1 Tuesday, 17 February 2004

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 11.04 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Registrar, could you call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour. Case number

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

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

11 Dr. Seselj, can you follow the proceedings in a language that you

12 can understand?

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the moment, yes. For the

14 moment, yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

16 So appearances for the Prosecution.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good morning, Your Honour. For the

18 Prosecution it's trial attorney Daniel Saxon, and my name is Hildegard

19 Uertz-Retzlaff.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: And I am about to inform you, Mr. Seselj,

21 officially, although I am aware that you have been made aware of this

22 already, that Mr. Aleksandar Lazarevic is no longer standby counsel, not

23 because you requested his removal, but because as a consequence of what

24 you stated during the last Status Conference, he decided to take a

25 criminal action against you for slander, and that created a status of

1 conflict of interest, and he would no longer remain as a standby counsel.

2 So he has now been replaced by a Dutch lawyer, Mr. Tjarda Eduard van der

3 Spoel, as per decision of the Registrar dated the 16th of February, 2004.

4 Mr. van der Spoel is Dutch, as I explained earlier on. He was

5 lead Defence counsel in the case of Jean Kambanda, the former Prime

6 Minister of Rwanda in the proceedings which were conducted before the

7 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He was sworn in as an

8 attorney in Rotterdam way back in 1982 and he specialised in criminal law.

9 He is a member of the Dutch bar association, a member of the board, in

10 fact the treasurer of the Dutch Association of Defence Counsel and

11 chairman of the board and co-founder of the Rotterdam Association of

12 Defence Counsel.

13 Mr. van der Spoel, I suppose, has already been made aware of the

14 terms of reference that this Tribunal set out when Mr. Lazarevic was

15 appointed. If it's not the case, please speak out, Mr. van der Spoel. I

16 want to welcome you on board. You are not and you have not been appointed

17 as Defence counsel for the accused. In fact, the accused has a right to

18 obtain legal advice from a counsel of his own choice, provided this is

19 done in fulfilment of the requirements of our Rules.

20 So once more, welcome. I recognise your presence here in the

21 courtroom.

22 I will proceed with stating for the benefit of the public, in

23 particular, the reasons for this Trial Chamber holding a Status

24 Conference. The last Status Conference was held way back on the 29th of

25 October, 2003. In terms of and pursuant to Rule 65 bis of our Rules, the

1 Trial Chamber is required to hold a Status Conference not later than 120

2 days after the previous Status Conference, and the purpose of such Status

3 Conferences is to organise exchanges between the parties to ensure the

4 expeditious preparation for trial and to give an opportunity to the

5 accused to raise issues in relation to his or her mental and physical

6 condition, as well as conditions relating to his detention.

7 And I want to start this Status Conference by making a direct

8 reference to a matter that was raised by the accused during the last

9 Status Conference, following which the Trial Chamber indicated that it

10 will be taking direct interest, investigate the matter, and if necessary,

11 hold an additional Status Conference.

12 When we approached the end of the previous Status Conference,

13 Dr. Seselj complained that, with regard to his health condition, he needed

14 surgical intervention and had been ignored, with the result that for three

15 months he had not been given any attention at all and that he complained

16 that this situation could no longer be tolerated and was being detrimental

17 to his health. I did investigate straight away, immediately after the

18 Status Conference, only to find out that, albeit it was true that he

19 needed a surgical intervention, yet he was fully aware, as from a day

20 previous to the Status Conference itself, that an appointment had been

21 made for him for the week after to have this surgical intervention carried

22 out.

23 I have a report from two persons indicating that Dr. Seselj was

24 fully aware that this matter was being attended to and that it would have

25 been resolved the week after. I do want to register my regret that you,

1 Dr. Seselj, took advantage of the situation and instead of complaining

2 that this could have taken a shorter time, you misled the Trial Chamber

3 into believing that this matter was not receiving attention when you were

4 actually aware that it was and that the appointment for surgical

5 intervention had already been fixed and it had been brought to your

6 notice.

7 I hope that in your future dealing with this Trial Chamber, with

8 me in particular, as a Pre-Trial Judge, you will be more honest and not

9 try to mislead me or the Trial Chamber into believing things that are not

10 true. And I send my message right.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Your microphone.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your interpretation does not

14 correspond to the facts. Are you going to allow me to say what I have to

15 say now? First of all, I waited three months for that surgical

16 intervention, and there is no country in the world wherefore such an

17 operation you have to wait for three months.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Stop. I will only allow you to explain

19 why you had been told a day before that there was an appointment for your

20 surgical intervention, and instead of giving that information, passing

21 that information to me as the Pre-Trial Judge, you hid that from me. You

22 just complained that you had been waiting for three months, without

23 telling me that you were aware that the intervention was going to take

24 place the week after. If you have an explanation for that, come forward.

25 If you don't, shut up.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not hide anything from you,

2 and it was to be expected, as in all other cases, that in preparing for a

3 Status Conference, you gather the necessary information as to the health

4 of the accused, who is to appear before you. Secondly, I officially was

5 not informed --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- about the surgical intervention.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. Are you denying that you had been made aware

9 that the surgical intervention was going to be carried out the week after?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I am denying that. The nurse

11 told me that it might be the following week, just as she told me that on

12 two or three previous occasions, that it could be in a week's time and

13 wasn't in a week's time. So officially, I was not made aware of that, and

14 it is the head of the Detention Unit who, as a rule, informs the accused

15 about that, and not a nurse, who has no means of influencing the course of

16 events.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not for you to decide who tells you what. I am

18 informed, and I have no reason to doubt the information that I have been

19 given, that you were formally informed by the nurse and maybe by others,

20 that the surgical intervention was on schedule for the week after, and

21 that closes the matter, as far as I am concerned, and I am advising you

22 not to take this attitude with me, as the Pre-Trial Judge in this case,

23 because I will react.

24 The first matter on the agenda for --

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something else to say.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You will speak only when I let you speak,

2 Dr. Seselj.

3 The first item on the agenda is issues related to disclosure, and

4 I will first inform you that the Prosecution filed its second report

5 concerning disclosure, which was partly confidential, and in it, the first

6 thing that transpires is that the Prosecution indicates that

7 Rule 66(A)(ii) disclosure has not been completed because the Prosecution

8 sought the non-disclosure of some witness statements in the motion of the

9 10 September 2003 and were awaiting for the Trial Chamber's decision.

