Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17061

 1                           Tuesday, 7 February 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [Administrative Hearing]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6                           [The accused entered court]

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is in session.

 8             Registrar, please call the case.

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

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

11     Vojislav Seselj.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             Today is the 7th of February, 2012.  I would like to greet all

14     the people present in the courtroom, and in particular all the

15     representatives from the Prosecution who are in the courtroom, and you

16     people whom I don't know are here.  I would also like to greet

17     Mr. Seselj, who is here with us today.  And I would like to greet the

18     Registrar who was already working in the courtroom this morning and who

19     is with us this afternoon.  I would also like to greet all the people

20     assisting us in the courtroom today.

21             We are holding this hearing which is a so-called

22     Administrative Hearing.  I would like to give the floor in a few moments

23     to Mr. Seselj to address the first item on our agenda, i.e., his state of

24     health.

25             During our last hearing, which was held at the end of August, the

Page 17062

 1     23rd of August to be precise, I had asked Mr. Seselj the question.  I

 2     asked him if he was well.  At that time, I had provided a summary of the

 3     expert reports provided by the Trial Chamber.  And after having read

 4     these experts' reports, I had stated that the experts had recommended

 5     that Mr. Seselj go on a diet.  After that, we had adjourned the hearing,

 6     and Mr. Seselj had told us that he was feeling well but that the food he

 7     was being given at the UNDU was not, according to him, quality food.

 8             After that, I listened to Mr. Seselj's hearings when he appeared

 9     before the other Judges, seized of a case of contempt of court, and the

10     issue of his health was raised by the Judges who had asked him whether he

11     had any particular health problem, to which Mr. Seselj had said that the

12     food was not good quality food.  And at the last hearing he wanted to

13     hand over his food platter to Judge Hall to clearly explain to him how

14     bad the food was.  Judge Hall had not taken his food tray, and we

15     understand why.

16             The Trial Chamber had no news of Mr. Seselj's health from that

17     date onwards.  However, in December at the UN Security Council meeting

18     the representative for Russia mentioned Mr. Seselj's health problems.

19     After the meeting held at the UN Security Council, the President of the

20     Tribunal had been asked to provide a report next time on the medical

21     condition of Mr. Seselj.

22             The Trial Chamber heard, after that, no more news from him.  And

23     on a Friday, the 6th of January around 5.00 p.m. I was advised, as well

24     as my colleagues, of the fact that Mr. Seselj had been hospitalised.

25             However, we were provided with no medical information on the

Page 17063

 1     state of health of Mr. Seselj.  We knew that he had been hospitalised and

 2     through the media we heard that he had received a pacemaker and that he

 3     was to return to the UNDU, which is in fact what happened.

 4             Then, on two occasions, we heard that he was hospitalised for a

 5     short period of time after that as a precautionary measure.

 6             In the meantime, the Trial Chamber received from

 7     Mr. Boris Aleksic, one of Mr. Seselj's associate, a rather alarmist

 8     letter.  In the minute that followed, I responded instantly to

 9     Mr. Boris Aleksic, telling him that we had no information whatsoever on

10     Mr. Seselj's state of health, that we asked the medical officer at the

11     UNDU to give us some idea of what his status was.  And I told Mr. Aleksic

12     that I was going to ask my colleagues to assign new experts to look into

13     Mr. Seselj's medical conditions -- condition, and I had recommended we

14     assign a Russian expert to avoid the problem we were confronted with

15     before, i.e., a British cardiologist had been assigned, a cardiologist

16     whom Mr. Seselj refused.

17             We recently heard, and I believe Mr. Seselj is going to fill us

18     in on this, that he had refused to provide the Trial Chamber with any

19     information whatsoever regarding his health and that he had even refused

20     the -- that the information be disclosed to the Russian expert.

21             So as things stand today, you seem well, since you are in court.

22     You have received a pacemaker, but we have otherwise no further

23     information on your state of health as things stand today.  If you like,

24     you can tell us what you have to say, but my colleague Judge Lattanzi

25     would like to add something.

Page 17064

 1             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like to say that I

 2     cannot be in this court because there's cold air blowing on my head, and

 3     I cannot afford this.  And I cannot afford to fall ill.  So I cannot

 4     remain in this courtroom.  I had asked for something to be done prior to

 5     this moment.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Judge Lattanzi will go and sit

 8     on the other side.  There's an ice-cold blast coming from the ceiling.

 9             Mr. Seselj, I have summed up the situation to let you know what

10     information the Trial Chamber has.  Today we don't know what you suffer

11     from, and every Sunday I read the press conferences on your web site,

12     press conferences given by your associates, even though they are not

13     doctors.  They seemingly have first-hand knowledge of your medical

14     condition.  A number of Serb doctors came to visit you in the prison a

15     while ago, I believe, and according to what I've been able to read in the

16     media, i.e., the press conferences, your associates are quite worried

17     about your state of health.  And no later than last Sunday your

18     associates were saying that you are the victim of a murder attempt

19     orchestrated by foreign intelligence services.  This is what is stated on

20     your web site.

21             Mr. Seselj, what do you have to say to us?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, first of all, I have

23     two points of orders:  There is cold air flowing right into my head over

24     here as well, so perhaps it would be a good thing for us to switch sides,

25     the OTP and myself, because they always have the best deal of all.

Page 17065

 1             Secondly, according to Rule 65 bis, are you duty-bound to have

 2     Status Conferences held within 120 days from the last Status Conference.

 3     You're already a month and a half late.

 4             The task of these Status Conferences is to organise consultations

 5     between the parties in order to ensure expeditious preparations of the

 6     proceedings and to see what the condition is, including the mental and

 7     physical state of health of the accused.

 8             Of course, there is also Rule 127, according to which the

 9     Trial Chamber may enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these

10     rules.  However, if good cause is shown, by motion.

11             As far as I know, neither the Prosecution nor I made any motions,

12     nor did we ask for any extension of time, so this shows that you, as the

13     Trial Chamber, brutally ignored a very important Rule that has to do with

14     your own duties.  You've gone beyond this limit for a month and a half,

15     and many things can happen within a month and a half and can be planned

16     to happen.

17             I know that you, Mr. Antonetti, and your colleagues like it best

18     to mock this diet that I purportedly need.  All right.  You have the

19     right to do that.  I don't mind.  You can do it for as long as you want.

20     However, it turned out that I don't need any kind of diet.  I came here

21     all trim and slim into the courtroom today without any excess weight

22     because in the Leiden hospital they pumped out an excess of 10 litres of

23     fluid.  Over all these years, not a single doctor realised that I had

24     10 extra litres of fluid.  And you can go on with these jokes, that I'm

25     fat, and what have you not.  Of course, I know how to respond to such

Page 17066

 1     playfulness, and I've done that often enough so that you shouldn't

 2     consider me to be naive exactly.

 3             As for my health, it's been six years now --

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

 5     Rule 65 bis is concerned, you did state that it is a Status Conference,

 6     and this article has to do with Initial Appearance, and we are no longer

 7     at this stage of the proceedings.  So normally speaking, this cannot be

 8     applied.  However, the Trial Chamber did ask the question.  We met on the

 9     24th of August, and on the 23rd of December the Tribunal was closed.

10     Therefore, I thought we would see you at the beginning of January.

11     Unfortunately, you had to go into hospital, so we are seeing each other

12     today, which is the closest date.  And before setting this date, we asked

13     the doctor whether you could attend, and he told us you could attend if

14     the hearing did not last too long.

15             So as regards the 120-day deadline, you know that we are always

16     very happy to see you, but over the last few weeks there were no grounds

17     to hold a Status Conference.  We ruled on a number of issues, and these

18     Status Conferences have to be useful.  This is what I have to say about

19     the 120-day deadline.

20             So, what about your health?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, the last

22     Status Conference was held on the 23rd of August, not on the 24th, as you

23     said.

24             The next one was supposed to be held on the 21st of December at

25     the latest, not the 24th.  A few days before the 21st of December, I

Page 17067

 1     telephoned the liaison officers from the service that assists

 2     self-represented accused and I asked whether there would be a

 3     Status Conference, saying that I had reasons for wanting this

 4     Status Conference.  A senior legal advisor from your Trial Chamber said

 5     that you were not giving any thought to a Status Conference, you as the

 6     Trial Chamber.  So that is the way things stand.

 7             Status Conferences are hardly ever scheduled at the last moment.

 8     You know that as the Pre-Trial Judge you've scheduled Status Conferences

 9     much more often.  They have to be held before a final judgement is

10     rendered.

11             This kind of thing may never happen, that the Defence and the

12     Prosecution do not meet with the Trial Chamber in the courtroom for over

13     120 days.  When a first-instance judgement is appealed, then even the

14     Appeals Chamber is duty-bound to have Status Conferences held within

15     120 days maximum.  So this is not only linked to the pre-trial stage of

16     the proceedings.

