Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14751

 1                           Tuesday, 20 October 2009

 2                           [Status Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 4.33 p.m.

 5                           [The accused entered court]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the

 7     case.

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

 9             This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Vojislav Seselj.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

12             Today is Tuesday, 20th of October, 2009.

13             Good afternoon, Mr. Seselj.  Good afternoon to the outstanding

14     representatives of the OTP, and all people assisting us.

15             Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber is going to read out three

16     decisions.  The very first decision is extremely important.  I'm going to

17     read it out slowly so that the interpreters can convey its contents

18     faithfully, inasmuch as each and every word of the decision counts.

19             First decision.  Mr. Seselj, as you know, the Trial Chamber was

20     seized by the Prosecution of an additional request of the imposition of

21     counsel.  It was filed on the 28th of August, 2009.  This addendum to the

22     request is added to the initial motion requiring imposition of counsel to

23     you.  The motion had been filed on the 29th of July, 2008.  The addendum

24     had been filed on the 14th of November, 2009 [as interpreted].

25             In its decision of the 25th of November, 2008, and the decision

Page 14752

 1     of the 24th of March, 2009, the Trial Chamber had decided to stay its

 2     decision on the motion and the addendum thereto.

 3             At this juncture and in light of new information made available

 4     to the Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber has decided to dismiss the motion

 5     of the 29th of July, 2008, the addendum or supplemental request of the

 6     24th of November, 2008, and the supplement of the 28th of August, 2009,

 7     and has decided not to impose a counsel to you.  The reasons underlying

 8     the decision will be conveyed in writing in the coming few weeks.

 9             The Trial Chamber also stresses that in order to meet some of the

10     concerns expressed by the Prosecution with regard to protecting

11     witnesses, the Trial Chamber will also decide alternative measures which

12     will enable the witnesses to be protected, whilst safe-guarding your

13     right to self-representation.

14             Mr. Seselj, I've just read out this decision concerning you, and,

15     in a nutshell, the Trial Chamber dismissed the Prosecution's motion on

16     imposition of counsel.  This means that you will keep defending yourself

17     without any counsel.  For technical reasons, the Trial Chamber will issue

18     its written decision in the coming weeks.

19             Oral ruling of the 20th of October, 2009, on the accused's oral

20     motion for Mr. Zoran Krasic's privilege status to be restored.

21             Mr. Seselj, at the hearings of the 18th of August, 2009, and

22     10th of September, 2009, you asked the Trial Chamber for one of your

23     advisers or associates, Mr. Zoran Krasic, who had a privileged status,

24     the status having been stayed by a Registry decision of

25     28th of November, 2008, for this privileged status to be restored to him.

Page 14753

 1     Since then, the Trial Chamber was notified that on the

 2     15th of September, 2009, you filed an appeal before the President of the

 3     Tribunal against the Registry decision of the 10th of September, 2009,

 4     which confirmed the above-mentioned decision of the

 5     28th of November, 2008.  So you've rightly used the remedies that were

 6     available to you under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

 7             The Trial Chamber recalls that in its decision of the

 8     9th of April, 2009, the Appeals Chamber re-affirmed that a Trial Chamber

 9     cannot avail itself of a right that has been expressly attributed to

10     another authority and that the intrinsic power of a Trial Chamber to

11     intervene in order to ensure a fair trial can only be stopped once all

12     the remedies have been tried.  Therefore, the Trial Chamber is of the

13     view that at this juncture of the trial proceedings, it has no competence

14     to rule on your motion, but that it could possibly intervene once the

15     remedies provided by the Rules have been used and inasmuch as this matter

16     would relate to the protection of your fundamental rights to a fair

17     trial.

18             So, in one word, Mr. Seselj, regarding Mr. Krasic, one has to

19     wait until a decision has been taken by the President of the Tribunal on

20     your appeal, and in the event that the President of the Tribunal were to

21     make a decision that would not suit you, you could always seize this

22     Trial Chamber of the matter.

23             Last oral ruling of the 20th of October, 2009, on Motion 426 of

24     the accused filed on the 6th of October, 2009.

25             Mr. Seselj, you filed a motion before the Trial Chamber - it was

Page 14754

 1     filed on the 6th of October, 2009 - regarding allegations of mistreatment

 2     at the Detention Unit of the United Nations, and you complained that the

 3     authorities of the UNDU had refused to pass on DVDs to your associates.

 4     The Trial Chamber observes that Rules 80 and 81 of the Rules on the

 5     detention system allows accused to file a complaint regarding detention

 6     conditions.  This is a procedure which is detailed in Articles 1 to 7 of

 7     the said Regulations on a filing by a detainee of a complaint.

 8             The Trial Chamber is of the view that for similar reasons to

 9     those underlying our oral decision on restoring the privileged status to

10     Mr. Krasic, the Trial Chamber is not competent now to rule on your

11     motion.  However, if need be, the Trial Chamber will be able to intervene

12     once the remedies expressly provided for will have been used and inasmuch

13     as the matter pertains to protecting your fundamental right to fair

14     trial.

15             The Trial Chamber wishes to add that it has, in any event, been

16     informed by the Registry that the issue of passing on the DVDs has

17     already been solved.

18             So, Mr. Seselj, regarding Motion 426, we are telling you that you

19     first have to seize the President of the Tribunal of the matter, and only

20     then, only if your concerns are not met, then you can seize the

21     Trial Chamber.

22             This is what I was to tell you since last time we met.

23             Mr. Seselj, do you have anything to say?  And then I'll ask the

24     same question of the Prosecution.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I would have a few words to

Page 14755

 1     say, with your permission, by way of comment to your decisions.  And I've

 2     prepared something separate which is not directly related to your

 3     decisions, but I wanted to raise it at this Status Conference.

 4             Gentlemen, Judges, I have to say, quite frankly, that that is the

 5     decision that I had expected you to take, because regardless of the

 6     hullabaloo that I raised about all that, I never questioned your moral

 7     integrity and professional dignity.  I have to recognise and acknowledge

 8     that here and now.