10 You can refer this to transcript page 125. The Trial Chamber

11 issued its decision on the 11th February, and in it, it decided two

12 things. First is that the Trial Chamber granted the request for the

13 issuance of a non-disclosure order under Rule 53(A), and secondly, it

14 ordered the Prosecution to provide more information to enable the Trial

15 Chamber to determine the request for pre-trial protective measures. I

16 checked earlier on today whether you have been served with a copy in your

17 own language of this decision by the Trial Chamber. I am informed that

18 you have been served with a copy today, and that is unfortunate, because I

19 precisely made sure that this decision was handed down on the 11th of

20 February, in order to enable you to have it served with it in advance,

21 well in advance of this Status Conference. Unfortunately, it didn't. I'm

22 just advising you that if you feel aggrieved by this decision, you have a

23 right of appeal and rather than discussing it here, you should make use of

24 that right, should you decide to do so.

25 With regard to the second part of that decision, I will come to

1 that later on in another part of today's agenda of this Status Conference.

2 Now, with regard to disclosure relating to Rule 67 material, in

3 the course of the last Status Conference, the accused provided the

4 Prosecution with a document of approximately 80 pages in the Serbo-Croat

5 language, under Rule 67(A)(ii)(b) relating to a special offence. Although

6 the Rule mentions that the Defence shall notify of Prosecutor of its

7 intent to offer a special defence, I had asked to be provided with a

8 courtesy copy, as one can read through the transcript of the last Status

9 Conference. The Prosecution did not object, and I'm grateful for that.

10 And the 80 pages supplied, forwarded by Dr. Seselj have now been

11 translated and a copy of the translated version was handed to me on

12 Monday, the 9th February. I have it here. I have started reading it. I

13 haven't finished as yet.

14 The Prosecution pointed out in its second report concerning

15 disclosure that it too is reviewing Dr. Seselj's document, with a view to

16 determining the factual and legal issues that are in dispute. This

17 determination will help the Prosecution to produce a list of exhibits and

18 begin disclosure of exhibits for trial pursuant to Rule 66(B). This

19 process also helps the Prosecution to produce its final pre-trial brief,

20 even though I must state that we are quite far from having reached that

21 stage as yet.

22 In addition, in the course of the last Status Conference, the

23 accused provided the Trial Chamber with three books which he alleged will

24 support his defence. Although the Prosecution indicated in Court that

25 they wanted to have copies, which would be provided by the accused at the

1 next Status Conference, my legal staff inform me that they have been

2 informed by the Prosecution that they do not require any further -- any

3 copies of these three books for the time being.

4 So that is the position relating to Rule 77 material, as far as

5 disclosure is concerned.

6 I think that before I move to Rule 68 material, I will stop here

7 for a moment. I will ask you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, if you have any remarks

8 to make on disclosure under Rule 66 and under Rule 67, and I will then

9 give the floor to Dr. Seselj.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour has summarised the situation

11 correctly except for one little detail. The document that we received

12 from the accused was actual 294 pages long, so much more than you

13 indicated. And we have reviewed this document, but -- and now fully

14 understand the nature of the accused's defence and we will focus

15 accordingly. What can be said already that the accused put forward, a lot

16 of speeches and publications and parts of the speeches --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Let's not discuss the

18 merits.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please try to -- both you and Dr. Seselj, this is a

21 Status Conference and we will restrict it to what is basically related to

22 a Status Conference. The merits of the document, be it 80 or 273 pages.

23 I have it here, as I explained, I haven't -- I have started reading it,

24 but I'm still far away from being fully aware of its contents. Will come

25 up for discussion if and when. It may come up for discussion later on, if

1 it is necessary and if it is brought within the agenda of this Trial

2 Chamber in its pre-trial stage. If you have comments to make on that

3 document, please do it formally when you are completely in a position to

4 do that and when I, as a Pre-Trial Judge, am also in a position to follow.

5 At the present moment, I am not in a position to follow because this has

6 been handed to me only a couple of days ago, as I tried to explain. And

7 it requires time for me to go through it. I want to go through it

8 accurately, not missing a single word, and then when the time is ripe to

9 discuss it, if we come to that, then we will discuss it.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I did not intend to go into the

11 merits of this document. I only wanted to indicate that it will take a

12 lot of time translating matters addressed in this document, and you will

13 therefore have to understand that we need some time to really reflect and

14 analyse everything that is brought forward. That is actually -- that is

15 what I wanted to mention.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's fair enough. And the same applies to

17 me.

18 Yes. Dr. Seselj, do you have anything to state with regard to

19 Rule 66 and Rule 67 disclosure?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is very difficult for me to state

21 my views, in view of the fact that this pre-trial Chamber, some eight

22 months ago, made a decision with respect to my request for the transcript

23 from all the Status Conferences, and the Trial Chamber decided to send me

24 videotapes of those conferences. But I have not received them up until

25 the present day, from the last Status Conference, although your service is

1 capable of providing the transcript as soon as a Status Conference is

2 over. And I learnt that when a special judge came from Belgrade to tell

3 me. So I consider this to be yet another way of impeding me in conducting

4 this process.

5 I would have to have had this aide-memoire in the form of tape,

6 and the transcripts from the Status Conferences, the previous judge,

7 Mr. Schomburg, did supply me that on time. Now something has changed in

8 that respect. So why haven't I received the videotape of the last Status

9 Conference when you all know full well that that was necessary to me to be

10 able to prepare for this particular Status Conference.

11 Secondly, let me say that I did receive the material that we're

12 discussing today, and although I was just provided it half an hour before

13 I left the Detention Unit to attend the Status Conference, I nonetheless

14 have succeeded in reading through the documents. It is the decision with

15 respect to the non-disclosure of material provided by the Prosecutor based

16 on Rule 66(A) and Rule 68 and protected measures and also 68, the

17 disclosure of exculpatory material. Now, I have no particular remarks to

18 make with respect to that ruling except to say that I do have a comment

19 with regard to the definition of the defence, the concept of defence.

20 My defence before this Tribunal is conducted by I myself, by

21 myself alone. There can be no standby counsel who will make up my defence

22 team unless I allow him to do that. And secondly, on the 26th of May,

23 2003, I submitted to the Appeals Chamber an objection to the decision to

24 provide me with a standby counsel, and I have not received an official

25 response from the Appeals Chamber to the present day, and I don't consider

1 a letter from the Senior Legal Officer as a response. Now, if my

2 objection has some formal drawbacks, then it is up to the Trial Chamber to

3 say that it rejects it because of the form it was written in, but I do not

4 accept being appointed a standby counsel.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Dr. Seselj, you have -- you can keep on rambling and

6 objecting to the appointment of the standby counsel. I can assure you

7 you're not going to dissuade the Trial Chamber to go back from its

8 decision or to go back on its decision. It's not up to you to accept or

9 not accept the standby counsel. He's there. And Mr. Lazarevic would

10 still be here had he not decided to take criminal action against you. I

11 can assure you, he would still be here. And Mr. van der Spoel will remain

12 here, irrespective of whether you like him or not or whether you want him

13 or not. That is the decision of this Trial Chamber, to have a standby

14 counsel, and if you don't like it and you have -- or you think you may

15 have a remedy, you can make use of that remedy, but I am going to stop you

16 as far as that matter is concerned.