17             And now, as far as my health is concerned.  It's been at least

18     six years now that my health has been governed by the American, British,

19     and French intelligence services.  Until the year 2000 I did have some

20     medical problems, including the hunger strike.  However, in 2007 one of

21     the final medical reports was that I was a relatively healthy person.  If

22     we exclude or leave aside my asthma or allergy to pollen, I was quite

23     healthy.  However, the American, British, and French intelligence

24     services intensively worked on worsening the state of my health, and I

25     have proof of that.  Proof was provided to me by my good WikiLeaks, and I

Page 17068

 1     sent that to you along with a motion hoping that you would understand,

 2     whereas you brutally rejected this without going into the merit.

 3             On the 6th of December, 2006, as reported by the US embassy in

 4     Paris, a meeting was held of the representatives of the highest security

 5     officials of America and France; the under-secretary of defence of the

 6     United States, Edelman; and then DKP was also present, that's probably

 7     the security officer of the embassy; and the deputy assistant secretary

 8     of defence, Daniel Fata [phoen].

 9             So these are key security organs of America.

10             At the Elysee Palace on the 1st of December, that is to say,

11     seven days before my hunger strike was over, they met with the advisor of

12     the French president, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne.  This is the

13     president's advisor for security matters.  Dominique Bouchet [phoen] was

14     also present, Jacques Chirac's advisor for the Middle East,

15     Admiral Edward Bouilliadet [phoen] - maybe I'm mispronouncing this, I --

16     my French has been rusty as of late - and Lawrence Ily [phoen], advisor

17     for strategic affairs.

18             As reported by the American ambassador at this meeting,

19     Maurice Gourdault-Montagne said that we have to do everything we can to

20     prevent the leader of the Serb Radical Party accused of war crimes,

21     Vojislav Seselj, from winning the elections in Serbia.  Well, that's the

22     reason why I was indicted in the first place.  That is the reason why you

23     are holding me here unlawfully for all of nine years now and why you are

24     systematically ruining my health.

25             You can discuss among yourselves who played which role here and

Page 17069

 1     to what accident, who consciously entered this play of dark forces.  I'm

 2     not interested in that.  I'm not interested in your personnel affairs.  I

 3     am interested in the core of the problem.

 4             After this, there is yet another report of the American

 5     ambassador in The Hague who is reporting to Washington, the

 6     State Department, as follows.  This is the report dated the

 7     1st of September -- no, no.  Of the 27th of June, 2008.

 8             The American ambassador is explaining your strategy,

 9     Mr. Antonetti, and he says:

10             "Antonetti's strategy was to win over Seselj, to co-operate by

11     meeting most of his requests, and by flattering him."

12             I do not remember that you flattered me, but you did say words of

13     praise about my intellectual abilities.  And it also says here this made

14     it possible for the trial to advance.  However, there is always the

15     danger of Seselj not taking part in the proceedings, as happened in the

16     hunger strike of 2006.

17             So the dark forces of evil are at play in a conspiracy against

18     me, and I have tangible material evidence showing that this is truly a

19     conspiracy.  This makes these proceedings irregular.  This makes these

20     proceedings proceedings that are abused.  Of course, Mr. Antonetti, you

21     know that I never trusted you and that I didn't trust your colleagues

22     either.  However, I agreed to this game as well, because you thought that

23     if the trial got started, I would be demolished by Prosecution witnesses;

24     whereas, I hoped to demolish these witnesses in the courtroom.  Our

25     interests coincided and that's why the trial got going.

Page 17070

 1             I never hindered these proceedings.  It was always done by the

 2     Trial Chamber or the OTP.  Every time the proceedings were stayed, it was

 3     against my will.  I demolished all of the witnesses.  And two years are

 4     left for the final part of the proceedings, and the question remains

 5     whether this is ever going to happen.  The first time I noticed that

 6     something strange was happening, when my liver was being poisoned just

 7     out of the blue.  Out of the blue, my liver test results were bad.

 8             And I clamber.  I like to clamber; that's part of my nature.  And

 9     in this way I disassociated myself from the assumed source of poisoning.

10     I cannot be sure about that.  I kept a sample of my food once; I handed

11     it over to the prison authorities.  And then Dr. Falke said that they

12     were not capable of carrying out this analysis; that is to say, they were

13     not interested in this.  Recently, this Dr. Falke was laid off from

14     Scheveningen.  There is this new doctor that was brought in.  He seems to

15     be conscientious, and we'll see how it goes.

16             Once these problems were over with the liver, without taking any

17     kind of medication, my liver recovered within eight months.  Then heart

18     problems started.  And they were being underestimated.  They were saying

19     nothing was really wrong.  Once when I fell during my walk, this deputy

20     of Falke, some other doctor, submitted a report to you saying that my

21     health was fine.

22             And we have one problem after another.  At Leiden, they examined

23     again the possible causes of disrupted heart function and they

24     established that there was no internal organic cause, that my blood

25     vessels are in excellent condition.  I asked some of the doctors at

Page 17071

 1     Leiden whether that would mean that there was some external influences on

 2     my health state.  They said that they had no right to speculate.  They

 3     can only establish what they can be certain about, and that is to say

 4     that there are no internal causes.

 5             Now, what about external causes?  Could that be persistent stress

 6     situations that are being created artificially in abundance over the past

 7     two months by the Registry, the DU, and the Trial Chamber that refused to

 8     hold a Status Conference; or the US, British, and French secret services

 9     have at their disposal some kind of technology, radio waves that can

10     affect heart impulses?  Theoretically speaking this is not impossible.  I

11     am a layperson when it comes to this kind of technology, but I know that

12     they can achieve that.  Maybe somebody else, some new WikiLeaks, will

13     disclose all of this.

14             You have been inundated by false reports, and they are being

15     distributed by the Registry and specifically Nermina Jelacic, the

16     spokesperson of the Tribunal.  She keeps saying that Seselj's health is

17     stable, that he is almost completely healthy.  However, on the

18     6th of January I nearly died.  This is what the doctors at Leiden said

19     and this is what the people from the ambulance said when they come to

20     pick me up.  You received also a false report from the UNDU which does

21     not contain all the relevant elements.

22             On the 6th of January, during exercise between 15- and 1600

23     hours, I felt sick and I asked the guards to take me back in the lift.

24     While I was changing, I fell onto the ground, lost consciousness, hit my

25     head against the table, and was covered in blood.

Page 17072

 1             After half an hour, I began regaining consciousness, and as the

 2     commanding officer says, that at 1630 hours a guard came, not a nurse, as

 3     claimed by the commanding officers, and it was he who then called the

 4     nurse.  She tried to take my blood pressure with my own blood pressure

 5     device, but it was impossible because the result couldn't be recorded it

 6     was so high.

 7             Finally, she decided to call an ambulance; the ambulance came

 8     very quickly, according to the commanding officers, at 5.02.  As soon as

 9     they examined me, they called another ambulance, and the commanding

10     officer says here that the ambulance took me from the DU into the

11     hospital at Leiden at 1820 because the emergency service thought that

12     would be the most appropriate.

13             Now the question is: What happened over the whole hour and 14

14     minutes that -- was intervening period?  Since I had to be carried out in

15     a lying position, they couldn't take me down the stairs.  They had to

16     call the fire service, and this was not mentioned ever by the commanding

17     officer.  The fire service came, they cut the steel bars on one of the

18     first floor windows, and carried me out through the window and eventually

19     to the ambulance, and that is why we had to wait for one hour and

20     14 minutes.  So that's the problem with the DU.  If, again, somebody has

21     to be transported in the same way, they will again have to call the fire

22     service and break the windows.

23             Two ambulances and a few police patrol cars and four policemen on

24     motor cycles took me speedily to the hospital in Leiden, which probably

25     saved my life.  At least temporarily.  I was unconscious throughout all

Page 17073

 1     this time, and I was only told later what had happened.  I came to only

 2     at 9.00 in the evening, after they had already achieved what they wanted

 3     to achieve.  My pulse rate was 240.  A normal person cannot achieve that,

 4     no matter how hard work you try to perform.  240 is something that

 5     exceeds physical capability of a human being, and this is the pulse rate

 6     measured by the emergency service.  And then Nermina Jelacic says, Well,

 7     he is in a stable condition.  He is all right.

 8             And then I decided that I will not let anyone review my medical

 9     records.  Not the Trial Chamber, not the Registry, no one.  I've had

10     enough of all these games, and all the masks have been off for quite some

11     time.