 9             The decision to reject the Prosecution's request for imposition

10     of counsel is the only proper one because you could impose counsel only

11     if I were to disrupt proceedings in the courtroom, and if you threw me

12     out once, twice, three times, and then you see that things cannot carry

13     on that way, then that's the only situation in which you would be

14     justified in imposing counsel.  So you understood all this and made the

15     right decision.

16             Your other two decisions, I think, are correct and proper too;

17     you've made the right decisions there.  And I'm ready to wait and see

18     what the President of the Tribunal will decide, Judge Mehmet Guney, since

19     the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal have separated

20     themselves from that decision-making, since they took part earlier on in

21     certain Trial Chambers which dealt with my case earlier on.

22             I hope that your decision means that we'll be able to continue

23     the proceedings over the next few days and to hear the remaining

24     witnesses over a period of 15 hours and 15 minutes -- 5 hours and 15

25     minutes, and that the Prosecution will use its time rationally and will

Page 14756

 1     give up on witnesses which do not support the indictment; that is to say,

 2     witnesses about conduct or anything else, because we've had enough

 3     witnesses of that kind, and nobody can be convicted for conduct.  They

 4     can only be convicted for having committed a crime.  So the Prosecution

 5     will have enough time, and it's up to them to use that time rationally

 6     and wisely, because thus far they've used up a lot of time to no avail.

 7             Now, can I say what I wanted to raise at this Status Conference

 8     right now, or are you going to give the floor to the Prosecutor so that

 9     he can state his views?

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll ask the Prosecutor to

11     proceed later.  You can continue.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I prepared to raise -- I'm prepared

13     to raise a motion today or, rather, to raise an issue which I did

14     something a few years back in writing.  Now I have new arguments, and

15     other things have come to pass within the space of these two years which

16     give me additional scope to raise this issue and problem.

17             In Anglo-Saxon law, an important role is played by the so-called

18     doctrine of abuse of proceedings, of due process, and since the

19     Rules of this Tribunal is based on Anglo-Saxon law, with elements of the

20     Continental, of course, modified to a certain extent, I think that this

21     doctrine of abuse, especially as its application has been confirmed at

22     the International Court in Rwanda, can, in this case, too, be applied.

23             I've been here for seven years already, barring four months, but

24     we can round that off, and I'm sure those four months will pass by very

25     quickly.  Anyway, my trial was not completed within a reasonable space of

Page 14757

 1     time.  I waited for the start of trial for four or five years, and then

 2     during those five years, my procedural rights were violated

 3     systematically.  Since the very day that I appeared in February 2003 in

 4     The Hague courtroom, the Prosecutor has done his best to impose counsel

 5     because they saw their only chance if I was imposed counsel.

 6             Now, Judges, I filed motions and requests for lack of respect for

 7     the Court and told you the kind of methods that the Prosecutor used,

 8     trying to barter with potential witnesses, bribe them and so on.  They

 9     succeeded in some cases; not in others.  And you were able to see just

10     how many witnesses gave false testimony in this courtroom, and you were

11     able to see also how I dealt with -- found it very easy to deal with

12     witnesses like that.  And that unfortunate witness 008 was an example in

13     point, the most illustrious example, in fact.  So there are quite a few

14     elements there to which you can apply the concept of abuse of due

15     process.

16             Now, I found a House of Lords ruling, House of Lords, of course,

17     in Great Britain, I mean, dated the 24th of June, 1993.  It was in the

18     case the Queen against Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court,

19     Ex Parte Bennett.  I'm going to quote from that very briefly:

20             "The Court has the discretionary right to stop any criminal

21     proceedings if there is the fear that the trial could represent an abuse

22     of due process, itself."

23             Under 1, because it is impossible, usually due to the time gone

24     by whereby the accused has not been given due trial and --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speaker kindly slow down and repeat

Page 14758

 1     that, please.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Seselj, the interpreter asks if you could

 3     speak more slowly and repeat your last sentence because they didn't catch

 4     it.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I repeat point 2?  I think

 6     that's enough.

 7             Now, to ask of the Court to try an accused under circumstances of

 8     a specific case represents, for that Court, a violation of the feelings

 9     for correct procedure and justice.

10             Now, I've already put forward excerpts from Carla Del Ponte's

11     book whereby Zoran Djindjic had to entreat -- had to -- for me to be

12     arrested and never to return from The Hague, and he's not the only

13     politician who pleaded that this be done.  I mentioned this even before I

14     mentioned Carla Del Ponte's book.  But once I read her book, I saw there

15     were other politicians, too, of the pro-Western orientation who, even

16     before Zoran Djindjic, one or two years before, in fact, made such

17     requests of Carla Del Ponte, and she writes about this very openly, and

18     it's evidence for the Crown.  It shows that there has been abuse of due

19     process here in this case, too, just as the whole -- as if the whole

20     doctrine was actually based on this particular example taken from

21     practice.

22             So what was the aim and goal there?  The people who raised the

23     indictment knew in advance that I wasn't involved in any war crime.  I

24     knew that, too, because for 10 years I provoked The Hague Tribunal to

25     accuse me and said that I would pack my bags and go to The Hague as soon

Page 14759

 1     as the indictment was raised, and I even bought my plane ticket before

 2     the indictment was served on me.  So I wasn't afraid of that, nor did I

 3     want to escape from it.  But the goal was to do away with me from Serbian

 4     political life, to remove me from Serbian political life.  And now, since

 5     it is obvious that no crimes can be proved against me by an abuse of due

 6     process, the Prosecutor is demanding that the completion of this trial be

 7     prolonged as much as possible, that it can last -- that it should last

 8     for as long as this Tribunal lasts, whatever the outcome might be.  So

 9     this, too, is a form of abuse of due process.