17 With regard to the rest, you are right that -- I agree with you,

18 the decision of the 11th February should have been communicated to you

19 before. But as I said, as far as this Trial Chamber is concerned in

20 relation to the Status Conference of today, if you don't agree with that

21 decision, then file an appeal. You have a time limit within which you can

22 file an appeal, and the matter will be determined then by the Appeals

23 Chamber.

24 With regard to Rule 68 disclosure, I'm coming to it now.

25 Regarding Rule 68 material disclosure, I have the following to

1 state: First of all, I suppose you are all aware that Rule 68 has been

2 amended as a result of -- or by the plenary of the Judges of this Tribunal

3 way back in December, and the amendments took effect in the same month, if

4 I remember well, on the 24th of December.

5 In the second -- in its second report on disclosure, the

6 Prosecution discussed - I must say, I'm using the word "discussed" because

7 you did - the recent amendments to Rule 68, and what the Prosecution

8 considers to be the implications as such amendment as regards disclosure

9 of exculpatory material and other disclosures contemplated under the new

10 Rule 68.

11 The Prosecution explains in its report how it understands the

12 Rule. According to the Prosecution, the Prosecution is now obliged to

13 disclose only that material whose exculpatory character it is actually

14 aware of, and it also contends that no open-source material, such as media

15 articles, published books, would be included, as such materials are easily

16 accessible to the accused.

17 The amended Rule, according to the Prosecution, narrows down the

18 definition of exculpatory material by deleting the words: "In any way

19 tends to," language that existed in the old Rule. And then finally, the

20 Prosecution submits that amendments codify the use of the electronic

21 disclosure system which enables or would enable the accused to search the

22 OTP's, Office of the Prosecutor's collections. According to the

23 Prosecution in that respect, or in this respect, Dr. Seselj's refusal to

24 utilise computers may give rise to a problem, but according to the

25 Prosecution cannot hinder the implementation of the second paragraph of

1 Rule 68 as amended.

2 As a result, or in consequence of this interpretation of Rule 68

3 by the Prosecution in this case, the Prosecution came out with some

4 suggestions, and I want you to follow carefully what I am saying here,

5 because this is of fundamental importance.

6 The Prosecution states that it will continue disclosing

7 exculpatory material that is in its actual knowledge. Then it states that

8 the accused will have access, with the amendments to Rule 68, to new

9 material, in quotes: Through conducting a search through the electronic

10 disclosure system. However, the Prosecution also acknowledges that the

11 system is not yet fully operational for at least another six to eight

12 months. Therefore, the Prosecution offers to continue searching the new

13 material for exculpatory material until the electronic disclosure system

14 is fully operational. And finally, the Prosecution submits and suggests

15 that even when the electronic disclosure system is fully operational, it

16 will not contain a hundred per cent of the Office of the Prosecutor's

17 evidence collection, as it does not contain Rule 70 material, that is,

18 sensitive witness statements, and the Prosecutor undertakes to perform

19 updated electronic searches on exculpatory Rule 70 material and to

20 disclose this material to the accused, in accordance with Rule 68(C).

21 I want to make myself very clear that it is not and it will not be

22 regular for me, as the Pre-Trial Judge, to pronounce myself now on your

23 interpretation of the newly amended Rule 68. You have an obligation,

24 under Rule 68, as it had been amended. Try to make sure that you read

25 that Rule well. And the Trial Chamber will intervene only if your

1 application of Rule 68, when it comes to disclosure, is alleged not to be

2 regular. But I am not here to give you advice on how Rule 68 should be

3 applied by you. You apply Rule 68 material, and if Dr. Seselj has reason

4 to believe that you have not applied it well or in accordance with the

5 law, then I will make a pronouncement as to what Rule 68 means. And I

6 would also suggest that this is not a matter for interpretation.

7 Interpretation comes into play only when the Rule itself is unclear. And

8 I don't think at the present moment that Rule 68 is unclear. I will

9 certainly draw your attention to the second part of Rule 68,

10 paragraph (B), which significantly starts with the words: "Without

11 prejudice to paragraph (A)." In other words, nothing contained in

12 paragraph (B) should diminish from the rights that Dr. Seselj and any

13 other accused has to have exculpatory material disclosed under

14 paragraph (A) of Rule 68. Beyond this, I am not prepared to go for the

15 time being.

16 The other matter, of course, relates to the second part of

17 Rule 68, the problems you envisage and that I suppose you envisage

18 rightly, when it comes -- or when we come to the stage of disclosure in

19 accordance with that paragraph, that is, disclosure in an electronic form

20 of the material to which paragraph (B) of Rule 68 refers.

21 Now, at this point in time, I think it will be premature and

22 completely out of place to discuss whether this will constitute a problem,

23 to what extent it will constitute a problem, and how we could solve it,

24 because you yourself admit that the electronic disclosure system will at

25 least require another six to eight months to be put in place, and that

1 will happen. By the time that happens, we will have had at least one more

2 Status Conference, if not two. So we will deal with that problem as we go

3 along, and I am sure that we will find a practical -- a practical solution

4 to that, but I don't think it's the case of discussing this any further

5 during today's Status Conference, because it will be a sheer waste of

6 time, not knowing exactly what's going to be entailed and what the

7 situation will be like in eight months' time or even later.

8 As far as I am concerned, this closes the discussion from the

9 Chamber's side on Rule 68 material. I will now address you, madam, if you

10 have any remarks to make on Rule 68 material. But please avoid mentioning

11 or raising the matter related to electronic disclosure system or the

12 interpretation or the proper meaning of Rule 68 at this stage.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We just have filed our position in

14 writing. There's nothing to add to this, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.

16 Dr. Seselj, do you have any comments with regard to Rule 68

17 disclosure? And I will also request you to refrain from referring to

18 disclosure in an electronic form, as required by the new paragraph (B).