12             Since I refused to do that, nevertheless I'm -- I must say that

13     the treatment I received at Leiden was all right and there was an

14     implantation of an ICD there.  It is being -- constantly being said to

15     the public that this is a pacemaker.  Mrs. Jelacic says that as well.

16     That's a lie.  A pacemaker makes the heart work faster.  ICD is a

17     cardio-defibrillator.  It's a kind of device that prevents a sudden

18     death.  It cannot prevent it all together, but it can be avoided.  And

19     its sole function is that in the event of my pulse reaching 200, that it

20     will cause shocks without any anaesthetic, and these shocks are so strong

21     that they can equal the situation in which you are hit by a tram.

22     However, this has not solved the problem.  My heart keeps weakening.  It

23     cannot be stopped by any medication.

24             I still have arrhythmias and tachycardia, and arrhythmia never

25     went away.  When you spoke about the alleged problem of obesity, I had

Page 17074

 1     arrhythmia but you ignored that.  You had the report of Mr. Avdeev, a

 2     physician, about the problems -- the sleeping problems that I had.  And

 3     then I heard through the media that an order was issued for a Russian

 4     physician to come to examine me and I reacted to that.  A Russian

 5     physician can only come to examine me upon my request.  It could be

 6     Mr. Avdeev, who is a pulmonologist, or Mr. Argeyev [phoen], which is the

 7     name that was on my list of the physicians.

 8             But the Registrar refused to do that, and decided to bring some

 9     provincial doctor from England just to give me an opportunity to earn

10     some money.  Mr. Avdeev is indeed a great expert.  And when,

11     Mr. Antonetti, he comes here at your invitation, he can examine you,

12     Mr. Harhoff, or Mrs. Lattanzi.  Not me.  He can do that only if I call

13     him.

14             This time I called the Serbian doctors.  They're going to draft a

15     written report, but they're not going to hand it over either to you or

16     the ministry in Belgrade, but they will present it to the public at a

17     press conference and post it on my Internet site.  Their findings are

18     very serious.  Preliminary findings are already very serious.  However,

19     I'm not complaining about this.  I knew very well what kind of dangers

20     are looming here over me.  I know what kind of dragons I'm facing here.

21     But my only recourse is that I use the public and to -- and to unmask

22     everything that is happening.

23             This unmasking, as far as I'm concerned, has been very

24     successful.  Nerma Jelacic, the ICTY press officer, after I had been

25     taken back to the hospital on two occasions after the surgery still

Page 17075

 1     maintains that I was taken to the hospital because of preventative

 2     reasons.  What does that mean?  I every time got ill, and on each

 3     occasion either the guard or the nurse notified the new medical officer,

 4     who I deem is still doing his job in a decent way, and he ordered an

 5     ambulance to be called in.  And on every occasion it was quite obvious

 6     that I needed an ambulance.

 7             Today I was visited by a lady doctor from Leiden, and she checked

 8     how the ICD is functioning.  She decided that one of the electrodes which

 9     was inserted into the right heart chamber is functioning properly,

10     whereas the one in the other chamber is not functioning at all.  In order

11     to avoid another surgery, she suggested that next week I come again to

12     Leiden to be subjected to electric shocks.  And this is what happened

13     today between 11.15 and 11.45.  The examination, I mean.  She brought the

14     necessary devices from Leiden and she examined me in the DU.

15             Now, this is the exclusive news that I can offer you concerning

16     my state of health.  My state of health cannot be a secret, but I

17     jealousy guard and cherish my right to prevent any disclosure of medical

18     records unless it is done with my consent.

19             Secondly, I never tried to take advantage in the procedural way

20     from my state of health.  I never quoted that as a reason for

21     adjournment.  And not a single day in court has been lost due do that.

22     Now, what brought this all about will become clear one day.  When this is

23     going to happen and whether we will live to see the day is a big

24     question.

25             I still have a number of procedural matters to raise today, but

Page 17076

 1     this is as far as my health is concerned.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation] ... specifically does not

 3     have a pacemaker, but the implantation of an internal cardiac

 4     defibrillator was done.  The one part of it does not work, and the second

 5     electrode is being restored to proper working order.  Thank you.  We did

 6     not know this.  We have just been appraised of this.  We also learned

 7     that Dr. Falke is no longer here.  This is news to us.  This is something

 8     that we were not informed about.  This is something that I have just

 9     learned from you.

10             We've also learned about the incident on January 6 when you felt

11     poorly.  We did not know that you had fallen on the table, hit your head,

12     and -- and had hurt -- injured your head.  The fire men had come, had to

13     break down the bars.  This is the first time that I've heard this

14     sequence of events.

15             This Chamber is very concerned by your state of health.  This is

16     why we had asked for experts to come and examine you.  Specifically a

17     Russian medical expert.  Am I to understand that today you no longer wish

18     to see any expert except for those you want to appoint?

19             Is that correct?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course.  Of course.  Only I can

21     appoint the experts who are going to examine me.  No one else can do

22     that.

23             If I so decide, Dr. Avdeev can be one of them.  He is a highly

24     acclaimed cardiologist in Russia, so I have no suspicions vis-ā-vis him.

25     Also Mr. Avdeev, who is the best pulmonologists in Moscow.  However, I am

Page 17077

 1     no longer susceptible to your orders that have to do with the state of my

 2     health.  I have taken away your right to make court orders that have to

 3     do with my health.  That has to be taken into account.  I do not trust

 4     you, and I'm not going to allow any further manipulations with the state

 5     of my health.

 6             As for the Status Conference today, you started that with your

 7     advice, that I should go on a diet.  Why would I go on a diet, when I

 8     have excellent blood vessels?  Let us see whose blood vessels are better,

 9     mine or yours.  All of you members of the Trial Chamber.  And now the

10     fact that my brain requires more sugar shows that its function is more

11     intensive, which I could not manage within an emaciated body.  However,

12     my blood vessels are in great shape and there's no reason for me to play

13     along with you.  And actually you want to mock me in public.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as you know, the

15     Chamber has no intention of mocking you.  When we appointed the experts,

16     we gave them the mission of telling us what you were suffering from.  And

17     these experts, whom we did not know, with whom we had no contacts, said

18     at the time, before August 23rd, that your problem had to do with your

19     diet.  And this was said black on white.  And this is what I said on

20     August 23rd.  You challenged this conclusion.  You may be right.  Perhaps

21     the doctors who will come to see you will then concur with you.  So be

22     it.  If that is so, we will find out through your web sites, as you have

23     said yourself, what these medical findings are.  Everybody will go to

24     your web site to find out exactly what you were suffering from.

25             We shall now move on to the procedural issues.  These are, for

Page 17078

 1     the Chamber, as follows --

 2             Yes, Mr. Seselj.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, yet again I have to

 4     refute what are you saying.

 5             It so happens that I have a medical report in front of me dated

 6     the 15th of June, 2011.  It was signed by Sergey Avdeev, doctor of

 7     medical sciences, and Thomas Tjelstan [phoen], lecturer from the

 8     University of Lund, Sweden.

 9             At the end of the report, they say --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do not have the text,

11     and it is being read out too fast.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber issued a request

13     in October 2010.  And then they say, number one, specific ailments of

14     Vojislav Seselj's: obstructive apnea, allergic rhinitis, asthma, seasonal

15     allergy-based rhinitis, fibrillation treated by ablation, hyper-tension,

16     reflux, and adipose.

17             Number two, the health condition of Vojislav Seselj is such that

18     it does not prevent him for taking part in court proceedings.

19             And I never brought that into question.

20             Number three, his pathology indeed requires additional therapy.

21     Primarily during the night, using --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do not have the

23     document.  It is being read out too fast.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So if I am to be subjected to this

25     therapy, they think that my health can get better.  So these are their

Page 17079

 1     medical findings.

 2             At one point this Swede, who was actually a dietitian or whatever

 3     he may be, mentioned the question of weight.  But if you look at the

 4     entire report, that is a totally insignificant point.  So even that is

 5     incorrect.  You have an analysis here on all of six pages.  All this

 6     information is provided in detail.  I don't have time to read all of

 7     this.  But I have read out to you the final findings.

 8             Now, what is the problem?  After ablation in October 2010, my

 9     health was neglected.  The Swedish and Russian doctor who examined me

10     talked to me and looked at my medical documents, and nothing else.  They

11     could not take me to any particular machine except for an ECG which does

12     exist at the Detention Unit.  So what did that mean?  Why was the state

13     of my health neglected?  Now, that is for Dr. Falke to answer, Dr. Falke

14     who simply disappeared from the Detention Unit towards the end of last

15     year.