10             Another point that I wish to raise is this:  With the abuse of

11     due process, the question is opened -- is broached that if such abuse

12     exists, whether the International Court is realising its discretionary

13     right to refuse to try the accused.  Secondly, the International Court

14     shall realise his discretionary right by refusing to try an accused if

15     there is express violation of the rights of the accused.  And I think

16     that my stay here in The Hague for seven years, without a judgement of

17     the first instance, is sufficient proof that my rights have, indeed, been

18     violated.

19             In another case, the Barayagwiza case at the International Court

20     for Rwanda, in a decision pursuant to an appeal, it is stressed that the

21     discretionary right of abolishing the indictment is being done in light

22     of serious violations of the right of the accused, which were shown to be

23     detrimental to the integrity of the Court.

24             Now, I think that this whole procedure -- all these proceedings

25     against me have brought into question the integrity of the Tribunal, not

Page 14760

 1     the integrity of the Trial Chamber, but the integrity of

 2     The Hague Tribunal, as such, if The Hague Tribunal had any integrity to

 3     begin with, which is questionable, and I would have raised that question

 4     based on the cases tried here before, the conduct of counsel of the

 5     Prosecutor, the witnesses, and so on and so forth.  Many of the things

 6     the Prosecutor did in this trial, the Prosecution did in other cases, but

 7     nobody stopped them there.

 8             Now, why am I telling you all this?  It is because I think the

 9     time has come that you, as members of the Trial Chamber, should give

10     thought to the matter and decide whether or not the elements exist here

11     which the doctrine of abuse of due process considers to be sufficient to

12     make a judgement and to reject -- to dismiss the indictment because of

13     serious violations of my rights as the accused.  Of course, if you were

14     to make a decision of that kind, it would perhaps deprive me of the

15     possibility of, in two or three years' time, being triumphant,

16     definitively triumphant, when I break down the whole indictment and the

17     whole Prosecution case.  But for the moment, the question is whether it's

18     worth waiting those three years to achieve that result.  And since I'm in

19     a dilemma -- I'm faced with a dilemma here, whether to wait those three

20     years or not, I leave it to you to decide, because I shall adjust to any

21     of the two variants.

22             I don't mind doing battle with the Prosecution, and I think you

23     were able to see that I even take pleasure in it, because I find myself

24     in my element here in the courtroom.  However, is there anything new to

25     be said here at all?  That's the question, when the expert witnesses and

Page 14761

 1     the Prosecution witnesses, in fact, overruled all the alleged counts

 2     against me.  You had the first expert witness about hate speech.  What

 3     was his name?  It doesn't matter.  But, anyway, in the courtroom he said

 4     that he found no elements of hate speech, where I was concerned.  He set

 5     up a scale from 1 to 5, and he ranked my speeches at around number 3 and

 6     that they didn't actually reach the level of hate speech.

 7             Then you had the military expert - what was his name; Theunens,

 8     was it? - who was working for the Prosecution.  And he said that there

 9     was no attack in Hrtkovci against the civilian population.  If their

10     expert says that there was no attack, then what are we discussing here?

11     There's no crime, no crime of persecution, nothing.  You can't apply

12     Article 5 of the Statute in that case.

13             You were able to see that famous statement saying that I -- about

14     Zvornik and the crimes there, and that the event the witness was talking

15     about had taken place two years beforehand, so he wasn't able to locate

16     it properly.  And you see how the testimonies differ between the three

17     witnesses who said that I said in Vukovar that not a single Ustasha was

18     allowed to leave alive, and all of them were instructed by

19     General Aleksandar Vasiljevic.  One says "in the house," the other says

20     "in front of the house," the third person says "on the street," and it

21     turned out that this particular fact was actually recorded in a notebook

22     of one of those witnesses.  So those are just some characteristic

23     examples.

24             And remember the witness who appeared in the courtroom here

25     because the Prosecutor helped him gain permanent residence in some

Page 14762

 1     western country.  You will also recall the other witness with a large

 2     criminal dossier who, during the examination here, gave up on everything.

 3     Remember another witness for which the Prosecution had established that

 4     he was, in fact, lying, and then you brought counsel here to see that he

 5     doesn't repeat the lies and prevent him from going to prison.  So we've

 6     heard all manner of things here.

 7             Now, not to take up more time, I have made my request, raised my

 8     points.  I hope they will be food for thought, and that you'll be able to

 9     make a ruling and decision in the matter.  But, at any rate, I think that

10     you should decide, if the Prosecution is not ready, that we should carry

11     on the trial straightaway and that the Prosecutor should bring forth

12     other witnesses, and then the abuse of due process will have been quite

13     evident, and it's up to you to prevent that.

14             So that's what I wanted to say.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

16             Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber has listened to you, and if we

17     understood correctly, you are making an oral motion this afternoon on the

18     legal basis of abuse of due process, based on a decree of the

19     House of Lords in London according to which a trial can be stopped by a

20     Trial Chamber if there is serious violations of the right of the party

21     involved.  And you're also grounding this on a decision made by the ICTR.

22             The Trial Chamber has been seized of your oral motion.  The

23     Prosecutor, of course, can answer.  I'm sure he will make a written

24     submission to answer this because this is quite an important question.

25     And the Trial Chamber will eventually rule on this motion.

Page 14763

 1             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I may, I would like our

 2     accused to clarify something.

 3             In his last sentence, I thought I understood that all this will

 4     depend -- all this depends on the fact that the Prosecutor will not

 5     continue listening to witnesses.  Is that what you said, or did I

 6     misunderstand you?  You said -- did you say if the Prosecutor decides not

 7     to call his last witnesses?  Is that what you said?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that the

 9     interpretation was not quite accurate, Ms. Lattanzi.  I said that if the

10     Prosecutor is not able to bring witnesses into the courtroom immediately.

11     Well, I know that it's hard for you to rule, and it would be a precedent

12     in The Hague Tribunal, so it would be hard for you, as the Trial Chamber,

13     to make a decision of this sort, although I believe that all the

14     prerequisites have been met for that.  However, I think that what should

15     be of primary importance for you, as the Trial Chamber, when you assess

16     the situation, when you see whether the Prosecutor is able to continue

17     the presentation of their case or, rather, bring in their witnesses next

18     week, or not.  If we're going to wait for a new year to go by, and then

19     if we wait for the spring and who knows how long, then all of it makes no

20     sense.

