Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14487

 1                           Thursday, 7 May 2009

 2                           [Status Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.

 5                           [The accused entered court]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you kindly call

 7     the case, please.

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

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

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.  Today is

11     Thursday, the 7th of May.  I would first and foremost like to greet

12     Mr. Seselj, Mr. Mundis, as well as all his associates, and all the people

13     assisting us in this courtroom.  As you know, we are holding a hearing

14     today in order to take stock of the situation and deal with a number of

15     pending issues.

16             This hearing needs to finish at 11.00 sharp because at 11.30

17     there will be another hearing in this courtroom, which I believe also

18     relates to Mr. Seselj before another Chamber.  So we will try and speed

19     things up.

20             Before I give the floor to Mr. Seselj for him to address the

21     topics he wishes to address, I would like to say in the name of the

22     Chamber and in my own name, I would like to state the following:  As

23     regards a motion filed by Mr. Stanisic, the Trial Chamber on the

24     26th of March, 2009, handed down an oral decision relating to the

25     motion 414 of the accused that had been filed on the 16th of March, 2009,

Page 14488

 1     asking leave to be able to read a letter that had been drafted by the

 2     US Intelligence Services.

 3             First of all, he addressed the Prosecution asking the Prosecution

 4     if it did have such a letter.  After the Prosecution's response, the

 5     Trial Chamber is now asking the accused to turn to the Trial Chamber

 6     seized of the the Stanisic and Simatovic case, that seems to be the

 7     Trial Chamber that is currently able to assess whether the accused's

 8     request is legitimate or not.

 9             In short, Mr. Seselj, if you wish to access this document, you

10     need to seize the Stanisic-Simatovic Chamber.  This is what I wanted to

11     tell you.

12             The second point I'd like to address, which I'm addressing

13     personally, and also addressing on behalf of the Trial Chamber, this has

14     to do with your state of health.  I would like to go back in time a

15     little bit.  I've always been concerned about your state of health.  As a

16     Judge, I make sure that when an accused stands in court, I always make

17     sure that the accused is in a good state of health.

18             At the time Judge Agius was presiding over this Chamber, and you

19     had stated that you suffered from asthma.  And much was done to bring in

20     a physician, someone who specialises in these matters, for you to be able

21     to deal with this problem because you had indicated that there was a lot

22     of pollen in your cell which could cause bouts of asthma.

23             So a long time ago, I was much concerned about this.  Lately, and

24     I shall get back to this, Mr. Krasic, your associate, had discussed at

25     large your state of health in the press.  The Trial Chamber had,

Page 14489

 1     therefore, instantly asked the UN Detention Unit physician to prepare a

 2     medical report and this medical report stated that all was well.  But as

 3     a precautionary measure, the Trial Chamber had also turned to a panel of

 4     physicians to get a better understanding of your overall state of health.

 5             Yesterday this report came in.  In short, according to them, you

 6     have no problem whatsoever other than high blood pressure, which is

 7     something that can be dealt with, and a weight problem.  The physicians

 8     in question recommend you to go on a diet and to get some exercise.

 9             No later than this morning, I discover that you have sent a

10     document written by a physician from your country who seems it to be

11     challenging the report and what has been stated by the doctors at the

12     UNDU, or what has been said by the experts or specialised physicians.  So

13     this is a medical issue we need to deal with, but this is not the main

14     topic I wish to address today.

15             What I'm saying now is a personal view.  I have realised that

16     your associate, Mr. Krasic, discusses at large in the press that the

17     Tribunal is poisoning you.  I must tell you, Mr. Seselj, that I and my

18     colleagues, we have never had any intention whatsoever of poisoning you,

19     so if you have any particular reason, if you have any particular facts,

20     if you have things which can go unchallenged, you should then file a

21     report and turn to the Prosecutor of the Netherlands because then that

22     would amount to attempted murder.  And this should not go unpunished.

23             If you have any facts, any information, please seize the

24     Prosecutor in the Netherlands so that we understand who it is that is

25     trying to poison you.  All of this rests on very little evidence.  You

Page 14490

 1     should prevent your associate from saying anything that goes through his

 2     head in the press.  We are all human, you and I.  If I die tomorrow,

 3     somebody will say that I died because I was ill or because I was old.

 4     But if you die tomorrow, this will be something which will have to be

 5     dealt with by the state.  Somebody will say that you have died because

 6     you were poisoned, and I can't let this go unchallenged.

 7             When your favourite associate challenges the Tribunal and says

 8     that you are being poisoned, I feel concerned by this.  There has never

 9     been any question of this whatsoever ever.  So this needs to be dealt

10     with in a serious manner.  Either your associate is just saying anything

11     that goes through his head, and in that case you should stop working with

12     him, or you have facts and then you should file a complaint and turn to

13     the Prosecutor here in the Netherlands.