16             Some people say that he gave the wrong kind of therapy to

17     Jovica Stanisic and that therefore Stanisic barely survived.  Some people

18     say this; other people say that.  But basically we've never received any

19     official information as to why it was that Dr. Falke had left.  They did

20     a lot of dirty -- he did a lot of dirty jobs, and why he had to leave

21     precisely at this point in time, that's a very interesting question.  We

22     don't know.  Because all the convicts in the Detention Unit have a

23     countless number of objections regarding his behaviour, his approach to

24     health problems, medical treatments, and so on.

25             Just think of the problem that had to do with my tooth.  The one

Page 17080

 1     that I talked about two years ago.  It's still there.  It seemed to be a

 2     banal problem, but it isn't really.  Not at all.  Maybe it could

 3     incapacitate me for trial for ten or 15 days, but that doesn't really

 4     matter.  I would not have raised health issues today had you not

 5     insisted.

 6             I have quite a long list of other procedural problems that I

 7     would have to raise today --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will address this list.  But

 9     we did ask the physician if you could testify.  His answer was yes.  But

10     he recommended that we take a break every hour.  Would you like to take a

11     break to have a rest?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no.  I can work normally.

13     Quite normally.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We will continue

15     for half an hour and then we will have a break.

16             Concerning the procedural matters, the problem for the Chamber at

17     this point has to do with the fact that you have made your final

18     submission which is 501 pages in Cyrillic but in UN format it runs to

19     over 600 pages.  This in spite of the fact that we had limited the number

20     of pages for the Prosecution.  Therefore, via e-mail we informed you that

21     you were authorised to submit 300 pages, plus 100 pages of annexes, that

22     is, 400 pages total.  With our resources we reviewed your submission,

23     which is in Cyrillic, all 500 pages of your brief.  I noticed that there

24     are no annotations, and many of the pages are actually reproductions of

25     transcripts of other witnesses.  So what do you intend to do?

Page 17081

 1             Are you going to maintain your 500-page brief or are you going to

 2     shorten it, as you have been invited to do?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, my intention is to

 4     provoke a decision from you to reject my final brief.  You know that I

 5     always play with open cards.  And, now, why am I doing this?  I'll

 6     explain it to you.

 7             It has to do with the first version of my final brief.

 8     Zoran Krasic did most of the work on that, my legal advisor.  That

 9     version was done by the 1st of September.  It was submitted to me by my

10     legal advisors.  It was sent through confidential channels.  I had

11     intended to work on it to send my remarks to them after that.  And then

12     when you said what you said about the volume of the final brief, then I

13     would adjust it to that.  However, towards the end of October, the

14     Registrar no longer allowed me any kind of privileged communication with

15     my legal advisors.  Basically banning me from working on my final brief.

16     So that's why I decided in January to send that first version and you do

17     whatever you want to do with it.

18             I don't want to work on it any longer.  I was prevented, disabled

19     from working on when I wanted to work on it, and I'm not going to do any

20     more work then.  And I have a good reason for that.

21             The OTP, on the 4th of November, filed a motion for the parties,

22     that is to say, both them and me, be given more pages for the final

23     brief.  325 pages and so on.  So this is the first time that the OTP

24     requested that, and it was the first time in these nine years that the

25     OTP was fair and correct.  And it's only natural, if they ask for extra

Page 17082

 1     pages for themselves, it's only natural that I should be accorded the

 2     same privilege.  However, then you, on the 24th of November, issue an

 3     order granting the Prosecution 300 pages for their final brief and 100

 4     pages of annexes.  As for myself, you say that my final brief should not

 5     exceed 200 pages and 50 pages of annexes.

 6             I could not believe my eyes that I was reading this kind of court

 7     order.  This went beyond all of my expectations, in relation to you as

 8     members of the Trial Chamber.  As I've said, the masks have fallen.  I

 9     know who you are and what your mission is, and I know who I am and what

10     my mission is.  For you to make a decision stating that the Prosecutor is

11     entitled to 300 pages and that I'm entitled to 200 pages, I wanted to

12     show you that that will not work.  And that's why I sent you 500 pages.

13     Now you do whatever you want it.  Read it, throw it into the

14     waste-paper basket, do whatever you will.  I'm no longer interested in

15     this final brief.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your description is

17     mathematically requested.  The Prosecutor has requested a greater number

18     of pages, and this was granted.  But the Chamber responds to the requests

19     from the parties.  The Prosecutor asked for something, and it was

20     granted.  If you had asked for something, it would have been granted.

21     You did not ask for anything.

22             Furthermore, it was obvious that under the principle of equality

23     of arms it was out of the question in our minds for you to have fewer

24     pages than the Prosecutor would have.  It's quite obvious.

25             In addition, Mr. Seselj, may I remind you that when we saw one

Page 17083

 1     another on August 23rd you then said that you did not intend to submit

 2     any brief whatsoever, so we were completely in the dark.  When the

 3     Chamber decided to allow the Prosecutor to have more pages in their own

 4     brief, it was not something that was done against you.  This is something

 5     that you should understand.  You should know, Mr. Seselj.

 6             Of course, you speak for the purpose of telling things to the

 7     outside world, and sometimes you say some things that are news to us.

 8     But the outside world should also know one thing:  In your conspiracy

 9     theory of the secret services, we, Judges, simply do not go along with

10     this.  We are absolutely not concerned by what you say.  We shall rule on

11     your innocence or on your guilt based on evidence, and only based on

12     evidence.  I said this right from the outset: Do not attempt to draw us

13     into conspiracy theories and so on.  It may be that strange things have

14     occurred.  It may be that things have occurred that have created

15     problems.  And I discovered things, for instance that the physician of

16     the Detention Unit leave and that we're not apprised of this.  This is

17     indeed strange.  But this is not the first time that I discover some new

18     events.

19             So the number of page has nothing to do with a desire to in any

20     way prejudice your interests.  As soon as I received the 500-page brief,

21     I started to work on this document to try and understand what its

22     contents are.  You said, because you're a very intelligent man, that

23     you're waiting for just one thing, for the Chamber to reject it.  And

24     furthermore, as my fellow Judge is saying, you were granted the same

25     number of pages as the Prosecutor because you were told via e-mail that

Page 17084

 1     you were entitled to 300 pages as the Prosecutor is, that is, the 300

 2     pages plus 100 pages just as the Prosecutor is entitled to.

 3             So what topic -- what other topics would you like to address

 4     today, Mr. Seselj?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, you know, Mr.

 6     Maurice Gourdault-Montagne very well.  I even heard that you are friends.

 7     Whilst he was an advisor for national security, you, Mr. Antonetti, were

 8     a legal advisor to the war criminal Jacques Chirac.  I'm just presenting

 9     facts, nothing more or less.  And these facts give me the right to

10     speculate further on, and they create certain convictions in my mind.

11     However, I'm not publicising all my speculations.  I'm merely presenting

12     facts.

13             You may try to convince me about whatever you want, but on the

14     4th of November the OTP requested that the parties to the proceeding be

15     granted the increase of number of pages of final briefs.  But you

16     spitefully say, Yes, you are granted this request; and as for the

17     Defence, it will be as was decided for them.

18             This increase to 300 pages is meaningless to me.  The whole final

19     brief is meaningless.  And I was really in two minds whether to submit

20     any final brief at all.  Then Mr. Krasic persuaded me to change my mind,

21     and I'm entitled to change my mind, under the influence of my legal

22     advisor, and I eventually submitted my final brief.

23             Now, let's see which is stronger: my right to submit a final

24     brief, or your right to limit the number of pages.  This I find to be the

25     most interesting legal question.  And you have to find a way out of it.

Page 17085

 1     Whether you're going to violate the legal procedure by preventing me

 2     completely from presenting my final brief, or if you are going to accede

 3     the number of pages stipulated by your order.  It is up to you to solve

 4     this problem.  I'm not interested in that at all.

 5             If I am still alive on the 5th of March, I'm going to trump all

 6     the OTP completely with my legal arguments.  What you are going to decide

 7     subsequently, let other people think about that.  You have

 8     Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, you have the US, British, and French

 9     intelligence services.  Now, look, this is a task for you.  Try to stop

10     me winning the election.  And you're going to accomplish this mission,

11     but you cannot defeat me.  None of you can walk out of this situation

12     with their hands clean, that's the substance of it all, because I have

13     such an abundance of arguments that I'm going to use to prevent that.

14             And the arguments became quite numerous especially last year

15     after all the masks fell off.  When you debated with me in one of the

16     dissenting opinions, you said that Ljubisa Petkovic was convicted for

17     giving false testimony.  Do you remember that dissenting opinion of

18     yours?  Nobody has ever been convicted by this Court for giving false

19     testimony.  People are convicted here either because they refuse to

20     testify or if they have disclosed confidential material.  You, however,

21     tried to belittle Ljubisa Petkovic as one of the people who worked on one

22     of my most important motions.  And why shouldn't he do that?  He was the

23     only Serb, a real hero, who refused to testify here, such a tiny man.