21             I believe that the conditions are right for you to make this

22     decision immediately, regardless of whether the Prosecutor is going to

23     call his witnesses immediately or not.  However, what would be very

24     important for you, in making such a decision, is precisely what I

25     referred to, whether the Prosecutor is capable of bringing their first

Page 14764

 1     witness in a week or in 10 days or not.

 2             I hope that now the interpretation was better and that you

 3     understood my point.

 4             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I want to say that the

 5     interpretation was very accurate.  I believe that I was the one that was

 6     not accurate enough when I repeated what had been said.  But I'm still in

 7     the dark.

 8             Your motion depends on whether we know whether the trial can

 9     resume in the next week to come, yes or not?  I'd like to know whether

10     your motion depends on this or not, whether this motion is actually

11     coming into effect immediately.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you have simplified my motion

13     now.  But I do agree with that interpretation of yours, basically,

14     although that is not exactly the way I had formulated it.

15             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, could you give

17     us the position of the Prosecutor on this motion?  And I would like to

18     know whether you would like to address some other topics.

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

20             I would like to address a number of issues that have raised

21     today, and, of course, I'll also say some brief things about the request

22     by Mr. Seselj.

23             But first I just wanted to inform the Court that in addition to

24     Ms. Biersay and Ms. Bosnjakovic, we have also Safeena Rashid and

25     Amar Bosto with us today, who are our legal interns, just so Your Honours

Page 14765

 1     know who are with us in court.

 2             Your Honours, with respect to the oral application made by the

 3     accused, first of all, I would submit that the accused should be directed

 4     to put -- make a written motion on these issues if he wishes to pursue

 5     these matters.  It was not clear whether or not the accused is seeking

 6     reconsideration of a previous decision by the Trial Chamber and,

 7     therefore, is invoking that there are new factual circumstances that he's

 8     relying on; whether he's merely repeating submissions that he has already

 9     made numerous times, and so that's the repetition of an already-made

10     motion; or whether he's actually bringing a new motion.  So I think it

11     would be proper for the Chamber to direct the accused to put these things

12     in writing so we get clarity on these issues.

13             The brief position of the Prosecution is that, first of all, any

14     delay there has been in the trial is attributable to the accused, and

15     there have been a hunger strike, there have been numerous other filings

16     that Your Honours are aware of which shows why these delays have occurred

17     in the trial.  So there is no basis for the accused's request on that

18     point.

19             The allegations about the Prosecution tampering with witnesses

20     and false witnesses are improper and have no factual basis.

21             The accused had earlier raised the issue of Carla Del Ponte's

22     book, and I believe we've made a filing showing that he's actually not

23     even quoting the book correctly.

24             There's no basis for the allegation that the Prosecution is

25     trying to come up with procedural problems simply in order to keep the

Page 14766

 1     accused here because we fear that he will eventually be acquitted.

 2             And all the arguments he has made about the perceived lack or his

 3     alleged lack of evidence in the case have nothing to do with the abuse of

 4     process.  Those are maybe arguments that he can make at the 98 bis stage,

 5     once we come to that.

 6             So that is a very short position of the Prosecution on the issues

 7     raised by the accused.  But as I said, if the accused actually seriously

 8     wants to pursue this, we would submit that he should file a written

 9     motion.  If Your Honours will not grant that, we will, of course, as you

10     directed, file a written response to what the accused has said today.

11     But if these matters are to be litigated in a proper way, we think the

12     accused should commit these writings so that his arguments become clear,

13     because they are, of course, important.

14             The last thing I wanted to address was the Trial Chamber's

15     decision on the Prosecution request to terminate self-representation.

16             The Prosecution will consider, once we see the written decision,

17     whether or not we will seek to appeal the decision pursuant to

18     Rule 73(C)(ii), so we will see.  But I guess that means there will be

19     some further delay at least until we see a written decision and seven

20     days after that.

21             So that is what I had to say to Your Honours at this stage.

22     Thank you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

24             Mr. Seselj, the Prosecutor is raising two issues, and you should

25     answer this very specifically.  First, he believes, and, of course, it's

Page 14767

 1     his point of view, that you should make a written motion regarding the

 2     issue that you just raised.  That's the first issue raised.  So we would

 3     like you to tell us your position on this.

 4             Secondly, the Prosecutor would like to know whether your motion

 5     on abuse of due process is only the follow-up of other motions or whether

 6     this is a brand-new motion.

 7             Now, personally, I must add, after what my fellow

 8     Judge Ms. Lattanzi said, I must say I would like you to tell us whether

 9     this motion for abuse of due process is directly subordinated to the

10     resumption of the trial or whether it is fully disconnected of it.

11             As you see, we have three questions for you, and you have the

12     floor.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when I presented my

14     requests, I did not directly link that to the continuation of the

15     Prosecution case.  When Judge Lattanzi intervened, then I modified my

16     motion, as it were, and adjusted it to that, or, rather, I made it

17     conditional upon the ability of the OTP to continue the presentation of

18     their case within a week, at maximum.  My hair has gone grey over all

19     these years.  I cannot sit in this cell any longer and wait for the

20     beginning of these proceedings.

21             Mr. Marcussen has been here for over two years now.  He should

22     know that this is not a repetition of a motion.  This is a renewed

23     motion.  That is to say, I have already filed a motion on the basis of

24     the doctrine of abuse of process.  However, this is not a mere repetition

25     of the erstwhile motion, asking you to present your views on that,

Page 14768

 1     because I submitted that first motion before the trial started.  If my

 2     memory serves me well, this was in October 2007.  This motion now, I'm

 3     submitting two years later, two years into the trial, that is, and the

 4     trial should have been over for quite a while now had it not been for

 5     this enormous gap.  And that gap of - what was it? - two or three years

 6     last year, had it not been for those two, this trial would have been

 7     brought to an end, for sure; not only the Prosecution case, but also the

 8     Defence case and the final arguments, the judgement, everything.  All of

 9     it would have been completed by now.  So I've responded to that as well.