14             Now, we have nine physicians that have prepared this report which

15     you have given us which are challenging what the people at the UNDU have

16     said, and we have to have an oral picture of what your state of health is

17     all about.  As far as your poisoning is concerned, do you have anything

18     to say?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my legal advisor,

20     Zoran Krasic, is quite free to speak for himself.  He is a highly

21     respected intellectual, and when he says something, he has grounds for

22     every one of his statements. (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14491

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12     several days ago Jovica Stanisic was brought to the Detention Unit half

13     dead.  He was in a half-dead state and he is lying in the Detention Unit

14     now, and he has such black rings under his eyes, such bags under his eyes

15     that they've come down to his cheeks.  And if you believe that

16     Zoran Krasic has no reason to sound the alarm with the public, then

17     that's your personal opinion.  But you cannot withhold that right of

18     Zoran Krasic's to do that.

19             I have not asked you to set up a commission of physicians.  The

20     Trial Chamber did that ex officio.  That's how I understood it.  Along

21     the lines of duty.  And what did this commission of physicians do?  The

22     physicians came in one by one.  They were very proper in their conduct

23     towards me.  They examined me with a stethoscope, they listened to my

24     chest a few times and to my back a few times, they said breathe in,

25     breathe out, and then they used an apparatus for measuring blood

Page 14492

 1     pressure, and they examined me manually in the abdominal region.  They

 2     pressed my stomach, said, Does this hurt here?  No, it doesn't.  Does it

 3     hurt here?  No, it doesn't.  Now, I don't make things up, I'm not going

 4     to say that something hurts if it doesn't, but I'm not a trickster.  But

 5     there's something that is irrefutable here and that is this:  Ever since

 6     August, they took my blood for analysis seven times and the findings were

 7     bad seven times, all seven times, findings which indicate the liver

 8     functions, and the last time was after your instructions to do so.  And I

 9     have that here somewhere as well.  Your order for that to be done.  And

10     that was - let me just see - in April.

11             Now, four of the indices state that the liver is not working --

12     not functioning properly, chloride values are up.  It should be less than

13     35 -- the ASAT should be less than 35, and it's higher.  The ALAT should

14     be less than 45 whereas it's 71.  The bilirubin levels must be below 19

15     and they are up to 25, and those are roughly the findings.  There's

16     another one that was subsequently done for the liver, because this was a

17     comprehensive blood examination, and it showed that four of the elements

18     were above or below normal values.  So something is happening and a

19     doctor cannot say that the reason is just high blood pressure or the fact

20     that I might be overweight.

21             I'm not particularly overweight, I'm not particularly obese.  I

22     think that among the Judges of this Tribunal that there -- at least

23     30 per cent are more obese than I am and don't have an upset liver

24     function.  So what does that mean, that if somebody is slightly

25     overweight -- well, maybe Mr. Mundis has some liver problems, he is

Page 14493

 1     fatter than me.  If we were to stand side by side, his stomach would be

 2     far larger than mine.  So what does that mean?

 3             Who is making a joke here?  Who is joking with you or with me?

 4     There's no explanation why for seven months these findings have been so

 5     bad.  The results have been bad and nobody took it upon themselves to

 6     inquire why they were bad and I know why, because the medical services in

 7     Holland are very costly and the role of the doctor in the Detention Unit

 8     is not to treat the inmates but to save as much money as possible on

 9     expenses and the Detention Unit seems to be almost bankrupt.  Perhaps the

10     Tribunal is almost bankrupt, too, because a month ago a number of the

11     guards were changed and the new guards that have come in wear jeans today

12     because there's no money to buy them the correct uniform.

13             So perhaps that is the reason that inadequate medical care has

14     been provided and it led to what we saw.

15             And the fact that somebody doubts that somebody is trying to

16     poison me, well, I don't exclude that possibility.  How are you going to

17     emerge from this trial unless somebody poisons me, and I put in a great

18     deal of effort to thinking about that.  How are you going to be able to

19     bring this trial to a close and emerge from this trial without it being a

20     capitulation of The Hague Tribunal.  It's easy to pronounce judgement,

21     100, 200 years of imprisonment but you have to have arguments to do that.

22     And the fact that somebody is pulling the strings backstage, I'm not

23     interested in that, but I never doubted the moral integrity of

24     Zoran Krasic and I'm not about to do so now.  And I will never give up

25     Zoran Krasic as being my legal advisor.

Page 14494

 1             I and my associates in Belgrade -- well, I have provided them

 2     regularly with all my medical findings and they consulted a group of

 3     highly respected physicians, specialists in their field in Belgrade, all

 4     the doctors of medical science.  And they find it strange how medical

 5     examinations are conducted here.  I said I wasn't interested in any

 6     bombastic diagnosis or any -- sounding the alarm without the need to do

 7     so but just to ask them what their opinion was, and their opinion is as

 8     follows:  They consider that the examinations of your medical commission

 9     are inadequate.

10             Now, I'm not asking any medical examinations from you.  I'm not

11     asking you to order any or any medical protection whatsoever.  And quite

12     possibly, I will stop taking any drugs in the near future.  Any

13     medicines, because I'm quite ready to do that.  However, the problem here

14     is as follows:  It's a problem of procedure.  A problem -- because you

15     have stopped the proceedings unlawfully.  Not you, Mr. President, because

16     you voted against, but your colleagues.  What you did here has never been

17     seen in the history of the law.  And what my aim is here is to have the

18     process, the trial continue.  And I'm not interested in sidelining that.

19             Now, whether you are able to continue these legal proceedings and

20     to continue the trial or not, well, acknowledge that in public and call

21     in some other Judges who will start again, start the trial again because

22     the question is whether this trial can continue legally, and you can see

23     how it has been interrupted for several months.  In my country, Serbia,

24     if you have an interruption, a break of one month, the Trial Chamber is

25     duty-bound to start all over again and start the legal proceedings again

Page 14495

 1     and I assume that the same applies in your own countries because that is

 2     according to European law --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as far as the

 4     medical aspect is concerned, I shall confer with my colleagues and look

 5     into this in detail.  I have noticed that you have emphasised the fact

 6     that as far as your blood tests are concerned, there are four items that

 7     pose a problem, i.e., the functioning of your liver.  We shall see

 8     whether this requires a specialist, and if someone needs to conduct tests

 9     on your liver.  We shall let you know very quickly what our decision is.