19 That will be dealt with at a later stage, if at all. Do you have any

20 remarks with regard to Rule 68 disclosure?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have been refraining for

22 more than half an hour, or you turn off my microphone. But I have to get

23 a copy of amended Rule 68 in order to be in a position to state anything.

24 But I haven't got it yet. I'm in a very difficult situation here, indeed,

25 because the Court is ignoring me. You did not tell me why you did not

1 submit a video-recording to me, and I have the Rules here dated the 20th

2 of March, 2003. Since then, if there have been any amendments, I have not

3 been informed about them. So how can I state my views now? I have to get

4 the amended Rules first, and then perhaps the best thing would be for you

5 to postpone this Status Conference for another three days so that I could

6 state my views, because I have no idea what is written there. I have Rule

7 68 here, the one that was valid until March 2003, and I have Rule 68 bis.

8 But this paragraph (B), or (C), if the interpreter interpreted this

9 correctly, I have never seen this before. I am not in a position to

10 consult my legal advisors, as I have been prohibited from using the

11 telephone, and for two months now I have had no contact whatsoever with

12 anyone except for the prison guards. I can have a look at it straight

13 away. You see, I react very quickly. Just give me a copy now and I will

14 be able to state my views. But you have to provide me with the document.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Registrar, how easy is it to have a copy of

16 the new Rule 68 in the Serbo-Croat language provided to the accused?

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just I may be of assistance.

18 The Rule is actually within -- the new version of the Rule is actually

19 cited completely in the motion that we filed -- in the report that we

20 filed, and therefore --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And therefore --

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- Mr. Seselj is in a position --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you have to say about that?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not in a position to say

25 anything. If the Prosecution is quoting a Rule, I have to take their word

1 for it. I do not take the word of the Prosecution for anything,

2 especially not in view of a false indictment against me. I am not going

3 to invoke the interpretation of the Prosecution of this Rule. I want to

4 have the Rule itself. I want an official Court document with the amended

5 Rule. Without it, I cannot invoke it in any way. If I trusted the

6 Prosecution, then, ha, where would that lead me to.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But I am not going to entertain any more

8 complaints now on this, because it transpires that although you told me

9 you are not aware, you were not aware even that this Rule had been

10 amended, you had every indication that it had been amended. And you could

11 have asked, since you decided to defend yourself, to be provided with a

12 copy of this newly amended Rule, and you apparently didn't. So I can't

13 help you there. All I can do is to make sure that you are handed a copy

14 of this Rule as soon as possible, but what you say is no justification for

15 me to postpone or adjourn this Status Conference.

16 Second, other matter that you mentioned. I mean, I am going to be

17 very short, concise on this. This video-recording. I am not aware of

18 your request to have a video-recording, and of course, you will have a

19 video-recording of the last Status Conference, and also of this Status

20 Conference, as soon as possible. The other thing I want to say is that

21 you are the first person I have met, Dr. Seselj, who needs to look at

22 himself on the screen to remember what was stated during the Status

23 Conference in order to be able to prepare for the subsequent Status

24 Conference.

25 With that having been said, we move to the next question, and this

1 relates to disclosure of Rule 68 material in particular, because I attach

2 to this problem a lot of importance. And this is the language problem.

3 During the last Status Conference, Dr. Seselj insisted on more than one

4 occasion that every document provided to him must be in his own language,

5 including -- and particularly including Rule 68 material. On that

6 occasion, I had pointed out two things.

7 The first was that the accused has a right to file a proper motion

8 in which the Trial Chamber will decide whether the material needs to be

9 translated in a language that he understands or not. And the OTP was also

10 advised that service of material on the standby counsel, who is not acting

11 in a representative capacity, cannot substitute for service on the

12 accused. Now, this latter statement still stands, and, Mr. van der Spoel,

13 I would like you to take notice of that. And the other thing that I wish

14 to register is that, to my knowledge, the accused has not filed a proper

15 motion relating to this language problem.

16 Then in its second report on disclosure, the Prosecution discussed

17 the problem again and suggested the following solutions: According to the

18 Prosecution, and according to its interpretation of Rule 68, this would

19 mean that all potentially exculpatory material must be translated into

20 B/C/S and -- must be translated into B/C/S, and if this is so, this would

21 create an onerous and unnecessary burden on the Office of the Prosecutor.

22 As a result, they make the following suggestions, namely, to translate the

23 specific text from each document that is exculpatory into the language of

24 the accused and provide these translations and the source to the accused.

25 According to the Prosecution, this system would allow the accused to

1 receive the actual exculpatory material in the Serbian language without

2 overtly taxing the limited resources of the Prosecution.

3 I would like -- if you have any further comments on this, you are

4 welcome to make them, but I wouldn't imagine that you have.

5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So I address you, Dr. Seselj, on this

7 matter.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have something to say.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Which is definitely of great importance to you. Go

10 ahead.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm just waiting for the

12 interpreter to finish. According to these Rules, everything that I --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Speak slowly, because if you speak at a fast rate,

14 you will create difficulties for the interpreters. So speak slowly.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. But I'm always very

16 anxious, because you have frustrated me with the way you behave. I always

17 think that you're going to switch off my microphone. Everything I raise

18 orally, verbally, at a Status Conference has the legal validity, or

19 rather, legal significance, of a written submission.

20 Secondly, last year I did inform the Court that I request that all

21 Court documents be supplied to me, and that includes the Prosecution,

22 because the Prosecution, in the broader sense of the word, is part of the

23 Court. And I insist that all these documents be provided to me in the

24 Serbian language, that is, the only language I understand. Quite simply

25 I'm not going to receive anything else that you send me. I have properly

1 signed for everything that you sent me in the Serbian language.

2 As for you, your task is to accuse me and to convict me. You can

3 try me in any language. You can do anything. And that is what I take as

4 my point of departure that you can do anything but I know what I do not

5 have to do. I never have to receive a single document in a language I do

6 not understand. And you will have to translate everything into

7 Serbo-Croat ultimately, because it is your duty to provide me with all of

8 that. That is my law, according to all international documents, according

9 to the international covenant on civil rights, and I'm never going to give

10 up on that. I'm not interested in your problems. I already told you,

11 engage another thousand translators and interpreters. I guess you can get

12 the money from people who will willing to finance you. Your problems are

13 your problems. I am not burdening the Prosecution with my technical

14 problems, and the Court should be interested in my technical problems.