24             There were some others as well, but after they had been

25     threatened with contempt of court they changed their minds.  And we had

Page 17086

 1     such a case in the recent past.  And that's why Ljubisa Petkovic deserves

 2     to be respected by the whole of Serbia.  We had here presidents,

 3     ministers, police and army commanders, and many other people, and most of

 4     them have been threatened with the contempt of court proceedings if they

 5     refuse to co-operate with the OTP.  He was the only person who had enough

 6     backbone to defy that, and after 2005 it turns out that the OTP cannot

 7     indict any more people.  Maybe that contributed to his being courageous.

 8     But the fact that he worked on my brief is something that is undermining

 9     the credulity of the brief itself.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Very well.  What other subject

11     would you like to address?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  On the 28th of October, the

13     Registry banned my privileged communication with my advisors.  I sent a

14     motion, a preliminary motion, to you to caution you that this might

15     happen, but you quite simply discarded my motion.  The Registry delivered

16     a decision.  I complained against this decision with the President.  And

17     I'm sorry that Mr. President -- Mr. Robinson is no longer the president,

18     because he adhered to the principles in a more consistent manner.

19             Then there was the extension granted on the 22nd of December,

20     then on the 20th of January, and some ten days ago the Registrar himself

21     cancelled this decision.  Why?  Nothing changed in the meantime.  I did

22     not remove any contents from my web site.  The Registrar decided to

23     prohibit privileged communications only on the basis of a suspicion that

24     I am taking advantage of principled communication with my advisors in

25     order to manage my Internet site.  He doesn't have a shred of evidence

Page 17087

 1     for that.  All he has is suspicion, and he's acting on that suspicion.

 2     And you are ignoring all of this.

 3             In the final stages of the trial when I am trying to compile a

 4     final brief, are you banning me from communication with my advisors.  And

 5     whatever communication I have, I'm sure that it's being listened in,

 6     which will give enough information to the OTP.  But no one can find out

 7     what I'm going to put in my final brief, not even my legal advisors.

 8     They can only advise me.  They cannot impose any opinions on me, and they

 9     cannot control what I'm going to put in my final brief.

10             Furthermore, the DU administration prevented me from filing

11     motions that I have written for nine years.  Whenever I write my motions

12     by hand, it was enough for me to hand it to a guard and ask him to make a

13     photocopy.  I would then send the original to the Tribunal and keep the

14     copy.  If I was filing copies with the Trial Chamber and the President,

15     sometimes a few days later, or a month later, I would receive a

16     translation into English of my motion, and the copy in Serbian.  But if I

17     send it to the Registry, I never get anything back.

18             Now, around the new year, for example, on the 3rd of January, I

19     wrote a submission on one page to the President of the ICTY complaining

20     about the treatment by the Registry who prohibited visits from my

21     friends.  I asked the guard to make a photocopy of this submission, but

22     the clerk said that it is now impossible, that I must submit a separate

23     request for a photocopy to be made.  So in order to have a photocopy of

24     one page, I have to write a separate one-page request to have it

25     photocopied.

Page 17088

 1             And this is particularly the case with us who are

 2     self-representing accused.  On the 19th of January, I tried to send

 3     another submission on three pages, and the same situation repeated

 4     itself.  I am prevented from filing submissions.  I can only submit

 5     motions that are written by my legal advisors who send them to me by fax

 6     and then I sign them.

 7             I arranged for a visit by my three personal friends to take place

 8     in early January, and I received the schedule for this visit.  However,

 9     after that I received a letter from the Registry saying that a long time

10     ago I was allowed to be visited by two registered members of the radical

11     party.  I never said that these people were coming to visit me as members

12     of the radical party but, rather, as my personal friends.  For nine years

13     now I couldn't receive visits from my personal friends because the

14     Registry simply says, He is the president of the radical party, he is an

15     MP, and he cannot receive any visits of that nature.

16             But I must tell you that all my friends are members of the

17     radical party.  I have no friends outside the radical party.  Others

18     receive visits from commanders, from their subordinates, from this kind

19     of people and that, but I cannot even have visits by my family.  Isn't

20     that torture and maltreatment?  Isn't that creating stressful situations

21     for me?

22             Now, furthermore, the main problem that I wanted to discuss today

23     is the problem of the amicus curiae report --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, before we talk

25     about the report of the amicus curiae, to round off on the question of

Page 17089

 1     your communication with your associates, we did indeed learn that the

 2     Registrar had listened in to your communications with your associates,

 3     and I didn't know why.  And of late I discovered that the telephone

 4     tapping was due to the fact that on your web site the Registrar alleged

 5     that protected witnesses' names were being disclosed.  And pursuant to

 6     our Rules of Detention, the Registrar decided to tap your telephone

 7     because your conversations were perhaps one of the means you used to

 8     intimidate witnesses.

 9             On 12th of October, 2011, you were advised of this through an

10     official letter.  At the time, the Registrar had not informed us about

11     the contents of this letter, which we have been apprised of since.  We

12     know that this can affect your Defence case, of course; but, other hand,

13     we knew that since you were being wire-tapped, this does not prevent you

14     from contacting your associates to prepare your briefs and so on.

15             However, the Trial Chamber did impart its position to the

16     Registrar, and that is why a few days ago you may phone your associates

17     without your conversations being listened in.  And before the month of

18     March, you will have ample opportunity to talk to your close relatives

19     about your Defence case.  This is not something that happened out of the

20     blue.  The Trial Chamber did state its position, and the Registrar

21     decided to amend his decision.  This is what I wanted to talk to you

22     about.

23             I believe you wanted to address the report prepared by the amicus

24     curiae.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  I'm not going to mention

Page 17090

 1     anything that is confidential in order to be able to remain in public

 2     session.

 3             I was provided with a redacted version of this report.  I never

 4     received the report in its entirety.  There is no signature of the amicus

 5     curiae here.  Why is the amicus's name kept secret?  The only thing I

 6     know of this person is that he or she is American.  Who is threatening

 7     him, jeopardizing him in any way?  Why is his name being kept secret?

 8     You are just trying to prevent me from investigating who this actually is

 9     and looking at his CV and finding material that would not look good.

10             Look at this report.  Look at all the pages that are redacted.

11     Sometimes an entire page is redacted, blackened.  And this is what you

12     submitted to me as a report.  And now I'm supposed to state my views on

13     this?  What kind of business is this?  Look at this.  Entire pages have

14     been blackened out.  Look at this.  This is something that is giving

15     The Hague Tribunal a very bad name to a maximum degree.  You criticised

16     the report, Mr. Antonetti, but nevertheless you voted in favour of it.

17     That is something I cannot understand.  There is no need for me to voice

18     my own criticism regarding this report when I have your very own critical

19     remarks.  After all the critical remarks you had when you thoroughly

20     discredited the entire report, you nevertheless voted in favour of the

21     report.  You accepted it.  No such thing ever happened to me in my life.

22             If I have a serious critical objection to any kind of material, I

23     would not vote in favour of it even if it were a question of life and

24     death.  How that kind of things happens, I really don't know.  However,

25     what remains is the fact that this is evidence.  So many pages of

Page 17091

 1     blackened text.  This shows that this is some kind of a dirty job.  The

 2     amicus was not supposed to look at facts and the legal grounds for

 3     establishing contempt of court by Carla Del Ponte and her collaborators.

 4     Actually, his task was to hush things up, all of it together.  That is

 5     the only essence of this entire matter.

 6             When I brought criminal charges against 40 witnesses for

 7     providing false testimony, then you turned against me with the weirdest

 8     arguments possible.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, to respond on a

10     personal note, since you addressed me, you may not have read my opinion

11     properly.  In that case, I must specify the following.

12             When the Trial Chamber appointed an amicus curiae, it was to ask

13     him if there were any reasons to believe that pressures had been exerted

14     by the OTP on the witnesses.  That was the assignment of the amicus

15     curiae.  The amicus curiae did his job and answered by saying no.  Since

16     the Trial Chamber had put the question to him, the Trial Chamber was

17     bound by his response.  He said no, so that means no to me.  However, I

18     felt that I may have reached the same conclusion as the amicus curiae,

19     but if that had been the case, a number of formalities should have been

20     fulfilled.  So there is no contradiction here.  The amicus curiae was

21     subjected to a number of questions, and he said no, no pressure was

22     exerted.  And it is on those grounds that the Trial Chamber ruled on this

23     matter and rejected your application.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In addition, this is not

Page 17092

 1     something that had come to my mind, but my fellow Judge has just reminded

 2     me of this.  We did not admit the amicus curiae report as a piece of

 3     evidence.  We asked the amicus curiae whether there was any reason to

 4     believe, and he said no.  So this has not been retained as evidence.