10     Let me remind you that this Chamber is very much concerned about this.

11             The second item has to do with the videos.  The Trial Chamber

12     will hand down a written decision, but before doing that we would like to

13     hear you on what could be contemplated here.  As you know, an

14     amicus curiae has been appointed.  There seems to be a -- intellectual

15     property rights as regards these videos that have to be abided by.  So we

16     have two alternatives, A, these videos are disclosed to you directly, you

17     watch them in your cell.  That said, these videos are not directly

18     related to your case.  Pursuant to Rule 66 and 68, you have asked to see

19     these videos because you feel this might be important for your case.

20             You have asked these videos to be disclosed to you.  So this is

21     not a problem whatsoever from a legal standpoint and you may receive

22     them, but practically how is this going to work out?  Well, we have said

23     that in the first alternative you are handed over these videos.  You are

24     given a room at the UNDU where you can watch these videos, but these

25     videos must not leave the UNDU.

Page 14496

 1             The second alternative which factors in, the idea that this is

 2     very time consuming, and you may have other things to do than to watch

 3     all these videos and we could give these videos to Mr. Krasic, whom

 4     you've just reminded us you trust entirely, so we could hand these videos

 5     over to your close associates if we lift the prohibition or the ban on

 6     these videos leaving the UNDU.  So in the second case, those people whom

 7     you appoint to view these videos will be entitled to view them in a room

 8     somewhere in the Tribunal.

 9             So what is your view on this?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received the report from the

11     friends of the court and there's nothing in at that report that we didn't

12     know before, at least not nothing that I didn't know about before.  So

13     what is impermissible is this:  It's impermissible to use those videos

14     for commercial purposes.  It is impermissible without agreement from the

15     author of the video, they must not be broadcast publicly, I knew that

16     before.  Broadcasting them in the courtroom is something that the author

17     cannot stop.

18             If the Tribunal accessed the videos in a legal way, and when I

19     say the Tribunal, I mean the Defence and the Prosecution, then they can

20     be shown in the courtroom contrary to the will of the author and that

21     doesn't go against his copyright.  His copyright can be violated only if

22     the videos are shown outside the trial without permission from him, and I

23     never had that intention.

24             However, there are many things here which come under the

25     conditional if.  If Krasic this, if Krasic that.  It's impossible for my

Page 14497

 1     team to work without Zoran Krasic and it will never work without

 2     Zoran Krasic.  You can stop him from coming in here.  You can stop him

 3     from visiting me.  You can ban him from having an insight into

 4     confidential documents, that you can do.  But you can never prevent him

 5     from being my associate.  For as long as I have the right to ring him up,

 6     I'm going to ring him up on a regular basis, or you can ban all my

 7     telephone conversations, but you can't stop Zoran Krasic being part of my

 8     Defence team.

 9             Now the videos amount to 6.000-odd hours, 6.600 hours.  I can't

10     view all that myself and I'm not going to do that.  If those videos are

11     sent me, I will hand them over to my associates to take to Belgrade and

12     to view them there and then to make summaries and make excerpts that I

13     might find useful.  And they can also be rerecorded for my requirements.

14             Now, if somebody abuses this possibility and does broadcast some

15     of the videos without the author's permission, then he comes under the

16     rights governing copyright, and the violation of that right.  Serbia has

17     copyrights and it's considered a crime if they are violated.  So why all

18     this fear?  If you don't want to provide me with that you don't, and we

19     can move on.  And why are you providing me with that now if this trial is

20     never going to continue?  You are duty-bound to complete the trial by the

21     end of the year, that is what the UN Security Council has instructed you

22     to do, your founder.  There's absolutely no chance that the mandate of

23     the Tribunal will be extended, at least not as far as the Security

24     Council is concerned.  Perhaps someone else will take you over Aga Khan,

25     George Soros, or whoever.  But as far as I know, as far as the

Page 14498

 1     Security Council is concerned, they are not going to give you the okay to

 2     have the Tribunal continue working, so you have to finish the trial by

 3     the end of the year.

 4             And what if you don't?  What happens if you don't?  Some trials

 5     are going to begin only this summer, so what happens if they are not

 6     completed?  Well, the best thing to do would be to execute all the

 7     accused without a judgement.  What else can you do?  So you can give them

 8     to me or not, but let's not debate the matter any further.

 9             I consider that we have a general view here whereby those videos

10     should not be provided to me.  And I'm not going to ask for them, I'm not

11     going to request them.  But what would I need the videos for anyway if

12     the trial is not going to be continued, and there's no likelihood of

13     having this trial being continued because everything is slowing down.

14     The fact that there will be another contempt of court case against my

15     associates, I don't think that will come to anything.  They have no

16     proof, not a shred of evidence.  Not a shred of any intimidation of

17     witnesses, and I have umpteen evidence and proof to show that the witness

18     [as interpreted] forced witnesses to give false testimony and intimidate

19     them against their will.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You have given us

21     your point of view as regards the videos.  It's on the transcript and we

22     have this in mind now.

23             Another topic.  The Prosecutor on the 8th of April, 2009, I

24     believe you haven't provided any submissions to, has filed a motion for

25     review of a decision which we had handed down dismissing the admission of

Page 14499

 1     Mr. Babic's testimony.  The Prosecutor had filed a motion pursuant to

 2     92 quater at the time.  The Trial Chamber had dismissed the Prosecution's

 3     motion.