15 As for that video cassette, Judge, I have here a ruling of the

16 Trial Chamber that I get video-recordings of each and every Status

17 Conference, and also, once the trial begins, that I get all the trial

18 recordings every day and that I have the exact minutes and seconds shown

19 when things were said. So that if I possibly lodge an appeal, that I can

20 say exactly on which day, at which hour, and at which minute somebody said

21 something. I have a copy of that. You must have a copy of that. If I

22 have the facilities, I'd photocopy it for you in prison and I'd send you a

23 copy. There is no point in accentuating this question of language any

24 more. It is crystal clear. Everything has to be provided to me in a

25 language which is the only one I understand. The other day the

1 Prosecution tried to send me I think 57 documents on computer diskettes.

2 Again, I cannot accept that. I cannot receive that. How can I deal with

3 these diskettes? Everything has to be on paper. Paper is the basic

4 material that courts throughout the world deal with. What is not on paper

5 is considered non-existent. If there is a replacement for paper then it

6 is only in order to have things handled as easily as possible, but then

7 ultimately all of that has to be on paper as well so it could serve its

8 purpose. So finally everything has to be on paper and everything has to

9 be in the Serbian language. If you have other technical problems, let

10 them open me an office. I am my own defence counsel. Let them open me a

11 defence counsel office at the Detention Unit. I'm in a single cell, like

12 all the other detainees. That's no problem in itself. But the problem is

13 that I have nowhere to store these piles of documents that are being

14 served on me.

15 So according to Rule 68, it is your duty to disclose to me in good

16 time, as soon as you get in possession -- in your possession any

17 exculpatory materials. If you do not do that, there are sanctions

18 provided for in Rule 68 bis, unless that Rule has been amended in the

19 meantime as well. Please bear this in mind. This is a serious Court and

20 this process is too.

21 You are referring to its historical importance in the document

22 that was handed to me today, so in this historical process, do not only

23 ask the accused to become familiar with the Rules of a court through the

24 documents of the Prosecution. This is quite a compliment that you're

25 actually paying me. When I came here, when I set out to come here, first

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 and foremost, I knew that this would be a historic trial, no doubt.

2 Again, according to Rule 66, all documents have to be provided to

3 me, everything that is related to my trial, and I insist that all of this

4 be provided to me.

5 The Prosecution said that I did not submit a request for that, and

6 I'm submitting it right now. It was not a priority for me then. It is a

7 priority for me now, especially because I've received information that the

8 Prosecution will not be trial ready before 2006. So I want to deal with

9 everything in good time, so I ask that these documents be provided to me

10 so that I would have enough time. So this is another request I have for

11 the Prosecution.

12 That is what I wish to say, Your Honour, about this particular

13 question, that is to say, acting in accordance with Rule 68, and thank you

14 for not having interrupted me this time.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Rule 68 does not require, Dr. Seselj, disclosure in

16 your language. Other Rules do, but Rule 68 doesn't. And in order to be

17 concise on this, I would suggest that you be given a copy of the Trial

18 Chamber II's decision in the Brdjanin case on the application of Rule 68

19 disclosure and a translation in -- and translation in the language of the

20 accused.

21 Registrar, this is a decision which was handed down by the

22 Brdjanin -- in the Brdjanin case.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I just say

24 something?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I did not give you permission to speak as yet. I

1 will when I have finished, Dr. Seselj. And please do try to remember that

2 I am the Judge here and you are the accused, and that this is no special

3 case and it will not be dealt with as a special case. If you consider it

4 as a historic case, you may be eluding yourself or leading yourself in an

5 alley which I call delusion of grandeur but it is like any other case and

6 it will be dealt with like any other case. So please don't get keyed up

7 on it. You will be dealt with like every other accused here and your

8 rights will be the same as they are sanctioned by our Rules, and no more

9 than that. Anyway, I will give you a copy, Madam Registrar, at the end of

10 the sitting of this decision, and you will then have it -- make sure that

11 it is available also in the language of the accused and have it sent to

12 him at the Detention Unit, because it's a decision which is important as

13 far as the disclosure is concerned.

14 With regard to another matter that was raised by Dr. Seselj in his

15 remarks, and that is his refusal of two CDs that were offered to him on

16 the 9th of February, 2004. I am informed that one of these CDs contains

17 the records of public hearings concerning the events in the Ovcara farm in

18 November 1991, and the other CD, the installation software of the search

19 engine Z search [phoen], version 4, which is needed to view these

20 documents.

21 But I am informed that without prejudice to its further rights at

22 a later stage, the Prosecution will print out hard copies of these public

23 hearings concerning the events in the Ovcara farm. Roughly we're talking

24 of a hundred pages or so. And they will be handed to you in paper form.

25 Let me come now to pending motions. There is the motion filed by

1 the Prosecution for non-disclosure of materials provided pursuant to

2 Rule 68(A)(ii) and 68, and for protective measures for witnesses during

3 the pre-trial stage. As I stated earlier on, the Trial Chamber has issued

4 its decision on the 11th of February, granting the request for the

5 issuance of a non-disclosure order. That's in terms of Rule 53(A). And

6 ordering the Prosecution to provide more information to enable the Trial

7 Chamber to determine the request for pre-trial protective measures.

8 Now, it is clear that the first part can only be dealt with

9 outside this Trial Chamber if, and only if, there is an appeal. With

10 regard to the second part, the Trial Chamber will make an assessment, will

11 assess the Prosecution's request for protective measures in more detail

12 when it has received more information as we try to point out in our

13 decision of the 11th February. Do you have any remarks on this latter

14 part?

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you. This does not really

17 concern you for the time being. It will concern you if we receive

18 further -- further information. You want to say something else. Yes, go

19 ahead, Dr. Seselj, but please try to be short.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that this does have to

21 do with me and concern me. First of all, not a single gesture on my part

22 or a position on my part have I challenged the identity of any protected

23 witness whatsoever, nor have I ever brought into question the

24 confidentiality of evidence that has been deemed confidential. And I

25 shall abide by that to the end and keep to that obligation. The

1 Prosecution has no reason to doubt at all that I could ever disclose the

2 name of a protected witness or any confidential material, and I do not

3 think that there is any reason for the Prosecution, except if it wishes to

4 gain time, which I think is their basic reason, to insist upon that at

5 all. It is not in my own interests to do that. Why would I want to do

6 that? I am quite convinced that here in the courtroom I will win the

7 witnesses, whether they be protected or not. I will win over them. And,

8 Your Honour, it is the same decision. Please take a look at page 3.2.

9 You speak of the historical importance of this case, and not I myself.

10 And I'm just agreeing with you here and supporting your position on that

11 point. I have not come here with delusions of grandeur. But it is your

12 position and your attitude. Perhaps you will help me build up some

13 delusions of grandeur. But it says here the historical importance of this

14 case and I agree with you there. So you attack me even when I agree with

15 you, let alone when I don't agree with you, so I don't think that is

16 proper at all. Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. So we will await for further information from

18 you on the -- as a basis for the protective measures that you seek and

19 then we will hand down our decision later on.