 5     Admittedly, some of the pages have been redacted; that is true.  But for

 6     the purpose of protecting witnesses or for the purpose of protecting

 7     people who benefit from some immunity, I must say that the portions that

 8     have been redacted do not prejudice you in any way.  These are things we

 9     have spent a lot of time on.  And most of the report is a report that has

10     been published and is public.  This is what I wanted to say to you.

11             You have five minutes before the break.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, the problem is that

13     I believe that all of these portions that have been blackened out would

14     work in my favour.  That's what I thought from day one.  I don't think

15     that it was done except to harm me.

16             Mr. Antonetti, now that you decided to react to such things, I

17     have something else to add.

18             This has to do with a decision regarding the notification you

19     received from the OTP stating that Zoran Drazilovic was in The Hague and

20     Witness 026 and that they were testifying in contempt of court

21     proceedings and it was possible to call them to testify in the main

22     trial, because before they were in accessible because of illness, as had

23     been stated.

24             The Trial Chamber rejected that.  It is a confidential decision,

25     I'm not going to say anything specific about it, but I just want to say

Page 17093

 1     something about you personally regarding your own dissent, things that

 2     you say about me and me alone.

 3             You say, on page 9 of your separate opinion --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do not have the text.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These two witnesses.  First of all,

 6     you say that both of them are gravely ill.  These two witnesses

 7     nevertheless came at the request of the Accused Seselj who only took into

 8     account his own personal interest.  And that is underlined, personal

 9     interest.  Disregarding, as it seems to me, the health of these

10     witnesses, although procedurally he had resources available that made it

11     possible to get statements from these witnesses on the basis of

12     Rule 92 quater.  So it was unnecessary to bring them in and put their

13     health at risk in this way.

14             In this way, you are actually brutally assaulting my own

15     character, my sense of morality.  You believe that in my personal

16     interest I'm prepared to sacrifice others.  However, what I challenged

17     were your medical experts from The Hague who said that the witnesses were

18     unable to travel.  Whereas the witnesses came to The Hague very nicely by

19     plane.  One of them came with his wife.  They had a good time in

20     The Hague.  They went out in the evening.  There are quite a few things

21     to be seen here.  And one of them insisted that they should great me

22     properly and we embraced in the middle of the courtroom and they went

23     back to Belgrade without any problems whosoever.

24             Why did I call them?  Because I knew from their personal doctors

25     that they could come without any risk involving their health, whereas

Page 17094

 1     your experts from The Hague said that they could not travel because it

 2     wasn't in the interests of The Hague Tribunal for them to travel.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Witness 26 - I

 4     shall not mention his name - was supposed to come and testify.  You're

 5     quite right on that score.  The Trial Chamber wanted this witness to

 6     come.  I wanted him to come.  We had ordered an expertise, and the expert

 7     said no, he could not come, because he was ill.

 8             So this person was not called to testify.

 9             We then discover in other proceedings that this person did come.

10     Things went well.  All the better for him.  So either the expert who told

11     us he couldn't come made a mistake, or his state of health is not stable

12     and he came to testify as a Defence witness.

13             Mr. Marcussen, I have not quoted any names.  I just said

14     Witness 26.

15             MR. MARCUSSEN:  But, Your Honour, I'm on my feet for another

16     reason and for clarification.

17             We have been having this Administrative Hearing and the accused

18     has been speaking for the best part of the one and a half hour that have

19     been going.  The Prosecution have some issues it would like to address,

20     and I'm seeking clarification of whether or not, when you indicated there

21     would be a break, whether it's an end of the administrative hearing or

22     whether or not we will go beyond the scheduled hours.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall have a break and

24     resume after the break.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to use these two minutes

Page 17095

 1     to clarify this matter.

 2             Mr. Antonetti --

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do you know what the problem is

 5     here?  The health of these two witnesses was the same at the moment when

 6     your expert said that they were unable to travel and when they travelled.

 7     There were no changes.  The problem lies in the fact that the Registrar

 8     appointed the doctor who would present this opinion to the effect that

 9     they could not travel, and that they could not even testify via

10     videolink.  If you remember, I agreed that 026 could testify at least by

11     videolink.  And then this expert of yours appointed by the Registrar said

12     no, not even videolink, and then I bring him to The Hague itself, and he

13     testifies quite normally.

14             I don't think that his health is any worse than mine.  He does

15     have serious health problems, no doubt about that.  But he is a mobile

16     person and lives a relatively normally life.  Why would he not testify?

17     What was the problem?  The problem was that this witness publicly

18     admitted that under pressure exerted by the OTP he provided false

19     testimony in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic and that is what shook this

20     Tribunal.  And that is why the Registrar found this medical expert who

21     said that the witness could not come and testify at all.  Not even via

22     videolink.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Let's have a 20-minute break

24     and resume at 20 minutes past 4.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.

Page 17096

 1                           --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  We shall resume.

 3             The interpreters have said that whilst it was planned that we

 4     were going to work until 4.00 p.m., they will continue to work for

 5     another 30 minutes, so I would like to urge Mr. Seselj to be as brief as

 6     possible.  And I hope that on the Prosecution side there won't be too

 7     many questions.

 8             Mr. Seselj, we have 30 minutes all together.  I hope this is

 9     clear.  So please get to the heart of the matter.

10             And the Prosecution will have to respond to the question of the

11     600 pages to say whether or not they agree to authorise this or not.  And

12     then the Chamber shall rule.

13             Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a few more objections that I

15     wanted to raise.  They will be shorter.

16             You remember that the Registry initiated disciplinary proceedings

17     against Boris Aleksic, a legal advisor of mine, before the bar.  I have

18     to inform you that the Registry lost in these proceedings and

19     Boris Aleksic has been totally acquitted.

20             So it was pointless to mess things up in this way.  Actually,

21     this was done only to prevent him from helping me, because he had to deal

22     with his own business.  And, again, nothing doing.

23             Can the Registrar go on doing whatever he wants to, without being

24     held accountable?  The Registry seems to be a stronger institution here

25     than any Trial Chamber.  Does that work in France as well?  Can the

Page 17097

 1     Registrar be above the Trial Chamber?  Or in Italy, or in Denmark?  I'm

 2     sure that that could not happen.  I'm sure that nowhere in the world the

 3     Registry has such powers.  Here it seems that the Registrar's will cannot

 4     be touched, and I don't know how long that will go on.

 5             There were many decisions of yours that were made last year that

 6     I consider to be unreasonable, and I'm going to prove that.  And you

 7     accepted everything that the Prosecution asked for, that is to say, to

 8     have certain exhibits admitted, those that had you refused to admit in

 9     2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and then you accepted almost all of it in 2011.

10     For me, that is yet further proof of the fiasco that the OTP suffered as

11     the trial itself and that now you are trying to make do with what you've

12     got.  Even, for example, that Milan Babic promoted someone to some

13     particular office, and for you that is relevant evidence in my case.

14     That is it quite unbelievable.  And I had to present that as an objection

15     of my own.  I want it to be reflected in the transcript for the sake of

16     the public.

17             Mr. Antonetti, just a couple of more things that I raised

18     concerning your attitude towards me.

19             You, as a legal counsel of Jacques Chirac, a war criminal, during

20     the time when Serbia was bombed, in addition to my comment about people

21     being sacrificed for somebody's personal interest, you say that you

22     observe that the accused as a law professor, even though he has some

23     means at his disposal, could have submitted reports of international

24     experts who came here at his own expense.  First of all, where I would

25     get those funds?  Are you actually advising me to go and beg elsewhere?

Page 17098

 1     Because my political party has a number of supporters, are you saying

 2     that I should try to raise funds among them in order to fund this?  I

 3     don't want to do that.  I don't need any international experts.

 4             The doctors of these two witnesses told me and them that they

 5     were able to travel without any significant risk.  They travelled, and

 6     there was no risk involved.  And you seem to be so willing to take it out

 7     on me, and you go on to say I interpret the arrival of these two

 8     witnesses to be a media trick of the accused, because according to him as

 9     well as according to the OTP they had already given a number of

10     interviews and appeared on television.  Therefore, why would we again

11     broadcast them on TV since this had already been done?

12             Now, see how many hatred there is in this single sentence.  I'm

13     very pleased that you wrote down this sentence.  I'm happy because of the

14     Serbian public that used to like you a lot.  A journalist used to say --

15             Mr. Antonetti, let me just complete my sentence, please, if you

16     have enough patience.  If not, I don't have to say a single word more.