 4             The Prosecutor is now filing this motion again, asking the

 5     Trial Chamber to reconsider it.  You have not stated your views on this

 6     at all.  You know that dead-lines are to be borne in mind and the

 7     documents need to be translated, but as things stand today, what can you

 8     say about this?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all,

10     Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that deals with changes

11     of dead-lines, and it says that if there are valid reasons, the

12     Trial Chamber may either extend or shorten any dead-line period.  And I

13     was counting on that when I decided not to respond immediately to all the

14     submissions of the OTP because the translations thereof are anyway late

15     by months.  I am not sure if I even received the latest one from Babic

16     and I have them all here with me.  Maybe the Babic's one is here as well.

17             Therefore, I prepared myself to present my views orally at the

18     Status Conference as I usually did in the past few months concerning the

19     OTP submissions.

20             You know that there is Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure and

21     Evidence which reads that:  "No evidence shall be admissible if obtained

22     by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if it's

23     admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity

24     of the proceedings."  This rule, to a greater part, refers to all the

25     statements taken by the OTP from witnesses.  I have published a

Page 14500

 1     1.000-page book containing statements from people from whom the OTP

 2     extracted statements in various ways and these people never appeared as

 3     Prosecution witnesses.  And you know that on many occasions I submitted

 4     reports against the OTP for contempt of court.  You know that numerous

 5     witnesses paraded here, and that even in the case when we had a witness

 6     who was most hostile to me, this person denied certain statements

 7     submitted here in their names.

 8             The statements taken by the OTP are so much unreliable that they

 9     cannot be afforded any importance and therefore Rule 95 had to apply.

10             As far as Mr. Babic is concerned, he was the man who stooped down

11     so much morally that he saw suicide as the only way out.  Although there

12     was some suspicions here as well.

13             First of all, he was called down by the Prosecution to testify in

14     Milosevic and he was promised in return to be exonerated from criminal

15     prosecution.  First he appeared as a protected witness, but when the

16     public realised who he was, he then himself said that he was going to

17     testify in an open session.

18             After he finished his testimony in the Milosevic case an

19     indictment was issued by -- against him, then he was given a proposal, a

20     bargain deal that if you admit certain things, you will -- we shall show

21     leniency.  Since they didn't manage to reach an agreement, he was given

22     13 years of prison.

23             Then he was promised some shelter for his family in a Western

24     country.  I heard from his wife how they were actually treated in the

25     west.  They were in a so-called house prison.  They were not free people.

Page 14501

 1     Having seen how the fact that he was so gullible, he destroyed both

 2     himself and his family and he had no other way out other than to kill

 3     himself.  However, it may have happened that he didn't kill himself but

 4     the only proof that I have constitutes only a reasonable doubt.

 5             How can we accept this, because there's bargaining going on here

 6     involving Miroslav Deronic, Momir Nikolic, Obrenovic, you know very well

 7     who struck a bargain here in exchange for giving evidence and thereby

 8     reducing their sentence.  How can you ever trust such people?  These

 9     people were used as instruments to just exonerate -- to exert pressure to

10     get an acquittal.  How can you reach justice through bargaining?  It is

11     perhaps possible in the Anglo-Saxon system.  However, in the continental

12     European system this is something which is not permissible at all.

13             Lately we are dealing with the notion of protected witnesses who

14     actually were accomplices or co-perpetrators of criminal acts.  Then you

15     have this nebulous term of joint criminal enterprise so that anyone who

16     took part in war from the Serbian part by default was part of a JCE, and

17     therefore, it opens up a door for some kind of false justice.  For that

18     reason I object for the statement of Milan Babic to be admitted into

19     evidence, But it's up to you to decide.  If you decide contrary to that,

20     I'm not going to appeal this ruling.

21             You have already admitted many statements taken by the OTP and

22     therefore the innocence of the whole body of evidence has been tampered

23     and damaged long time ago.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Now your position

25     is on the transcript and we know exactly what your observations are

Page 14502

 1     regarding the motion for reconsideration.

 2             The Trial Chamber will hands out its decision as soon as

 3     possible.

 4             Let me tell you now for your information, because maybe if

 5     translation delay you didn't get this yet, that the Trial Chamber handed

 6     out a decision on the motion that you made regarding the restriction of

 7     your communications with Mr. Karadzic.  Let me read the disposition in

 8     this decision, but I would like to state that I also drafted a dissident

 9     opinion.  In the disposition it says that the Trial Chamber states that

10     as of now it is not competent to look at this motion and to study this

11     motion because of the decision of April 9, 2009, of the Appeals Chamber

12     stating that a Trial Chamber cannot give itself a power that is expressly

13     delegated to another authority and that a Trial Chamber can only

14     intervene to make sure that there is a fair trial after all other

15     possibilities are done, are through.

16             Which means that when there is other recourses in front of the

17     Registry, of the president or the Appeals Chamber, according to the

18     Appeals Chamber, and I state that it is according to the Appeals Chamber,

19     you must first seize the Mr. President of the Tribunal if you are given a

20     go ahead, it's fine.  If your motion is dismissed, you can then seize the

21     Trial Chamber -- the Chamber.

22             Therefore, as far as the restriction of communication with

23     Mr. Karadzic is concerned, the Appeals Chamber states, it says and rules

24     that you must first challenge this by seizing the president of the

25     Tribunal of this issue.  And you can also read my dissenting opinion on

Page 14503

 1     this, of course.

 2             So that was what I had to say on this item.  I needed to -- I

 3     would like to move into closed session for a few minutes to state

 4     something.  Registrar, could we please move into closed session.

 5                           [Private session]

 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   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14504

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                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, we are in open

19     session.

20             Mr. Seselj, earlier I talked about the problems of communication

21     with Mr. Karadzic and then moved on to another topic, but I believe that

22     you wanted to take the floor on this issue, so you have the floor.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to tell you two things.