10             I have to respond to yet another matter.  Mr. Marcussen says that

11     it is my fault that the proceedings are taking this long, and my hunger

12     strike as well.  How stupid.  Can you imagine?  Well, my hunger strike

13     was a consequence of the illegal decision to take away my legal right to

14     defence.  I was willing to gamble with my own life in order to defend

15     that right of mine, and the Appeals Chamber said that I was right, rather

16     than the OTP or the Trial Chamber that passed this kind of an unlawful

17     decision.  The hunger strike helped me win back my right or defend my

18     right.

19             Had I been a fool and had I agreed to assigned counsel, the

20     proceedings would have been completed a long time ago already.  However,

21     the alleged Defence and the OTP would have cooperated in the courtroom to

22     prove, quote/unquote, all the theses of the Prosecution; that is to say,

23     that I had no defence, and then they could get away with anything.  Since

24     I had a proper defence, no go for everything that they had to say.  So

25     there's quite a difference, there's a vast difference.

Page 14769

 1             So why did I wait for five years before the proceedings started?

 2     Why did I wait for three years?  Mr. President, you probably remember

 3     this.  Just in order to test things, after 15 months in prison in 2007,

 4     since it wasn't likely that the trial would start any time soon, I asked

 5     the Trial Chamber to let me go home to allow me to wait for the beginning

 6     of the trial.  However, they refused my request because I had no

 7     guarantees, and I had no one to get guarantees from.  The Registry asked

 8     the Dutch government, the Dutch government guaranteed that they would

 9     provide security for me from the prison to the airport, but those were

10     the only guarantees that I could get.  It's not my fault that there was

11     no one there to give any guarantees for me, or the fact that I could not

12     accept any guarantees from someone who has no moral credibility

13     whatsoever.  That would have been offensive for me.  It is better to die

14     than to accept such guarantees.

15             The OTP said to me then that they planned the trial to start

16     towards the end of 2004.  You received this document from the Prosecution

17     at the time, and that was one of the reasons why I did not go home in

18     2004.  The trial did not start in 2004, it did not start in 2005.  They

19     were looking for a Judge who was ready to trample upon all morality and

20     to impose counsel on me.  It wasn't easy for them to find a Judge like

21     that.  Regardless of what I think of Judge Agius or the third member,

22     whoever he was - I think it was Kevin Parker - you did not allow this

23     imposition of counsel.  So then they thought that they found a

24     Trial Chamber that would do that.  However, they were no match for me,

25     whatsoever.  And, of course, it had to end in a fiasco for them.

Page 14770

 1             I did not do anything to drag my feet with regard to these

 2     proceedings.  You saw how strict I was in terms of the time allotted me

 3     to question witnesses.  Not a single day was lost on account of my

 4     actions.  I was never sick -- or, rather, I was sick, but I came to court

 5     even when I was sick.  All the reasons for delays in the proceedings are

 6     related to the Prosecution.  I did not even say, when I was ill, that I

 7     was ill, and, nevertheless, I came to the courtroom.

 8             It is the Trial Chamber that squandered their time.  First of

 9     all, they asked for Judge Harhoff to be recused for no reason whatsoever,

10     and we lost a month.  Then they asked for a stay in the proceedings in

11     order to be able to talk to me.  Just think of that.  May/June last year,

12     it was, remember what Prosecutor Mundis asked for?  And then when I

13     refused and when I said that they were too late, then they asked for a

14     stay in the proceedings.  Then we had those two months lost, and now,

15     since February, we've lost eight months already.  During those eight

16     months, we used perhaps only two weeks or so, perhaps four working days,

17     if I remember things correctly.

18             So all the reasons for a waste of time and loss of time are on

19     the Prosecution side.  And as the House of Lords says, abuse of process

20     occurs usually because of delays.  The one single reason that the

21     House of Lords provides in this ruling of theirs of the

22     24th of June, 1993, is delays, usually it is delays.

23             The key question here is:  Are we late or not?  Is seven years

24     excessive or not?  And are these seven years due to the gravity of the

25     proceedings?  No.  You've seen this review of witnesses.  They come in,

Page 14771

 1     they're questioned by me, by the OTP.  You saw the post-mortems.  I did

 2     not question anything.  The proceedings ran smoothly all the time.  Of

 3     course, there were notes of a polemic in the courtroom, and that is only

 4     to be expected of any serious proceedings.  The proceedings ran smoothly,

 5     and, nevertheless, they could not be completed.

 6             I think I have no reason to address you in writing, because that

 7     is the only way in which the OTP can delay your decision-making even

 8     further.  However, the key thing about which Mr. Marcussen did not speak

 9     is the question:  On which day is the Prosecution ready to continue their

10     case?  Are they ready to continue tomorrow?  I stand ready, here and now.

11     Tell me which witness comes next, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or

12     next week, if you don't have enough time this week.  Do you want me to

13     help you have a witness brought in here?  Tell me, out of these remaining

14     10 witnesses, tell me, who are the most important ones.  I will phone

15     them, and I will ask them to come.  I will ask them kindly.  You want to

16     do it that way?  Because there are some witnesses here who, in the

17     meantime, were -- became Defence witnesses.  At first, they were

18     blackmailed, intimidated, et cetera, and now they fear nothing any

19     longer.  I can call them.  You will see, Judges, what their preliminary

20     statements say, and you will see that basically there's nothing in there

21     either.  And that's it, that's it.  Let's have this done and over with.

22             Here I am, making an offer to help them, but let's have

23     Mr. Marcussen say when are they prepared to call their first witness.  If

24     they are going to appeal your decision, that does not necessarily mean

25     that your decision should be implemented later.  Your decision should be

Page 14772

 1     implemented as of today, when it was made public.  Let us see what

 2     Appeals Chamber would accept their grounds for appeal.  I find that very

 3     questionable.  I don't think you're even going to give them certification

 4     to appeal, because that is abuse of process, generally speaking.  They

 5     just want more time to be wasted.