20 Now, the second matter in respect of pending motions or pending

21 matters is the accused's objection to the indictment which was filed on

22 the 15th of January, 2004, even though it is dated 24th of December, 2003.

23 Now, the Prosecution responded on the 29th of January, 2004. And

24 the translation, I understand, has been filed on the 10th of February,

25 2004. I want to make sure, first and foremost, that you, Dr. Seselj, have

1 been served with a copy in your language of the Prosecution's response.

2 Just answer yes or no.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: As a consequence, now I can state that the Trial

5 Chamber, and that's the collegial Trial Chamber, not just me, but the

6 other two Judges as well will start its deliberations on this matter, and

7 when we are in a position to hand down our decision, we will hand down our

8 decision. I can state here that there are some very important matters

9 raised in both the accused's objection to the indictment and the

10 Prosecution's response, which require particular attention by this Trial

11 Chamber, and we will give all these matters utmost attention.

12 Are there any other matters that you would like to raise? I will

13 start with the Prosecution first.

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, actually, Mr. Saxon would like

15 to address you on the pending motion that you just referred to.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Which pending motion?

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The pending motion on the form of the

18 indictment.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. Yes, Mr. Saxon.

20 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. First of all, the Prosecution

21 would like to correct an error in the response that it filed --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I will have to go to that first.

23 Yes.

24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes.

1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution has noted an error in

2 paragraph 21 to its response to the accused's objection to the indictment.

3 If I could direct your attention to that paragraph. It is on page 10 of

4 the Prosecution's response.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

6 MR. SAXON: The second sentence of that paragraph begins with the

7 word: "Accordingly," and reads this way: "Accordingly, the Prosecution

8 has fully and properly pled the jurisdictional prerequisites for crimes

9 against humanity with respect to counts 10 and 12 of the indictment."

10 The word "12" is an error here, Your Honour. That should be "11."

11 JUDGE AGIUS: So it should read: "And his complaints based on the

12 principle of nullum crimen sine lege in paragraphs 10 to 11 above."

13 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour. I'm speaking about the following

14 sentence.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: "Accordingly, the Prosecution has fully and properly

16 pled the jurisdiction prerequisites for crimes against humanity with

17 respect to counts 10 and 11 of the indictment."

18 MR. SAXON: Correct, Your Honour, and we wanted to draw your

19 attention and the attention of the accused to that error.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, in addition, the Prosecution has prepared

22 an oral submission regarding the merits of some of the objections made by

23 the accused to the indictment, and with your leave, I will make that

24 submission. It will take five to ten minutes.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.

1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the accused argues in his objection to

2 the indictment --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me make one thing clear, Mr. Saxon, that I do

4 not expect Dr. Seselj to be prepared to respond to your oral submissions

5 today. This was not expected and not exactly normal. So I will not ask

6 him to respond today. If need be, we will have another Status Conference,

7 in the course of which he will respond.

8 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour. Thank you.

9 Your Honour, the accused argues in his objection to the indictment

10 that this Tribunal cannot have -- cannot exercise its jurisdiction under

11 Article 5 of the Statute over the crimes alleged in counts 10 to 11 of the

12 indictment. These are crimes that were alleged to have occurred around

13 the town of Hrtkovci which is located in the Republic of Serbia. The

14 accused alleges that no armed conflict occurred in the Autonomous Republic

15 of Vojvodina. Therefore, no jurisdiction lies.

16 Your Honour, the standard for this Tribunal's jurisdiction over

17 Article 5 charges was set by the Kunarac appeal judgement, case number

18 IT-96- --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm going to stop you, because this is not regular.

20 I don't think that the Status Conference is meant to cover such

21 submissions. If you have further submissions in addition to what you have

22 already filed, please reduce them into writing, have them translated into

23 the language of the accused, and then the accused will have an opportunity

24 to respond further to these additional submissions. But I'm not going to

25 reduce a Status Conference to a debate on pending -- on the contents, on

1 the merits of pending motions. That's not the purpose of a Status

2 Conference.

3 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Are there any further matters that you

5 would like to raise from the Prosecution's side?

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

8 Are there further matters that you would like to raise,

9 Dr. Seselj?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have several matters that

11 I have to raise today, because they are of the nature of a Status

12 Conference. And Your Honour, a moment ago you said that I should be

13 provided the ruling in the Brdjanin case with respect to the exculpatory

14 material to be provided in the Serbian language. You know that

15 Mr. Brdjanin has his attorney, and pursuant to the Rules, all attorneys

16 must know either English or French. Now, as I am defending myself, I

17 don't know why I need it, although of course I would like to read it,

18 because I don't myself have to know English. Now, if I have to know the

19 English language, then it's your duty to teach me English. My rights --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I will interrupt you, because when you try to reduce

21 the proceedings to ridicule, like you are trying to do now, I will stop

22 you. I am the Judge. You are the accused, Dr. Seselj. There are the

23 Rules and you will have to stick by the Rules, and I will apply them and

24 if it needs be to shut you down completely, I will shut you down

25 completely. If you don't want a copy of the judgement in the Brdjanin

1 case, which I kindly offered you, you won't get it. If you don't want it,

2 I won't give it to you.

3 Go ahead.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nothing was ever ridiculous to me

5 here, Your Honour. No ridicule at all. Nor was anything funny to me. I

6 have not laughed throughout this Status Conference, so I don't see why you

7 started today's Status Conference in so much anger. I assume that some

8 reason for that exists, but I don't think that I caused that. I would

9 like to receive that document. I'm just drawing your attention to the

10 fact that it cannot refer to my own case.

11 Secondly, I should like to inform you that there have been

12 violent -- great violations of my rights as the accused and a person in

13 detention. I have been deprived the right of any visits and any contacts

14 at all.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I will stop you here. If you have reasons to

16 complain about the way you are being treated in the detention, you've got

17 remedies. The remedies are not to bring them up in the course of a Status

18 Conference. The remedies are in accordance to the Rules that you have,

19 which regulate the Detention Unit, and in particular, the right that you

20 have to have direct access to the President of this Tribunal, under

21 Rule 19(A) of the Rules. But it is not within my jurisdiction as the

22 Presiding Judge or as a Pre-Trial Judge to tell the commandant of the

23 Detention Unit how to deal with you. So I will only deal with matters.

24 You can mention these matters here in the Status Conference. Just

25 mention, and I will tell you: Yes, you can go ahead, or no, you can't go

1 ahead with discussing this matter here in the Status Conference. You have

2 a right to appeal directly to the President of the Tribunal.