24     Firstly, that this problem has been resolved because recently my -- the

25     ban on my contacts with Radovan Karadzic has been lifted.

Page 14505

 1     Radovan Karadzic is even allowed -- was even allowed to attend the

 2     celebration of the sixth anniversary of my prison term on the 24th of

 3     February.  Later on there was some comments that there had never been any

 4     ban.  There was a ban and it was done in writing.

 5             What is specially problematic here is the position of the

 6     Appeals Chamber.  There are two processes or proceedings conducted here.

 7     One is criminal and the other is administrative one.  I have to

 8     participate in the criminal one but I'm not duty-bound to take part in

 9     any administrative procedure.  If the DU administration cause any damage

10     to me, I'm not obliged to respect their hierarchy and lodge appeals from

11     their head up to the president of the Chamber.  It is up to the Chamber

12     to follow closely and see if any of my rights are being violated.

13             If I have a justified reason to contact Radovan Karadzic, if I'm

14     planning to call him as a witness in my trial and he wants to call me as

15     his witness, and then the DU administration puts a ban on that, I think

16     it is my duty to tell that you.  If you fail to resolve this issue, then

17     an illegal act will remain unpunished.

18             I don't want to follow the hierarchy of administrative system.  I

19     don't have anything to do anything with him.  I am here to stand trial.

20     I don't want to be harassed and maltreated by an administrative

21     hierarchical structure that has been set up between the Registry and the

22     DU.  I simply won't agree to do that.

23             What is jeopardising my rights in these proceedings I'm going to

24     alert only the Chamber.  If you feel that it is necessary for you to

25     react, fine, I'm just recording all these violations that have been

Page 14506

 1     taking place for the past seven years.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The topic before

 3     last -- before the last topic, I would like to talk about the fact that

 4     Mr. Seselj sent a motion to our Trial Chamber in order to have access to

 5     all --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Karadzic, interpreter's correction.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- sent a motion to our

 8     Trial Chamber to have access to all documents.  The Prosecution answered.

 9     Then on May 4th, Mr. Karadzic filed a new motion to have access to

10     confidential documents and ex parte documents in this case.

11             You did not answer.  Could you tell us what is your position

12     regarding Mr. Karadzic's motion asking for access to all documents in

13     your case?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I haven't received that yet.  I

15     haven't received Mr. Karadzic's motion nor the response from the OTP, but

16     I fully agree for allowing Mr. Karadzic to review all the documents

17     including the confidential ones that relate to this trial, and that

18     includes even the documents that have not been made available to me.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your position is

20     now noted down on the transcript and the Trial Chamber of course will

21     take that into account.

22             Last topic now.  You know that the Prosecution asked for an

23     increased -- an extension of time.  So far we haven't handed down any

24     decision.  We are looking at this carefully and we are scrutinizing all

25     the witness statements that are involved in this request for extension of

Page 14507

 1     time.  We need to know whether these witnesses are as crucial as the

 2     Prosecution deems.  We need to see what is the added value that they

 3     could provide.  Also, this is time consuming, I've spent hours on this

 4     already.  Dozens of hours on this.  The Trial Chamber will hand down a

 5     decision, but it won't be tomorrow, but it will hand down a decision as

 6     soon as possible.  This will be a very important decision.  Either we

 7     will provide extra time for the Prosecution or we won't.  And we'll have

 8     to give our reasons for this, which is why all this must be done very

 9     carefully.  It's not because the Prosecution is asking for extra time or

10     anything, that the Trial Chamber should give its blessing and say okay.

11             We are scrutinising everything and that we will hand down the

12     decision as soon as we can.  As of now we are still analysing all these

13     statements and as I told you, this is very time consuming.

14             This is all I had to say.  I think we've taken stock of all the

15     topics, all pending topics.  You now have the floor if you want to raise

16     anything else.  And of course I will also give the floor to Mr. Mundis to

17     see whether Mr. Mundis also would like to raise anything.

18             Mr. Seselj, is there anything you would like to talk about?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  The last thing that you

20     mentioned is actually the crucial thing that I have been preparing myself

21     for today's Status Conference.  In order for us not to move into a closed

22     session, will you please be kind to look at Annex A which contains a list

23     of 11 witnesses that the Prosecution wishes to examine, and they also ask

24     for a total of 23 and a half hours, although the leftover time, according

25     to the previous ruling, was about five hours.

Page 14508

 1             According to this list of witnesses and without mentioning any

 2     names, I will go and just mention the number before the witness's name,

 3     but I think you can follow that.  I will explain why this motion of the

 4     OTP is completely irrational and I object to this increase of number of

 5     hours.

 6             First of all, the OTP was not using its time in an economical

 7     way.  They brought a number of witnesses that later on turned to be

 8     completely redundant.  They also brought an excessive number of witnesses

 9     who testified about some points that were eliminated from the indictment.

10     Instead of testifying about the JCE and my conduct, they testified about

11     the base of the crime and their testimonies were flawed as well.  So that

12     the OTP never distributed their time properly.

13             Now, for these additional witnesses, under number 1 we have a

14     witness who is supposed to testify about Hrtkovci.  You have seen,

15     Judges, when we had Reynaud Theunens, a military expert, and he decidedly

16     said that in Vojvodina, including Hrtkovci, there had been no attacks on

17     civilian population.  For this court to be -- to have jurisdiction, there

18     had to be an attack.  It might be a systematic or widespread, however,

19     there was no attack whatsoever.  Particularly in the light of the fact

20     that the Pre-Trial Chamber, in which you sat, Mr. President, concluded

21     that there wasn't even a war conflict in Vojvodina.  Therefore, you

22     decided to strike this from the indictment.  The OTP appealed, and their

23     argument was that the process itself, the trial will show whether there

24     was any war operation or not.