 6             What else is there to be decided upon?  If my behaviour here in

 7     court were unbearable, if I were fighting with the guards, or if I were

 8     physically assaulting the Prosecutor, or if I were throwing things at

 9     witnesses, or if my language were indecent vis-a-vis the members of the

10     Trial Chamber, or if I were doing anything else which would lead you to

11     throw me out of the courtroom - and of course you do have the right to do

12     that, if an accused person misbehaves, you have the right to remove that

13     person from the courtroom, once, twice, three times - it is only then

14     that you could throw the accused person out and then impose counsel

15     because of his improper behaviour.

16             You could get angry at me several times because of the method in

17     which I question witnesses and presenting various matters.  The

18     Prosecutor could be dissatisfied, and often they were dissatisfied, but

19     those are not the reasons that would lead you to throw me out of the

20     courtroom, because I never brought you into that situation.  You never

21     had any reason to throw me out of the courtroom.  Therefore, it would be

22     senseless for you to impose counsel on me.  And it is also pointless to

23     drag our feet further, to continue this discussion any further.

24             Let us have Mr. Marcussen say when we are going to finally deal

25     with these remaining 5 hours and 15 minutes.  As a Trial Chamber, you

Page 14773

 1     have saved them quite a bit of time already, and there is no reason for

 2     you to grant them more time than originally envisaged.  So let us see

 3     whether the Prosecutor can conclude his case by the end of November, at

 4     the latest, and then I'll have time for the Defence case, and let us see

 5     what else needs to be done for the Defence case.  Am I going to take care

 6     of this myself?  Am I going to have associates?  Let's see what the

 7     situation will be.

 8             There are different ways of presenting a Defence case, from my

 9     point of view.  One is if I defend myself with full capacity, with the

10     assistance of my associates; for example, the way things were handled in

11     the case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, or will I be deprived of all of these

12     rights and will I, quite literally, defend myself all by myself?  Well,

13     that's what the timing depends on, how long all of this is going to take.

14             However, let's clarify all of these matters here and now.  There

15     is no need to have a new Status Conference to see when we are going to do

16     that.  We are all here now.  We see where we stand, and now let us

17     continue.  If the Prosecution team are incapable of going on, I believe,

18     Judges, that you have no other option but to rule on dismissing the

19     indictment, as such, because of the doctrine of abuse of process.

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

21     have answered Mr. Marcussen, and your reply is on the transcript.

22             This hearing is also meant to look into the conditions of

23     detention and your health.

24             Let me tell you that this afternoon we received an expert report,

25     the cardiologist from the Belgrade Military Academy.  Generally, we

Page 14774

 1     should discuss this in closed session, but you told us that as far as

 2     your health was concerned, everything could be said publicly.  So I

 3     believe that we can address this topic publicly.

 4             This report is written in English.  It must be translated into

 5     your own language so you can read it.  It's a 60-page-long document.  I

 6     have looked into it before the hearing, and basically it comes to the

 7     same conclusions as the one drawn up by the physician of the UNDU.  It's

 8     a serious work, obviously.  However, I would like to attract your

 9     attention on page 12 of this report, and on the recommendation made on

10     item 5.  The expert says the following, and I quote:

11             "There can be stress during the hearing."

12             And according to the expert, this stress must be treated

13     preventively, possibly by medicine.  So when we are sitting in a hearing,

14     please stay calm, stay cool and collected.  You usually do this, but

15     please stay cool and collected, and don't lose your temper.

16             The cardiologist is telling us, in this 60-page-long report, in

17     this interesting report, which is backed by research made in different

18     countries, notably in the US, it's true that, you know, during a hearing

19     people can have a heart attack and just die.  This is a possibility.  And

20     I want to keep you alive, so I want you to stay cool and calm.

21             You will read this report, and 10 important recommendations are

22     stated in this report.  And as far as number 5 is concerned, I believe

23     that you are the only one that can follow it, that can abide by it.  Once

24     you have the report in hand, please look at it carefully.  It will also

25     be disclosed to the physicians in the UNDU.  But what really struck me in

Page 14775

 1     this report was the problem with hearing stress or, you know,

 2     hearing-related stress.  I know what it's like to be in a hearing, you

 3     know.  Some Judges, also sometimes feel some stress.  So you must

 4     absolutely be cool.

 5             Now, regarding your health, Mr. Seselj, could you tell us how you

 6     feel?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I feel exceptionally

 8     well.  I have no health problems, except for the standard asthma that I

 9     take medicaments for and keep under control.

10             As far as stress situations go, you know what, I never had a

11     situation of stress in the courtroom examining witnesses and Prosecution

12     expert witnesses.  All the stress situations were linked to the

13     insistence of the Prosecutor to violate my rights -- process rights.

14     It's a stress to have to wait for eight months to hear whether the trial

15     is going to continue or not.  That's stress.  Another stress situation is

16     to wait to hear whether somebody's going to try and have counsel imposed

17     upon me again or not, although I was fairly relaxed in that respect and

18     even stopped responding to requests made by the Prosecution because I had

19     every trust in your moral dignity.  So I don't think we need to discuss

20     my stresses and my stress situations.

21             I feel for Ms. Christine Dahl and Mr. Mundis, who had far greater

22     stress situations when their witnesses failed in court, and with

23     Ms. Biersay and Mr. Marcussen, whose witnesses also failed in this

24     courtroom.  It wasn't easy for them to take; it wasn't pleasant for them.

25     But when I'm successful in examining a witness, my adrenaline gets going.

Page 14776

 1     Sometimes I might appear to be a little euphoric, but it's euphoria

 2     because I was successful and was pleased with it.  So it's not a

 3     classical situation of stress.  Of course, happiness and joy can lead to

 4     stress, too, but the sadness that the Prosecution had to face when their

 5     witnesses failed, I think they were in a far greater situation of stress

 6     than I was.