3 So I hope I have made that clear to you. This is not a forum for

4 you to discuss everything that comes to your mind. This is a Status

5 Conference, and we will discuss only matters which are related and

6 pertinent to the Status Conference.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, practice in Court so

8 far speaks otherwise. I would like to remind you that at the last Status

9 Conference you asked me whether I had any comments to make with respect to

10 the conditions of detention and I said that I did not because I did not at

11 the time. Now when you know full well that I do have a lot of objections

12 to make, you wish to avoid that. Therefore, I assume that that Rule might

13 have been changed from the end of October to the present day perhaps, and

14 pursuant to Rule 65 bis(A)(ii) I do enjoy the right to speak on issues

15 which I consider to be linked to the trial and my case, including my

16 health, both physical and mental. And you're now preventing me in doing

17 so, because you know full well that in my particular case, international

18 law has been violated, I have been condemned to death, and had I been

19 condemned to death, my family would not have been allowed to visit me, and

20 that is what has been done here. You don't want to hear about that. If

21 you want to prevent me in saying all this then I won't bring the matter

22 up. But I have the impression, Your Honour, that your nervousness and

23 anger seems to want to provoke some reaction on my part, a turbulent one,

24 and then this to be cause for an incident to arise and for me to be taken

25 out of the courtroom. No, Your Honour. I should like to tell you that

1 nobody can provoke me in that manner because I am in full control of

2 myself. So there's no need for you to show anger. If I'm accused here, I

3 don't show anger towards you or towards the Prosecution so there's no

4 reason for you to demonstrate anger either, unless you're motivated by any

5 personal reasons which I do not know about. So do you still abide by what

6 you said that you're not going to allow me to speak about the conduct of

7 the Registry towards me? I'm not complaining of the Detention Centre but

8 the Tribunal that has unlawfully set itself out as an institution. I have

9 not been disciplined, I'm not being sanctioned, but I am being kept in

10 total isolation because my political party was very strong at the latest

11 elections and the decision to isolate me says that the problem is that we

12 won 82 seats in parliament.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj, this is not a political platform. I

14 will not allow you to make any political speeches. If you have specific

15 complaints regarding your detention, I ask you mention them and I will

16 immediately tell you this is something that is pertinent to the Status

17 Conference, this is something which is not pertinent to the Status

18 Conference. This is something for which you have a remedy under Rule 19

19 of the Rules, of the applicable Rules. So let's not waste time. If you

20 have specific complaints, do mention them and we will deal with them one

21 by one.

22 (Redacted)

23 (Redacted)

24 (Redacted)

25 (Redacted)

1 (Redacted)

2 (Redacted)

3 (Redacted)

4 (Redacted)

5 (Redacted)

6 (Redacted)

7 (Redacted)

8 (Redacted)

9 (Redacted)

10 (Redacted)

11 (Redacted)

12 (Redacted)

13 (Redacted)

14 (Redacted)

15 (Redacted)

16 (Redacted)

17 (Redacted)

18 (Redacted)

19 (Redacted)

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I would like to have this paragraph starting from

21 page 32, line 22 -- sorry. Line 24 to be redacted, to be redacted, and

22 that basically means also that members of the public are being prohibited

23 from repeating or relaying to others what the accused has just stated with

24 regard to another detainee.

25 Dr. Seselj, you have no right to speak like you did with regard to

1 any other detainee, and I will stop you immediately the moment you try

2 again. Plus, this will not be relayed outside this courtroom. When you

3 try to be -- decide to be honest with this Trial Chamber, this Trial

4 Chamber will treat you better.

5 Yes. Go ahead.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You, Your Honour, have several times

7 said here already that I should be honest and act accordingly, act

8 honestly, which would imply that I have not been honest thus far. So

9 quite simply I have to protest about conduct of this kind on your part. I

10 have been continuously honest. I am defending my own rights here to the

11 best of my ability, and also adhering to the Rules and Regulations in

12 conformity with the Statute of the International Tribunal, although I

13 challenge the legality of that Tribunal which is also my right. And you

14 have repeated several times to me here that attorney Lazarevic has brought

15 up criminal action for slander against me as if that is something against

16 me. It just demonstrates the kind of man Lazarevic is, not what I am

17 doing, but you are presenting this that I seem to recognise in this

18 contact some very negative emotions expressed through your own words. So

19 I think you'll be the first to testify in my advantage if Aleksandar

20 Lazarevic brings this criminal action to Court. And I don't think there

21 will be any trial on that and you as a Judge yourself know full well that

22 for what I say here during the proceedings in defence of my rights I

23 cannot be taken to court criminally before another court, especially not a

24 national court, let alone the fact that I only spoke the truth.

25 However, there are some other problems here, Your Honour, so you

1 can interrupt me straight away, and whenever you interrupt me, I accept

2 that quite calmly and don't proceed, because I'm afraid that you'll become

3 even more nervous. On the 20th of October I tabled a request to the

4 Registry that the International Tribunal should take part in the financing

5 of my defence. To the present day, I have received no response from them

6 and my legal advisors are already asking to be paid, and this is an

7 enormous money because they did a lot of work in drawing up the document

8 that numbers 300 pages that the OTP is referring to and the motion with

9 regard to the indictment and whether other potential defence witnesses and

10 their calling [as interpreted]. So I demand that my defence be financed

11 in the extent to which the International Tribunal is duty-bound to do so,

12 bearing in mind the conducts of this Tribunal in all the other cases and

13 that it be applied to my own. Because my legal advisors will no longer

14 wish to work for me if I don't pay them, so what am I going to do then?