17             A journalist in Serbia said that had you appeared as a candidate

18     in Serbian election you would have certainly received enough votes after

19     your dissenting opinion under 98 bis.  And now, after this behaviour of

20     yours, not only would you not get enough votes, you would not enjoy the

21     respect in the Serbian public.  The idea that your friend

22     Maurice Gourdault-Montagne had, as well as his British and American

23     associates, is simply not going to be achieved.  It will not be attained.

24     And even after my death here I will continue fighting you.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're referring to a specific

Page 17099

 1     opinion.  Could you please quote the sentence that you're reproaching me

 2     for?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is your concurring [as

 4     interpreted] opinion dated the 4th of August, 2011.  Separate opinion.

 5             So that is your last sentence on page 10, the opinion of

 6     4th of August, 2011.  Your last sentence:

 7             I interpret the arrival of these two witnesses as a media trick,

 8     a media ruse of the accused because according to him and according to the

 9     OTP these witnesses had already given a number of statements and appeared

10     on television.  Therefore, why would we again broadcast them on TV since

11     this had already been done?

12             You're simply starting a political discussion here.  This is the

13     last sentence in your separate opinion.

14             Ms. Lattanzi, from whom I expected at the least, opposed this,

15     and she wanted these two witnesses to come.  And I really did not expect

16     this from her, given her consistent hostile attitude throughout the

17     proceedings.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

19     continues] ... opinion because I do not recall this episode.

20             Mr. Marcussen, you wanted the floor.  You have the floor.

21             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22             Maybe I should first start with introducing three members of the

23     Prosecution team that Your Honours have not yet been introduced to.  It

24     is Rachel Hochhauser, Ms. Vega Iodice, and Mr. Arthur Traldi.

25             Your Honours, other thing I just wanted to put on record in

Page 17100

 1     relation to some of the many things the accused have said, he said he is

 2     not aware of who the amicus is and therefore he has been prejudiced.  I

 3     wanted to just put on record now that it has been raised that he has

 4     actually been informed of the name of the person.  It's in the

 5     confidential decision, but it is dated the 2nd of December, 2010.  So he

 6     has had an opportunity to investigate, if he wanted to do that.

 7             The only other point I think I will raise in the light of and the

 8     interest of time is the issue of --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to add something.

10     We made investigations.  We even made that name public.

11             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ... that was

12     actually my recollection, but we couldn't find it.

13             Lastly, Your Honour, the question that you put to the

14     Prosecution, namely, on our position of the accused's oversized brief.

15     We oppose the brief.  Your Honours have issued an order about the filing

16     of the brief, and that order should be upheld.  And also in light of your

17     review, what you have said about your review of the brief and that there

18     are no references in the brief.  It is also important to uphold the

19     standard for legal filings here, and nobody can work with a brief which

20     have no references.

21             So the brief is defect in a number of ways.

22             There are no reasons for Your Honours -- well, sorry.  First of

23     all, the accused have actually not requested reconsideration of

24     Your Honours' decision and have admitted that he filed the brief as an

25     act of provocation.  Your Honours should not proprio motu reconsider your

Page 17101

 1     decision.

 2             The practice direction on the filing of final trial briefs is

 3     clearly indicating that final trial briefs are not to exceed 200 pages.

 4     If the accused with his associates have produced in September a 500-page

 5     brief, they clearly knew that this brief would be oversized, and they did

 6     not make a request at any point in time to exceed the page limit.

 7             The accused have been able to communicate with his counsel or his

 8     legal advisors with a view to finalize his brief.  His communications

 9     have been monitored, but as the President pointed out, that has not

10     prevented him from actually discussing his brief.  The Prosecution

11     sternly deny the speculation of the accused that the Prosecution is

12     getting any information from anybody in the Tribunal about what the

13     accused's -- about what the accused's monitored communications are about.

14     So the accused can freely discuss any matters he wants with his

15     associates, without the Prosecution receiving any information.

16             We submit that there must be a quality of arms and that the

17     accused should not be allowed to file a brief which is double the size of

18     the Prosecution's brief and is seriously defect in its form, which make

19     it very, very difficult for everybody to respond to the brief or even

20     understand the brief when there are no citations.  There have been

21     previous filings of this nature by the accused: His Rule 91, one motion,

22     was a 230-page motion.  It was seriously oversized and it had, in the

23     same way as this brief that has been filed, absolutely no references.  It

24     is improper, and the Trial Chamber should not accept this sort of a

25     brief.

Page 17102

 1             Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wish to draw Mr. Marcussen's

 3     attention and Mr. Seselj's attention to the fact that on March 5th, in

 4     one month's time, there will be the closing arguments.  When closing

 5     arguments are made, the accused allows this to take place without

 6     interrupting.  And when the accused makes his arguments, then the

 7     Prosecution allows him to go forth with his pleadings.  But in their

 8     closing arguments or in their pleadings no names of protected witnesses

 9     must be disclosed.  Were that to be the case, we would be compelled to

10     redact the arguments.

11             So either in the closing arguments or the pleadings, if any

12     witnesses have to be cited, they will be cited by number, and no

13     identifying factors can be given.  These are well-understood rules in the

14     courtroom.  The pleadings have to be listened to in complete silence, and

15     closing arguments as well, it being understood that in a criminal trial

16     the accused always speaks last.

17             If I have understood Mr. Marcussen correctly, you are against

18     allowing for any extension of the number of pages to be granted to

19     Mr. Seselj.

20             I shall consult my colleagues.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will hand

23     down a written decision very shortly on this matter.

24             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Just one brief remark, Your Honours, just to be

25     clear.

Page 17103

 1             The Prosecution is objecting also on the basis that the -- the

 2     brief is defect in form in that it has no proper citations.  From what I

 3     understand, Your Honours have reviewed it, and that's my understanding

 4     from what you have said about the brief.  It's a serious defect in the

 5     brief, apart from the fact that it is seriously oversized.  And there's

 6     no equality of arms when the accused gets so many pages compared to the

 7     Prosecution.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, in the few minutes that we

 9     have left, would you like to take the floor again, Mr. Seselj?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             Well, actually, I'm not interested in any of -- in anything that

12     Mr. Marcussen said.  He mentioned that sometime in December 2010 the name

13     of amicus curiae was disclosed.  Now, where do we have that shown here in

14     this document?  And why is this document so crossed out?  Why say this at

15     all?  Why would I have to remember what was said in December of 2010?  I

16     need to have the first and the last name on the paper.  And every expert

17     witness that we had here had a CV of that expert witness.  Remember that

18     Slovene who here analysed Mladic's diaries, and all other experts.  So

19     why would this expert be an exception?

20             Secondly, I would like to take advantage of the time remaining to

21     me to speak about the behaviour of Mr. Antonetti.

22             In 2011, Mr. Antonetti, you were truly active.  You wrote a lot.

23     And you produced a lot of separate and concurring opinions.  That is to

24     say, that it wasn't enough what the entire Trial Chamber said against me;

25     you had to add to it.  So I will now cite, from a public opinion, your

Page 17104

 1     separate concurring opinion about the joint decision on oral motions of

 2     the accused concerning his defence case.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 4     continues] ... beforehand what you were about to say, that all of this

 5     should not be part of an Administrative Hearing.  I know beforehand what

 6     you're going to say.

 7             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Well, I --

 8             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] This is an administrative issue.

 9             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Well the accused said he was going to use the

10     remaining time that was available to him to continue to make various

11     allegations.  As far as I'm aware, the Chamber have not given him any

12     time available.  This is an Administrative Hearing where he should be

13     addressing specific administrative issues, and not be continuing to have

14     a polemic debate with the President about his separate opinions.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you know me, I

16     could have cut you short.

17             So, please, finish off by presenting an individual opinion.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All of these administrative issues

19     following which I can submit a request to disqualify one of the Judges.

20     Most likely I will not make such a submission, because I believe that

21     none of the Judges in this Tribunal are better than you.  And I don't

22     have a great opinion of you either.  So I will not ask for any of you to

23     be disqualified, but I could do that.

24             In your separate opinion of 9 June 2011, following the decision

25     to reject all of my motions for Defence case on page 9, you say:

Page 17105

 1             "As for the gathering in Zvornik in May of 1992 and in Hrtkovci,

 2     the accused admitted taking parts in those rallies, but he denies

 3     uttering the words that the Prosecution accuses him of doing."

 4             Here you prejudge the judgement that could be handed down.  I

 5     never admitted participating in the rally in Zvornik in 1992.  I have

 6     proven to you here that that rally took place in 1990.  However, you

 7     accept everything.

 8             In March of 1992 there was no rally held there.  And after all of

 9     that evidence produced, you writing something of this arbitrary a nature.

10     This is why I had to raise this as an administrative issue.

11             Now, another separate opinion of yours and another public

12     document concerning my motion to suspend proceedings.