25             Since there were no attacks in Hrtkovci on the civilian

Page 14509

 1     population, it is totally unnecessary to waste two hours to examine a

 2     witness who practically wasn't an eye-witness to anything, and you can

 3     see that from his statement.

 4             Number 2 is a witness whose testimony in another trial was

 5     rejected and dismissed as unreliable.  You can check that in the

 6     Mrksic-Sljivancanin-Radic judgement.

 7             Number 3 is a witness whose significance I do acknowledge, but if

 8     the OTP plans to call him as a witness in this trial, he never informed

 9     him about this until the end of last year.  He contacted my associate and

10     he expressed a will to be a Defence witness.  He gave a statement to the

11     OTP and this statement was forwarded to me.  After that I gave up on my

12     intention to call him as a Defence witness and I'm not going to oppose

13     his testimony.  However, his testimony is important irrespective of who

14     is going to examine him.  He was a highly positioned official in Zvornik,

15     and he is very knowledgeable about what was going on in that area.  And

16     he appeared in some other trials as well.

17             Witness number 4 is to testify about the base of crime at the

18     location that was removed from the indictment.  I don't see the reason

19     why this witness should be called other than to annoy Judge Harhoff

20     again.  This witness has nothing whatsoever to testify about, and this is

21     going to be another waste of time.  This is my opinion.

22             Witness number 5 had appeared in the court.  He lives somewhere

23     abroad.  I had never had any contact with him.  He was here but there was

24     no time for him to testify, then he went away and it seems that the OTP

25     has difficulty locating him.  Neither I nor my associate are trying to

Page 14510

 1     prevent his appearance here and we are not contacting him at all.

 2             But please bear in mind that this witness is going to testify

 3     about the alleged incident in Herzegovina.  We had many witnesses

 4     testifying about this topic and lots of things have been resolved and

 5     light was shed on them.  This whole area had nothing to do with the

 6     volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party.

 7             I'll try to be brief.  Witness number 6, this is absolutely

 8     unnecessary.  I have no objection for him to appear as a Prosecution

 9     witness.

10             Similarly, witness number 7, the OTP provided him and his family

11     accommodation for a year or two abroad.  However, he was disappointed, he

12     came back and then later on he appeared as a Defence witness, followed by

13     numerous interviews in the Serbian press where he explained in great

14     detail how the Prosecution treated him and what they requested of him.

15             I would really like to see this witness in this court because he

16     will tremendously compromise the OTP.

17             Witness number 8 is a witness who was a Prosecution witness first

18     and then became a Defence witness.  If you look at the statement that he

19     gave to the OTP earlier on, you will see that in that statement there is

20     nothing which brings me or the men of the Serbian Radical Party in

21     connection with the crime.

22             Now, I don't mind him coming in to testify.  The Prosecution

23     abused him quite a bit, but as I say, I have nothing against him coming

24     in.

25             Now, witness number 9, I could provide you with a document here

Page 14511

 1     given to me by the Prosecution on the 12th of December, 1991, he tabled

 2     his resignation to the war staff, and would one of the ushers come up and

 3     hand this over to the Trial Chamber.  Would you do that, please?

 4             So this is a document which the Prosecution sent me, one that I

 5     hadn't had earlier.  Now if he is here going to testify about 1992, then

 6     this will go against the grain of the Prosecution, and it was in the

 7     interests of the Prosecution to find him a job and somewhere for his

 8     family to go but they didn't keep their promise, and he doesn't want to

 9     collaborate with the Prosecution anymore.

10             Now, witness number 10 also crossed over to the Defence side.  I

11     don't mind him appearing as a Prosecution witness because he is

12     testifying about Herzegovina, and he can't confirm anything from the

13     indictment.  I'm absolutely convinced of that.

14             This brings us to witness number 11 who was the commander of the

15     volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in Western Slavonia.  After

16     the -- in his statement it says where he was after the Serbs suffered a

17     defeat.  Now, as Western Slavonia was thrown out of the indictment,

18     there's no need to waste time with this witness.

19             And if you bring the list down to the witnesses who are

20     absolutely necessary and if you have decided for witness 2 to come in as

21     a Trial Chamber witness, then the Prosecution only needs 15 minutes, I

22     think 15 minutes is quite sufficient.  Perhaps I have bored you a bit but

23     I wanted to explain to you in this very vivid form as to why there is no

24     need for an extension of time to be granted to the Prosecution.  It would

25     be better for the Prosecution to think about withdrawing the indictment

Page 14512

 1     and make up for the time -- the seven years I spent here in detention

 2     without a shred of evidence against me.  What they are doing is insisting

 3     upon wasting time even more, so at the end you'll have to give me much

 4     higher financial remuneration than would have been the case had the

 5     Prosecution acted more rationally.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Seselj,

 7     regarding these 11 witnesses, of course I will not mention their names,

 8     just like you didn't mention them.  There are three important things that

 9     you said and I will sum them up to make sure that there's no

10     misunderstanding.

11             First thing which is very important, and it's a small change

12     regarding your behaviour obviously.  You told us that as far as witnesses

13     3 are concerned, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10, even though these were first

14     Prosecution witnesses and Defence witnesses, you see no problem in having

15     these witnesses as Prosecution witnesses.  This is the first important

16     item I wanted to mention.