 7             So it's a good thing that Mr. Mundis and Ms. Dahl have left this

 8     trial, this case, because commensurate to their weight -- to their

 9     height, they were far more overweight than I am.  With this Prosecutor,

10     the probability of having a heart attack in the courtroom is less, due to

11     their weight.  I think we could place bets on whether who's -- on who's

12     going to have a heart attack, whether I am or somebody in the

13     Prosecution.  I hope you won't mind -- hold it against me for making that

14     joke.

15             But I just wanted to say that I don't have any health problems,

16     and I'm ready and willing to have the trial continue as soon as tomorrow.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  At least

18     we feel reassured.

19             Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

20             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I can make my observations later.  I wanted to

21     address the re-formulation or the re-casting of the accused's motion, but

22     I can wait if there's another issue that Your Honours wanted to deal with

23     first.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, do tell us about the

25     motion.

Page 14777

 1             MR. MARCUSSEN:  As I understand, the accused has modified his

 2     oral motion, and so he's now seeking a continuation of the trial.

 3             The trial is currently adjourned because of a decision rendered

 4     by the majority of the Chamber, I believe, in February of this year.

 5             Your Honour, Mr. President, you pointed out to the accused on the

 6     6th -- at the Status Conference on the 16th of June this year, that the

 7     accused had not, despite your -- despite you stressing the importance of

 8     this decision to the accused, and despite stressing his possibility of

 9     appealing, he had not appealed the decision; and you made the point that

10     surely we would be hearing these arguments being repeated later on.  And

11     I'm referring to transcript pages 14554 and 14555.

12             It would seem to me that actually this is the exact same issue

13     coming up again.  The accused is challenging in court the adjournment

14     decision which he failed to appeal.  So on that basis, we would submit

15     that the request, as it was re-cast here in court today, should be

16     dismissed.

17             Thank you, Your Honour.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to say something?

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm a little worried and

21     anxious over the way in which Mr. Marcussen is thinking.  The decision

22     you took eight months ago was not a decision that held fast for time --

23     for all time.  I assume that you made your decision because in what the

24     Prosecution asked of you there were certain indications on the basis of

25     which you considered that such a decision was the proper one to take.

Page 14778

 1             Now, it's been eight months since then, and nobody has put

 2     forward a single shred of evidence or proof that I or my associates

 3     intimidated the witnesses, bribed them, blackmailed them, exerted

 4     pressure on them, threatened them, or anything like that.  Now, if eight

 5     months was not sufficient time to bring evidence of that kind forward to

 6     support the claims made by the Prosecution, what do you need, 18 months?

 7     How long do you need?  Because had you had a shred of evidence, you would

 8     have initiated proceedings for contempt of court, wouldn't you?  But you

 9     didn't have any such evidence or proof.  And then you decided to do the

10     contempt of court bit because of a book that I published before the

11     beginning of trial, and you found some Judges there who were ready to

12     convict me of that without even having read the book.

13             However, now the Appeals Chamber -- well, the appeal is still

14     being translated, and it's not easy to respond to an appeal, because in

15     the whole book there's not a single piece of text written by me.  The

16     book is a collection of documents, and none of these documents

17     individually was confidential at all and, thus, not accessible to the

18     public.  And when you collect all these documents into a whole, then

19     somebody, carefully reading, could be able to conclude who the protected

20     witnesses are who are referred to.  Well, this is a precedent.  None of

21     this has ever happened in the justice system.  And I'm going to study all

22     the international crime -- criminal law textbooks, all of them.  I'll

23     going to go through all of them to see if I can find anything like that.

24     And I expect the judgement to fall through, to be dismissed, because the

25     book is a collection of documents, and none of those documents are

Page 14779

 1     confidential.  The Trial Chamber didn't even read the book.  It hasn't

 2     been translated, but they compared page 212 and 846, and then they said

 3     that those who read what is written on page 212 and what reads -- those

 4     who read page 846 will be able to draw the conclusion, et cetera,

 5     et cetera.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I don't think that this forum is the correct

 7     forum to make your submissions in relation to the judgement that was

 8     rendered by Trial Chamber II.  We understand that it's under appeal, and

 9     there is nothing we can do about it.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, my fellow Judge is

11     perfectly right.  I was about to tell you the same.  It is under appeal.

12     Let the Appeals Chamber do its work.  But I'd like the following to be on

13     record:

14             The Judges -- the three Judges of this Trial Chamber have never

15     had in their hands any book whatsoever that would have been written by

16     you.  Never in my life have I had a book from you.  This must be said.

17             Also, regarding the issue of the videos.  In the coming hours,

18     tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, the Trial Chamber is going to file a

19     decision.

20             Oh, I see.  The legal officer tells me that it has already been

21     filed.  Very good.  Since it has been filed, but until it has been

22     translated, it may take some time, therefore I'm going to convey to you

23     the contents of the decision, especially the disposition thereof, which

24     is important.

25             On the 20th of March, 2008, you required from the Prosecution

Page 14780

 1     disclosure of all the videos they might have.  At the hearing of the

 2     12th of June, 2008, the Prosecution said that the videos needed 11 hard

 3     disc drives and that there were over 1600 hours of video footage.  Then

 4     several events followed.

 5             The Prosecution seized the Trial Chamber of a motion for the

 6     videos to be returned, because the Prosecution realised that it had made

 7     a mistake and had disclosed videos that you were not to receive.

 8             The disposition of the decision is as follows:  The Trial Chamber

 9     orders that the index should be confidential from now on and that within

10     a month following this decision, video footage that can be disclosed to

11     the Trial Chamber [as interpreted] should be made available to the

12     privileged associates of the accused in a room of the Liaison Office of

13     the Tribunal in Belgrade, made available for that purpose, and containing

14     all the necessary equipment for the viewing.  The privileged associate

15     should not be authorised to make copies of the video footage or take them

16     out of the room where they will be allowed to view them.

