of which still need

14    further consideration?

15            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  A while ago, perhaps two or

16    three weeks ago, the Prosecution falsely accused me of having done

17    something through my wife, Jadranka Seselj; namely, disclosed the names of

18    eight protected witnesses.  And I never got any list of protected

19    witnesses, so even if I wanted to do something like that, I could not have

20    done it.  That there was the possibility of having these witnesses

21    intimidated, threatened, what have you.

22            MR. SAXON:  Can we move into private session, please, perhaps.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll move into private session, and that also

24    means, I take it, that the curtains should be perhaps -- perhaps closed

25    session is better.

Page 698

 1            THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation].

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, we'll wait until we are in closed session

 3    and then we will continue.

 4            [Closed session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Trial Chamber]

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  We are in closed session now, please proceed.

 6            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, first of all, I demand

 7    that you do not allow closed session on this occasion.  I'm not going to

 8    mention anyone's name and I'm not going to refer to a single confidential

 9    document.  I'm just talking about the improper and unlawful behaviour of

10    the Prosecution.  I cannot mention a single name because I haven't got any

11    names.  So I'm asking you now to go back into public session.  There is no

12    reason for having a closed session now, none whatsoever.

13                          [Trial Chamber confers]

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, we remain, for the time being, in closed

15    session, but we'll consider, after having heard and after having carefully

16    studied all protective measures and after having verified whether, what

17    has been said, or what then will have been said, doesn't in any way

18    interfere with protective measures, we'll then consider to make that part

19    of the transcript public, or not.

20            Please proceed.

21            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I insist that all of this

22    be made accessible to the public and you decide later, as you have

23    concluded.

24            What the Prosecution did, by falsely accusing me, was used as

25    grounds for the Registry to impose restrictions with regard to further

Page 699

 1    visits by my wife, Jadranka Seselj.  Now I am discriminated against in

 2    relation to all other accused persons.  Only the visit of my wife is being

 3    directly supervised and monitored.  I want this discriminatory measure to

 4    be removed, and until it is removed, I'm not going to receive any visits,

 5    my wife, the priest, someone from the embassy.  I don't want to see

 6    anyone.  My wife never told anyone the names of any protected witnesses.

 7    Even if she wanted to, she couldn't have because she doesn't know them,

 8    just as I have not been informed as to who these protected witnesses are.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, I'm aware that a request for a review of

10    that decision has been addressed to the President of this Tribunal.  It is

11    within his competence at this moment to see whether the factual grounds

12    for such a decision are there.  He is the one who will review that

13    decision, as an administrative decision, and at this moment this Chamber

14    is not competent to deal with the matter.

15            Mr. Saxon, is there -- you asked for closed session.  In view of

16    what just has been said, is there any reason to insist on a closed

17    session?

18            MR. SAXON:  I don't think it's necessary to continue in closed

19    session, if this matter is now terminated, Your Honour.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but my question is also whether what has been

21    said in closed session, whether that could be made public; yes or no?

22            MR. SAXON:  To this point, yes, Your Honour, I believe it can.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then return in open session, and in open

24    session, I'll give the ruling that the closed session ruling does not

25    apply anymore and that this part of the transcript could be made public.

Page 700

 1            THE REGISTRAR:  We're now in open session, Your Honour.

 2                          [Open session]

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  The Chamber just ruled

 4    that where we went into closed session a couple of minutes ago, that on

 5    the basis of the content of what was said in closed session, there's no

 6    reason to keep that part of the transcript confidential and therefore it's

 7    public.

 8            Mr. Seselj, anything else you'd like to raise in relation to the

 9    preparation of the trial?

10            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That would be all on my part.

11            Just one more remark, Mr. Orie.  A few moments ago, when Mr. Saxon

12    spoke about the concept of my special defence, it is true that his

13    colleague, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, mentioned that question here once, but it

14    pertained only to the first filing of this nature which, indeed, had been

15    translated into the English language.  She never referred to any other

16    ones.  And this was a filing or motion from 2003 or the beginning of 2004

17    which, indeed, contains various quotations from different books of mine,

18    but where I refute everything that the Prosecutor says in the indictment;

19    that is to say, that the linch-pin of the indictment is that I committed

20    war crimes through hate speech.  And they refer to speeches I made, or

21    rather, what I filed contains excerpts from my speeches made to

22    volunteers, how they should treat prisoners of war properly, how they

23    should treat civilians properly, buildings, property, and so on and so

24    forth.  That is what is contained in those speeches and in that material.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, at least it's clear now that when you've

Page 701

 1    notified the Prosecution of special defences, that you intended to rely

 2    exclusively on documentary evidence, not on witnesses and --

 3            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  -- that you say once, but only on the basis of the

 5    first notification and not on the additional notification, the Prosecution

 6    mentioned it once.  We can find that on the record, I take it, and that

 7    the addition you then gave to the Prosecution never caused them to respond

 8    to it.