17             Second thing, regarding witness 5, we will look at this closely.

18     You are telling us that according to you, you never had any contact with

19     him, and that allegedly he disappeared.  He came and went.  So we'll have

20     to take a close look at the situation of number 5.

21             Regarding number -- regarding the other witnesses, 1, 2, 4, 9,

22     and 11, you are telling us that according to you these witnesses are

23     useless, as far as you are concerned.  Now, since among them there are a

24     number of witnesses that are going to talk about municipalities that are

25     no longer in the indictment, but we still have the deliberate pattern

Page 14513

 1     that may be involved, however.  So you gave us your position regarding

 2     these 11 witnesses.  You restated that as far as you are concerned that

 3     these witnesses can come but only in the time provided -- still allotted

 4     to the Prosecution, i.e., about five hours.  This is now down on the

 5     transcript and I believe that everyone will be enlightened by this.

 6             Any other topic, Mr. Seselj?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, just some -- something brief.

 8     I just want to note that in the transcript I wanted to be recorded that

 9     I'm opposed to some of the Prosecution's demands without going into the

10     details.  I want that to be on the record because the -- I presented my

11     arguments a number of times.  I have the request of the 10th of March

12     that was sent to me on the 20th of April, or rather, it's an addition to

13     the Prosecution request for (redacted) to be heard according to the

14     Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  And I've already said why I am opposed

15     to that.

16             Then the Prosecution request of the 7th of April, which came to

17     me on the 20th of April, to review the decision rejecting evidence on the

18     basis of 92 ter given by witness VS-067.  Then we have an addition for

19     this witness 67, and then the Prosecution request to -- for Mujo Dzafic's

20     material to be included under 92 quater, and then the Prosecution request

21     to change the list of exhibits and to have admitted VS-063 testimony on

22     the basis of 62 quater.

23             So I am opposed to all those Prosecution requests because they

24     are people who are deceased.  Some of the witnesses are deceased, with

25     one exception, and had this trial started on time, then the Prosecution

Page 14514

 1     could have brought all these witnesses who are now dead into the

 2     courtroom.  It's not my fault that the trial was late in starting and

 3     that all reasonable time for the completion of the first instance trial

 4     to be completed has expired.  It's the Prosecution's fault and the

 5     Trial Chamber's in the pre-trial stage.  Of course this Trial Chamber,

 6     too, after it had taken its decision to interrupt the trial.

 7             Now, all the other arguments are ones that I have already made

 8     saying while I am opposed to the application of Rule 92 quater of any

 9     statement.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your observations

11     are now on the record.  Everything has been noted down.

12             Regarding 92 quater, let me tell you but I think it goes -- it

13     goes without saying but I'll say it again, notably because you are a

14     legal expert.  Just imagine, Mr. Seselj, for a minute that among your

15     Defence witnesses there may be a crucial one that could maybe prove you

16     innocent and that makes a statement, relevant statement that might have

17     an enormous probative value that may actually prove your innocence.  Just

18     imagine this witness passes away and suddenly you no longer have any

19     means at your disposal.  The Prosecution could just say no, I don't want

20     this statement to be admitted under Rule 92 quater.  See the problem?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the problem is

22     elsewhere.  If these witnesses had given statements in an objective way,

23     then those statements could have been adopted.  However, those statements

24     were statements written by the Prosecutor or the investigator which were

25     allegedly read back to those witnesses, but most often they were signed

Page 14515

 1     in English.  In most of the cases, those statements have absolutely

 2     nothing to do with the testimony themselves.  They are not actually

 3     witness statements.  Had it been a statement before an investigating

 4     judge with a Defence counsel present, then that would have been another

 5     case altogether.  But a statement compiled by the OTP itself is

 6     absolutely unacceptable.

 7             And it's the same for the Defence.  The fact that someone gave me

 8     a statement, provided me with a statement, well, you know it's

 9     theoretically possible for someone instead of me to write 100 statements

10     of deceased persons which will be antedated and represented as having

11     been given when these people were alive.  And so who can then establish

12     that they are not original statements?  Nobody.  There are zero

13     technological possibilities for doing that, and so the court has to avoid

14     such procedure.

15             So only what is said in court can be taken as being relevant or

16     something given in writing, but when the person who was interviewed and

17     wrote the statement, that somebody from the other side is also present.

18     Just when you go before an investigating judge or magistrate, you have

19     the Prosecutor, you have Defence counsel and everything that is said on

20     the record in the presence of the two sides, the Defence and the

21     Prosecutor, is relevant and acceptable as far as the legal proceedings go

22     and need not be repeated in court.

23             But something that is done secretly in the OTP's factory and then

24     what is manufactured is represented as being a piece of evidence, it's

25     senseless to accept anything like that.  They are not exhibits, it's not

Page 14516

 1     proof, it's not evidence, it's just the long arm of the indictment or the

 2     brief of the OTP.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Everything is now on the

 4     transcript.  Anything else, Mr. Seselj?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I had expected you to tell me

 6     today when the trial will be resumed, but as you've not told me that,

 7     then I have no further questions.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you are telling me

 9     you want a date at which the trial will be resumed?  If you had appealed

10     the decision, then the Appeals Chamber could have ruled on this.  But

11     deliberately you decided not to do that.  That's it.