13             You say here that I'm partially responsible for the fact that the

14     proceedings have been going on for eight years.  It was eight years at

15     the time, and now it's exactly nine years.  On the 24th of February, it

16     will be nine years.  And you wonder why that is the case, and then you go

17     on to say:

18             "The accused is a law professor, an eminent politician in his own

19     country, and since his arrival in The Hague he had a number of years to

20     prepare himself for this trial.  Naturally he did prepare himself, but I

21     have to state that he wasted his time by continuing to be actively

22     involved in politics in his country and also by writing more than

23     100 books that have thousands and thousands of pages."

24             This is what is bothering you and Maurice Gourdault-Montagne.

25     You do not deny the fact that I have prepared myself.  And I will

Page 17106

 1     compliment myself by saying that I have prepared myself much better than

 2     the Prosecution has prepared itself.  I overran their witnesses, false

 3     witnesses, and a false indictment.  However, you are bothered by the fact

 4     that I have wasted time by being involved actively in politics, because

 5     despite the -- everything that the foreign secret services have done

 6     against the Serbian Radical Party - and I gave you the name of one of the

 7     agents taking part in a conspiracy against Vucic and some others, and his

 8     name is in the transcript, I'm sure you remember this - so despite that

 9     fact, what bothers you is that I have managed to preserve the Serbian

10     Radical Party even after being imprisoned for nine years, and all of this

11     was calculated to have that party turn and merge with another political

12     party.  We did have some traitors in our party, but we eliminated them.

13     And you will see just how strong the Serbian Radical Party is.

14             As for more than 100 books, well, who could write more than 100

15     books in this period of time, all these thousands of pages?  What I did

16     write and what I did publish were the books of documents, Hague

17     documents, and my entire political dossier.  And everything that has been

18     published will be there for the history to judge it.  I gave ideas, and

19     my associates implemented them.  And what did I waste there?  Nothing.

20     You go on to say:

21             "In my opinion, all this time devoted to these activities, had

22     that time been devoted to the trial, it is certain that the trial would

23     have been over by now."

24             Now, how could you writing something like this?  What else was I

25     supposed to devote to the trial and failed to do so?  What additional

Page 17107

 1     time?  I have engaged myself without limitations in this trial.  I was

 2     always present in the courtroom, and we did not waste a single day

 3     because of me.  Not a single day.  So how was I supposed to speed up

 4     these proceedings other than accepting these false-imposed lawyers who

 5     were supposed to defend me, which was your idea?

 6             You also disagree with my statement that I do not have the funds

 7     for my Defence, and you say given that I had an important political party

 8     in my country, I must have associates and assistants who could volunteer

 9     to help me, which can be clearly seen from the video on his web site.

10     Everybody can see that he has support and that there's a good will,

11     especially in Russia, of people willing to help him.

12             So what does this mean?  Instead of the Tribunal who, according

13     to the Statute, has to provide funds for my Defence in accordance with

14     equality of arms, you want me to beg around in Serbia and in Russia to

15     raise funds for my Defence, and you want my associates to go on

16     indefinitely assisting me financially.  Why?  They have done that.  They

17     have assisted me pro bono.  And I will owe money to them for the rest of

18     my leave.  Unless the UN reimburses me.  But why would they work

19     pro bono?  Why would they work pro bono and not these new people that

20     appear today on behalf of the Prosecution?  Why don't you ask them

21     whether any of them want to work pro bono.  None of them will.  So you

22     want my associates to work pro bono and only them.  At the same time, all

23     the rest can have high salaries.

24             Then you go on to say --

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you are going to review all

Page 17108

 1     the pages I have written, we will be here for a long time.  Because I

 2     have written hundreds of pages.

 3             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] One more paragraph, that's what I'd

 4     like, and not more than that.

 5             I have no problem with staying all night.  I was never in a

 6     hurry.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please finish your paragraph.

 8     We have five minutes left.

 9             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ...

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

11     continues] ...

12             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honour, I'm on my feet since there are only

13     five minutes left.  And it's not the Prosecution's habit to interrupt the

14     accused unless the Trial Chamber think he should be stopped, but in light

15     of the time, I -- the Prosecution duly note the Trial Chamber's

16     directions that there should be no interruptions during the closing

17     arguments of either party.

18             In light of the concerns raised by the Chamber, which I think

19     should be quite a concern, namely, the question of citation of identity

20     of protected witnesses, I would like to make a motion for an order

21     directed to the accused in particular, or it can be to the parties, but

22     making clear that if there any references during the closing argument to

23     a protected witness, the remainder of the argument will continue in

24     private session.  And the reason I say that is, the closing argument is

25     being broadcast and it is likely that there will be people in the public

Page 17109

 1     gallery.  So if there is not a willingness on the accused to respect the

 2     protection of witnesses, we submit that there must be effective measures

 3     taken.

 4             It is entirely up to the accused to decide how he make his

 5     closing arguments and what he says, but if he's not prepared to respect

 6     confidential information, then we respectfully submit that we would have

 7     to continue in private session and it is the accused's choice whether or

 8     not he wants open -- a public hearing or a closed hearing.  And we

 9     respectfully request an order to that effect so that is clear from the

10     outset.

11             Thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Seselj, what Mr. Marcussen

13     has just said is extremely important.  When you will be presenting your

14     closing arguments, you are free to speak and, of course, you should not

15     abuse this and disclose a name of a protected witness.  As Mr. Marcussen

16     has just said, some people will be in the public gallery, and we can, of

17     course, redact those names, but the people that are attending the hearing

18     can hear those names.  I assume you do have no intention of revealing the

19     names of protected witnesses, and I will be very sorry about that, but we

20     will then have to move into private session.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, Mr. Antonetti, when

22     was it that I gave the name of a protected witness away in court?  Never.

23     On the basis of this assumption made by the Prosecutor, you are issuing

24     this warning to me.  The warning makes sense only if it is addressed to

25     both parties.  You cannot prejudge which party would be willing to do

Page 17110

 1     that.  You're not interested in what I broadcast on my web site.  You are

 2     excluded from these proceedings because you wanted it that way.  And you

 3     don't have any proof here that I did that.  So on the basis of these

 4     perfidious things that were said, you cannot draw any conclusions.

 5             Also, once I mentioned the name of a witness, Colonel Vojnovic.

 6     The Prosecutor intervened.  And all of that was afterwards dealt with in

 7     closed session, although it was not my recollection that the witness had

 8     been protected.  Several months later what happened was that the

 9     Prosecutor mentioned the name of that witness.  Or was it the

10     Trial Chamber?  It was the Trial Chamber.  And then I intervened.  I said

11     you were mentioning the name of a protected witness and then you

12     established that this witness had not been protected.

13             Do you remember that situation?

14             Colonel Vojnovic testified in public.  And I took your word for

15     it that he had testified in closed session.  I cannot remember all of

16     that, and I cannot remember the list of all protected witnesses.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

18     continues] ... I note that you're telling us that you will not disclose

19     the names of protected witnesses.  That's all we are asking for.  No

20     more, no less.  That should suffice.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I haven't done that until now,

22     why would I start doing it now?  It suits me the most to have these

23     proceedings conducted in public, including the closing arguments.

24             Are you going to allow me to deal with this last paragraph as

25     well?

Page 17111

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to finish.  And my

 2     colleagues have just told me that we need to stop now.

 3             Have you two minutes to finish.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just another argument of yours:

 5     Refusing my request for financing the Defence.

 6             On page 8, you say:

 7             "I think that this is a false problem, because the accused on

 8     many occasions had an opportunity during the cross-examination of

 9     Prosecution witnesses to demonstrate his encyclopedic knowledge of events

10     and facts and without anyone's assistance or any prepared notes to

11     express his views on a given topic and in a very precise way at that.

12     This leads me to say that the accused making excuses by referring to

13     obstacles on the path of his Defence presents objections that are not

14     serious."

15             Well, here you go.  I can say that Mr. Marcussen has encyclopedic

16     knowledge, so you're going to chuckle, at least to yourself, and I can

17     say that he can run his own case without any kind of assistance, without

18     any kind of notes.  At least 20 people sat on the Prosecution side in

19     this courtroom, and you commented on the fact that I was all alone for

20     the Defence.  Once or twice my advisors were there for two or three hours

21     or so, and you find that to be normal.  And you also find it normal that

22     due to my encyclopedic knowledge I do not have to have my Defence

23     financed and that therefore it is a false problem.

24             I really had to say this as well, Mr. Antonetti, because it has

25     to do with you personally and your personal attitude towards me and this

Page 17112

 1     case.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seselj.

 3             It is now time to adjourn.  We shall meet again on the

 4     5th of March.

 5             Thank you.

 6                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.58 p.m.,

 7                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day

 8                           of March, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.