 9            MR. SAXON:  Your Honours, if I may, however, that recollection of

10    the accused is not correct.  I would simply refer the Chamber to the

11    Status Conference of September 26th, 2005, transcript pages 418 to 419,

12    where Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff made very clear the Prosecution's opinion

13    regarding the accused's submissions of this so-called special defences,

14    and there were several of them.

15            Basically, these were almost pre-trial briefs in the forms of

16    thousands and thousands of pages and were not any kind of special defence

17    as reflected in Rule 67.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for drawing our attention to certain parts

19    of the transcript.  We'll review that and we'll come back to it at a later

20    stage.

21                          [Trial Chamber confers]

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, the next point I'd like to raise is

23    whether your health and your conditions of detention, apart from the

24    matter you just raised about visits, cause you to address the Court.  And,

25    of course, your position as a self-representing accused is a bit special,

Page 702

 1    so we'll understand your words not only as representing yourself in your

 2    defence but also as an accused who is in detention at this moment.

 3            Is there anything you'd like to bring to our attention in this

 4    respect?

 5            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just insist that, with respect to

 6    detention conditions, I be granted everything that Mr. Milosevic had made

 7    available to him while he was representing himself, that is to say, an

 8    office, a separate office, the key to which I will carry in my pocket,

 9    where I will receive my associates from the Defence team, investigators

10    and potential witnesses; and that that room should have a telephone and a

11    fax.  That is what Mr. Milosevic had while he was alive and while he was

12    defending himself.  He also had two adjacent cells connected.  They did

13    give me two cells, to be fair, but there's not an adjoining door, so every

14    time I have to go to another cell, I have to ask the guard to unlock the

15    door to that cell to me.

16            This is not an excessive request for two cells.  One cell will

17    do.  If I get this office with a telephone and a fax, that will be

18    sufficient.  But I will carry the key to that office in my pocket, just

19    the way Mr. Milosevic did, the late Milosevic, until I die, too, of

20    course.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Seselj, I do understand that you request to

22    be allowed to carry that key to that office in your pocket.  This is a

23    matter primarily, again, for the Registrar.  Therefore, you first have to

24    solicit the response of the Registry and to discuss with them, to make

25    known your wishes, and then the Registrar will be the first responsible to

Page 703

 1    take positions in this respect.  And only once that has been done, the

 2    Chamber may be - may be - in a position to further deal with the matter,

 3    depending on what exactly is at stake.

 4            But it's on the record that you expressed here some wishes which

 5    the Chamber advises you to directly address to the Registrar, to start

 6    with.

 7            Is there any other matter, as far as health and detention

 8    conditions are concerned?

 9            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for detention conditions, I have

10    no other objections.

11            But as for my health, drawing on the very bad experience I had

12    when I addressed the Pre-Trial Judge, Mr. Agius, when I complained to him

13    sometime towards the end of 2003, that for over three months I had been

14    waiting for a very routine operation, and then after that, I was blamed in

15    terms of having some kind of ill-intention, even in your decisions,

16    because allegedly at that time I had already been informed that the

17    surgery had already been scheduled.  It was not official information; it

18    was a nurse who just told me that, during the course of the following

19    week, there may be an operation but it was not official notification.  And

20    that is why I decided --

21            JUDGE ORIE:  It seems that someone, if not myself, but I don't

22    think so, has a mobile phone in this courtroom, at least I hear in my

23    earphone, or perhaps just outside this courtroom.  I'm not aware of it,

24    but could you switch it off.  They're not even allowed to be used in the

25    courtroom.  I draw the attention of everyone to that rule.

Page 704

 1            Mr. Seselj, there is no need to revisit that matter on whether you

 2    did properly inform or did not properly inform at that time about a

 3    surgery that was already scheduled and whether we received this

 4    information from a nurse or from an official.  I don't know what the rules

 5    there are, but there's no need to revisit that.

 6            Is there anything else in relation to your health which needs to

 7    be addressed?

 8            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, this was one of the

 9    arguments for denying me my procedural rights.  For example, now, I could

10    inform you --

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, I'm going to stop you.  A decision has

12    been taken - and this was one of the considerations of the Chamber - that

13    decision has reversed by the Appeals Chamber so, therefore, there is no

14    need to revisit that.  If it will play any role ever, in the future, we

15    will see, we will come to that; but at this moment it's not an issue at

16    stake.