12             Secondly, it's a majority decision from the Trial Chamber and

13     it's extremely clear, this majority decision is very clear, the trial

14     will resume when the necessary conditions are met.  That's it.  So I

15     cannot give you any answer.  I can't tell you anything because it's not

16     of my competence.  I can't do it.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I might be

18     allowed to say one more thing, and it is this:  Had I appealed to the

19     Appeals Chamber, then I would have -- that would have been a relaxation

20     for your fellow judges, Judge Harhoff and Judge Lattanzi, and they could

21     say, When the Appeals Chamber rules and decides then we'll go ahead.  So

22     that's why I didn't want to do that, that's why I didn't want to lodge an

23     appeal, because I wanted to leave the problem with them.  I wanted that

24     problem to trouble them because I do believe that they are people who

25     have consciences and that that problem troubles them.  Perhaps I'm wrong

Page 14517

 1     on that score, but that was my intention.  I did not want the problem to

 2     be referred to the Appeals Chamber.  I wanted it to stay with this

 3     Trial Chamber.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I think you have

 5     addressed all the topics on the agenda.

 6             Mr. Mundis.

 7             Just a minute.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, I apologise for

11     having thus conferred.

12             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning, everyone.

13     The Prosecution has no particular issues to raise this morning.  However,

14     I would just like to make one very brief point concerning the accused's

15     response to our motion filed on the 12th of February, 2009, concerning

16     additional time.

17             And that point is as follows:  It is our submission that the fact

18     that the accused now indicates that certain witnesses on the annex can

19     appear before the Trial Chamber as Prosecution witnesses really has

20     little relevance to the issue as to whether or not the Prosecution should

21     be given additional time, nor in our respectful view should that in any

22     way impact upon the issue of the adjournment and the reasons therefore.

23     And that's perhaps all I'll say about that at this point in time and we

24     have nothing further for today.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your position is on

Page 14518

 1     the transcript.

 2             Everyone has taken the floor -- yes.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The interpreter has been saying

 6     Prosecutor, whereas Mr. Mundis uses the term "the accused."  So he is

 7     referring to what I said and in the transcript on the record it says "the

 8     accused" whereas the interpreter is saying "Prosecutor."  Now, I've

 9     cautioned you about this many times that you have highly -- interpreters

10     who are not of a very high quality, so I'm telling you this again.  If

11     somebody who knows Serbian, they can read through the interpretation I

12     was given, read through what Mr. Mundis said and then compare it with the

13     English.  And that is not by chance; it's done intentionally.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there may have been

15     a translation issue, but as far as substance is concerned, I stand to be

16     corrected by Mr. Mundis, if need be.  Mr. Mundis is telling us that the

17     mere fact that a series of witnesses 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10, that those

18     witnesses, as far as you are concerned, could be Prosecution witnesses

19     and be called as such, whereas he had stated initially that they would be

20     Defence witnesses.  According to Mr. Mundis, this should not be borne in

21     mind when the Trial Chamber assesses how much time the Prosecution should

22     have and how much extra time the Prosecution should have.  Have I summed

23     up what you have said accurately, Mr. Mundis?

24             MR. MUNDIS:  Yes, you have, Mr. President.  But I also indicated

25     that it was our view that the reasons underlying the adjournment that we

Page 14519

 1     are currently in also should not be affected by the position that the

 2     accused has just taken with respect to those witnesses that Your Honour

 3     just mentioned by number.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All this is very clear.

 5             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I just want to say

 6     something, you should avoid accusing the interpreters in such a manner

 7     and refrain from saying that they are misinterpreting some of your words.

 8     Errors can be made and their job is a very difficult one.  So please

 9     refrain from saying such things.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As everything has been said, we

11     shall meet again soon.  I can't give you an exact date because it is

12     always difficult to -- I shall give you the floor, one moment.  I was

13     saying that we shall meet again soon.  We always find it difficult to

14     find a date given the number of trials ongoing at the moment, but as soon

15     as we have a time slot, we shall let you know so that we can take stock

16     of the situation and discuss any pending issue.  But we wish to

17     demonstrate that the Trial Chamber wishes to see this trial through in

18     the best conditions possible.

19             Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, something very similar

21     happened just now.  For instance, in English, Mrs. Lattanzi said that I

22     should refrain in future from saying things like that.  Now, I don't know

23     what the words she actually used in French.  Whereas the interpretation I

24     received that in future I should refrain from libel of that kind or,

25     rather, she said -- the female interpreter said [B/C/S spoken] and this

Page 14520

 1     newly invented word in Croatian "objeda" means "libel."  Now, I'm

 2     interested in knowing, Judge Lattanzi, whether you actually said that I

 3     should refrain from libel.  So there you have an example of what the

 4     interpreters are doing, and that's not an unintentional mistake.

 5             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] No, not at all.  I never used

 6     the word libel.  All I said was that you should avoid from using such

 7     terms to describe the interpreters, and you should not say that they are

 8     making mistakes deliberately.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, there you are.  The female

10     interpreter said that I should refrain from such "objeda" in future, and

11     that means "slander" in this newly composed, newly invented Croatian

12     language, and you can check that out with the Registry.  It means

13     "slander," and you can see if I'm right there or not.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I confirm that my colleague at

15     no point in time used the word "libel."  She just said that the

16     interpreters, like anyone, can make a mistake, and some mistakes may be

17     made, but these are not made deliberately.  The Judges may also

18     occasionally make a mistake.  It's not because you make a mistake that

19     this is done intentionally.  But you have said this and everything you

20     have said is always scanned and each and every word you say is

21     scrutinised.  And I assume that our translation services and

22     interpretation services will do the same.

23             In any case, it's now time to stop since we have had a hearing

24     that has lasted just about one hour and a half.  The hearing stands

25     adjourned for today and we look forward to seeing you again soon.  I

Page 14521

 1     would like thank you all the people present in the courtroom.  The Court

 2     stands adjourned.  Thank you.

 3                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

 4                           at 9.52 a.m.