17             Fourthly, the Registry will take all necessary steps to enable

18     the accused and his privileged associates to use the video footage for

19     their Defence case in this case; for instance, by organising in due time

20     the viewing by the Trial Chamber of excerpts that would be deemed

21     appropriate by the accused or his privileged associates.

22             Fifthly, the video footage should be returned to the Prosecution

23     once a final judgement has been rendered in the present case.

24             The decision also contains a paragraph, paragraph 23, and there

25     is also paragraph 24.  They are interesting paragraphs, and you will have

Page 14781

 1     an opportunity to read them in their entirety, as well as the decision.

 2             So this decision says that for the time being, some videos are

 3     with the Tribunal's Registry.  The Prosecution can take them back without

 4     the Trial Chamber having to do anything about it.  Secondly, the index

 5     that sums up or lists all the videos should be a confidential document.

 6     You've had this for a year, so now you are under the obligation, you and

 7     your associates, to keep the index confidential.

 8             Then, the decision also says that the Registry will make

 9     available to your privileged associates the videos -- the relevant videos

10     for your case, and, of course, they will be viewed by your associates.

11     The Trial Chamber instructs the Registry to do all that is necessary for

12     that to happen and work.

13             You know better than anybody that initially there were at least

14     6.000 hours of video footage to be viewed, and the Trial Chamber took

15     particular attention, when drafting the decision, to saying that your

16     associates will not be allowed to make copies of the videos.  This means

17     they will go to Belgrade, they will view the footage, they will take

18     notes if necessary, but they are not allowed to make copies and take the

19     copies with them when they leave.

20             So this is the decision as it was issued.  Read it, please, read

21     this decision on the videos.  But, given the urgency of the matter, I

22     thought it was my obligation to read the disposition, because the

23     decision was filed but it's not yet been translated into your own

24     language.

25             Mr. Seselj, do you want to add anything regarding the videos?

Page 14782

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'd just like to remind you

 2     that at the moment I just have one legal associate with the privileges

 3     provided for by the Rules and a case manager.  Otherwise, two others have

 4     been suspended.  So I'm not physically able to avail myself of those

 5     rights that I am accorded under your decision.  One man can't get through

 6     all that.  If the President of the Tribunal or the person, Mehmet Guney,

 7     whom he handed over his powers, if he restores the status of these two

 8     associates, and if I add Dejan Mirovic, who has been a good adviser to

 9     me, especially in this attempt of court case, perhaps we would be able to

10     get through the whole job.  But if I have just one associate and one case

11     manager, or one legal adviser and one case manager, then that's

12     impossible.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, indeed, we have to wait

14     until the President of the Tribunal makes a decision.  We'll see what he

15     will say about Mr. Krasic being restored or not.

16             I must discuss a point with my fellow Judges.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, yes, I discussed

19     with my colleagues because following Mr. Seselj's oral motion on an

20     alleged abuse of due process and on the need, as he says, to resume the

21     trial proceedings straightaway, you are given 14 days to disclose your --

22     15 days to disclose your answers to him.  Well, Rule 126 says "14 days,"

23     but the Trial Chamber gives 15 days.

24             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honours, for your generosity, and

25     I hope it would not be seen as some undue delay of the trial that you

Page 14783

 1     have granted us an extra day.

 2             Now that I am on my feet, I would just note that I think at

 3     transcript page 29, line 22, there is a reference to the Trial Chamber,

 4     the videos being disclosed to the Trial Chamber.  I think it should have

 5     been "to the accused."  It probably was a slight mistake in the

 6     translation.

 7             Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Marcussen.

 9             One last topic.

10             Mr. Seselj, some time ago you seized the Trial Chamber of an

11     issue related to the recording of a protected witness's testimony.  I'm

12     not going to give any name or any date of the testimony.  I had told you

13     what we'd learned.  Following a technical problem that occurred, the

14     audio track and the video track is just nonexistent, there's no such

15     thing, so the only trace left of that witness's testimony was the English

16     transcript.  The English transcript was translated into your language.

17     We are, therefore, in a position now to give you the entire testimony and

18     the entire hearing.  That's the only medium we have, that's all we have.

19             You know that when I speak, when you speak, when the Prosecutor

20     speaks, or when a witness speaks, everything we say is transcribed in

21     realtime and appears on the screen in front of you, but it is in English,

22     not in the other official working language, French, or your own language.

23     But should a problem occur, in terms of translation, then we can check by

24     checking the audio track.  But in this case, unfortunately, for technical

25     reason only, the tape does not exist.  All we have left is the English

Page 14784

 1     text that has now been translated into B/C/S.

 2             Hence my question:  The fact that you have received, in your

 3     language, the entire hearing -- the entire proceedings of that hearing,

 4     is that enough for you?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as far as I

 6     remember, the testimony of that witness contained nothing that was

 7     problematic with respect to the Defence interests.  I think that I

 8     successfully examined him here.  And all I wish to check is that somebody

 9     might have introduced something into the transcript that didn't exist in

10     the oral examination.  Then I would let you know in writing.  But if

11     nothing was added to what was actually stated in the courtroom, then that

12     will suffice, as far as I'm concerned, because my associates, anyway,

13     take down the hearing from the tape, they transcribe it, and then I can

14     use it, because otherwise I can't use the tapes.  That would be quite

15     impossible.  They take it down in writing for me.  I'm a visual type of

16     person.  I can only function if I have something written down on paper in

17     front of me.  I can't make notes on a screen when something is screened.

18             But, anyway, if there's a problem, I'll let you know in writing.

19     And I hope that the Registrar will hand the document over to me after

20     these proceedings.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  But I'm going to

22     give you the text straightaway.  Here it is.  Everything is in it.  The

23     Usher is going to take this document and pass it on to you straightaway.

24             Well, failing other topics to be addressed, since everybody has

25     expressed themselves and addressed the various issues, the hearing is now

Page 14785

 1     adjourned.

 2             My thanks to all the people who were here today.

 3                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

 4                           at 5.56 p.m.