17            Anything else, Mr. Seselj?

18            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, if I were to inform you

19    and your colleagues now that last summer, during some more thorough

20    medical examinations, they found ulcers in the upper part of my stomach

21    that I had never had before, and that I personally am convinced that, as

22    for these ulcers in the upper part of my stomach, those were caused by you

23    and your colleagues through your unlawful conduct, you could now use that

24    as an argument against me, too, that I am behaving improperly.  And that

25    is why I'm not going to inform you about my health at all so that you

Page 705

 1    would not additionally accuse me in this manner, because I wish to behave

 2    properly in the courtroom, not improperly, because my reputation depends

 3    on that.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Seselj, do you receive proper treatment for this

 5    medical problem you just told us about?

 6            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No objections as far as care in the

 7    prison is concerned.  I did have objections with regard to the physician,

 8    but as far as the nurses are concerned, their work is really conducted in

 9    a very dedicated and proper way.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  I think they will appreciate to hear your opinion

11    about the quality of their work.

12            Anything else, as far as health is concerned?

13            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Then -- Mr. Saxon, you're standing.

15            MR. SAXON:  I know we need to rise very soon, Your Honour, if you

16    will indulge the Prosecution for 30 seconds to move back to the seven

17    points raised by Mr. Seselj.

18            In one of his points, Mr. Seselj said that he has still not

19    received the identity of protected witnesses.  I just want to clarify with

20    the Chamber that, in attempted disclosures made on the 4th -- on the 10th

21    of July and the 24th of July, the Prosecution attempted, through the

22    Registrar, to provide disclosure under Rule 66(A)(ii) which contained the

23    identities of confidential witnesses, witnesses who had previously been

24    given pseudonyms by this Chamber, and the accused rejected that

25    disclosure.

Page 706

 1            The second point very, very --

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  May I just briefly respond to that.  Mr. Seselj used

 3    that argument by saying, "I didn't know it."  He didn't say -- he didn't

 4    complain about disclosure obligations met or not met.  He said, "I was

 5    just not aware of it."  What you are saying to us now is that when you

 6    tried to convey this information to Mr. Seselj, that he didn't receive it,

 7    so you're, more or less, supporting his view.

 8            MR. SAXON:  I am not trying to support his view.  I am trying to

 9    say, Your Honour, that he had the opportunity to obtain this knowledge and

10    he rejected it.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But if I have an opportunity to have some

12    knowledge and if I don't take that opportunity, I might have difficulties

13    in sharing that non-obtained knowledge with others.  I think that's the

14    issue raised.  But let's go on to another point.

15            MR. SAXON:  I believe the point was raised in terms of his ability

16    to prepare for trial, Your Honour, and that's why the Prosecution decided

17    to respond, with great respect.

18            One final point regarding the disclosure by the accused of

19    confidential material to his legal advisors, at least one of these legal

20    advisors is mentioned in the Prosecution's pre-trial brief as a person who

21    could have been a member of the alleged joint criminal enterprise with the

22    accused.  That was Mr. Mirko Blagojevic.  So the Prosecution would

23    certainly object strongly to any such disclosure of confidential material

24    to the so-called legal advisors.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is clear.

Page 707

 1            Then is there any other matter that either you, Mr. Seselj, or

 2    you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, would like to raise at almost the end of this

 3    Status Conference?

 4            One second, please.

 5            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly.

 6                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Seselj.

 8            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I never refused to

 9    receive a single document if it was in the Serbian language and in hard

10    copy.  If I refused any documents, then they must have been either in

11    English or in an electronic form.  And I really don't know what it is I

12    rejected, because I do so automatically.  But Mr. Saxon has now confirmed

13    that I didn't know the name of a single protected witness.

14            Mirko Blagojevic is the senior officer of the Serbian Radical

15    Party, one of the highest members, and this is the first time that I hear

16    that he belongs to some kind of joint criminal enterprise.  He is not

17    mentioned in my indictment.  What does this mean?  That you can say that

18    all my associates are part of the joint criminal enterprise, the entire

19    Radical Party?  But I have confidence and trust only in members of the

20    Serbian Radical Party.  Then I can't have any legal advisors because all

21    of them are allegedly part of this joint criminal enterprise.  So I don't

22    really understand this argument.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed.  The positions are clear in this

24    respect.

25            Any other matter to be raised, Mr. Seselj?

Page 708

 1            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On my part, no, unless Mr. Saxon

 2    again says something so intelligent that I will have to respond.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.

 4            MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  No, thank you, Your Honour.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Then the Chamber would like to have another Status

 6    Conference in order to further pay attention to some matters not yet

 7    resolved, and it is scheduled for Wednesday, the 8th of November, at

 8    quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same courtroom.

 9            We stand adjourned until the 8th of November.

10                          --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

11                          9.38 a.m.