15 How can I come to terms with the enormous mechanisms that the OTP has at

16 its disposal. Secondly, I can say with satisfaction that you have already

17 legalised in an indirect way the work of my legal advisors by the fact

18 that the documents compiled by them in my own name and signed you are

19 taking into consideration. So you should draw the attention of the

20 Registrar not to mistreat me in that way and to agree with them so that I

21 can have communication provided for by the Rules that nobody can prevent

22 me in having when they isolated me and brought the decision to isolate me

23 and not to allow me to talk to anybody except my legal advisors and the

24 consul. I asked to talked to my legal advisors and the guards offered me

25 Aleksandar Lazarevic. So they have curtailed that right as well.

1 And I'm bearing in mind a historical legal example. When Adolf

2 Hitler took Georgi Dimitrov to trial under the false indictment to -- for

3 setting fire to the Reichstag, Georgi Dimitrov, in front of

4 Hitler's court, was given the chance to defend himself and to defend

5 himself successfully and no legal principle was overruled with that. I

6 have no chance here. There was always somebody who is angry, who raises

7 his voice, who interrupts me, and with respect to my own rights, this

8 Tribunal is far worse than Hitler's court that took Georgi Dimitrov to

9 trial. So that is my professional opinion as to that question as a legal

10 man myself, Your Honour. Even if there was somebody else sitting here, I

11 would have that same view and hold that same opinion. Why are you afraid

12 of my words? Why are you always redacting things from the transcript? I

13 have experienced here that you, from my written submission that I sent to

14 the Trial Chamber, deleted certain words that I used there. Once it was

15 photocopied, there was white ink written up over it and it was thrown out

16 in the translation. I don't know that there is a single court behaving in

17 that way. And I did not mention a protective witness. I did not bring up

18 any protected piece of evidence or material which would come under the

19 Rules in this respect and could not be accessible to the public.

20 So here it seems that from one case to the next, conduct changes

21 and is not aligned with the law. It is sometimes aligned with personal

22 interests, personal animosity, open hatred at times and so on and so

23 forth. And I really don't know how long this is going to last. And

24 finally, I should like to say the following to you: I am ready to have my

25 case go to trial immediately. I have tried to have legal advisors; you

1 haven't let me have them. I have tried to have the court participate in

2 the payment for my defence. There's no response, which means rejection.

3 So there's nothing left for me to try and do. And I'm ready for the trial

4 to go ahead tomorrow if necessary. I have nobody to table my submissions

5 to. You have isolated me from my family and so that is a fait accompli,

6 as far as I'm concerned, and this is an indication for the public of what

7 kind of Tribunal this is. And I'm not going to write to the President of

8 the Tribunal with my complaints. I will remain isolated rather than have

9 to write a letter to him, and you can draw the conclusions you wish to

10 draw. I am ready, I'm trial ready. We can go to trial tomorrow, and

11 you'll see that the Prosecution won't be ready even by 2006 because they

12 raise the indictment first and then began looking for material to

13 substantiate their case subsequently, and this has brought them into a

14 situation where they don't know what to do with the indictment itself.

15 They had political interest to raise the indictment but they now don't

16 have the legal arguments to substantiate it. So that's what happened in

17 this case. So if that's the case for your dissatisfaction and your

18 terrible anger then I understand you. But I'm not -- that is not

19 something that angers me because I have come here to win and I shall win

20 because I have more forcible arguments than the Prosecution does. And

21 through the force of argument I am going to win.

22 You have supported the head of the Detention Unit not to allow to

23 photocopy a single material for me and I can say that I can have the right

24 to photocopy any material for my defence but my associates won't be able

25 to circulate it if it is confidential, and I have to inform you what --

1 who those individuals are so that they should not disclose these matters

2 and not be held in contempt of Court. Now, where am I going to photocopy

3 this material? I would have more material to supply the OTP with but I

4 cannot do so because I cannot photocopy any documents. So we can either

5 normalise the situation here to enable a normal trial or that will be it.

6 And let me conclude by saying the following: It is far more to my

7 advantage the hatred you have shown towards me, constant interruption,

8 constant deriding, isolating me from my family and the public, that is far

9 to my advantage. It is a -- rather than if you had an offensive of

10 graciousness sticking to the rules, enabling me to enjoy all my rights

11 perhaps in that way you would be disarming me. However, this way you have

12 strengthened me in my conviction that you're not a proper Tribunal, that

13 you're an unlawful organ -- institution who through a criminally --

14 criminal act was set up by the Security Council and that that organ is not

15 capable of bringing this process to a close against me because it just

16 doesn't know how to proceed. You're conscious of that, so you haven't

17 written that this is a process of historical significance. You are quite

18 aware of the fact that generations of legal men are learning a lesson of

19 how they should proceed in court cases, using this case as an example.

20 I'm not going to table any more submissions. There's no reason

21 for me to do that. There's no need for me to burden the OTP. If they

22 disclose some materials, well and good. If they don't disclose anything,

23 they haven't got any money to translate them, or whatever, they don't have

24 to do so. Let the trial begin. Let's see what the OTP has at its

25 disposal. And then you'll come to see that the Prosecutors themselves

1 have nothing in their hands, nothing at their disposal, and that is why

2 everything that you've been doing for the past year and everything that's

3 being happening here for the past year is because you're faced with a

4 situation of that kind.

5 Thank you nor not interrupting me this time.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. For the record, the part of Dr. Seselj's

7 speech relating to his request to the Registrar to have, according to him,

8 his legal advisors be paid from the funds of the Tribunal be singled out

9 and copied to the Registrar for his attention in case the matter is still

10 pending or needs his attention to it. But for the record, I think the of

11 representation, as far as Dr. Seselj's request to have counsel appointed

12 for him, has been already dealt with at various levels in this Tribunal

13 and there are decisions in accordance to which the Registrar is expected

14 to act.

15 With regard to your state of health, Dr. Seselj, are there any

16 matters or any matter that you would like to raise?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, at every Status Conference you

18 and your predecessor have been putting this question to me, and then you

19 accuse me of having hidden certain things from you in relation to my

20 health. I never hid anything. The vague statement made by the nurse that

21 there may be an operation next week, that is no appointment. You know

22 full well how appointments of that kind are made. But perhaps I made a

23 mistake for having complained about my health at all. Perhaps it would

24 have been more in line with the kind of court this is for me to remain the

25 way I am, without an operation, and let me go on for as long as I can go

1 on.

2 Secondly, at four Status Conferences - this is the fourth - and at

3 the Initial Appearance, I put the question of mental suffering forth

4 because of the clothing I have to wear, in view of your Rules. Judge

5 Schomburg said that he would provide me with the Rules that governs the

6 clothing that is worn in the courtroom by all involved. I have not

7 received these Rules yet. Last time when I talked about that problem, you

8 laughed, and that is a very serious problem for me. And you have to

9 persuade me that I have to suffer for this, watching you wear this kind of

10 Roman Catholic robes and so on. Because in my court, no such -- in my

11 country, in the courts in my country, no such clothing is worn. Judges

12 and everybody in court wear decent civilian clothes.

13 Please don't misunderstand me. Please take this quite seriously.

14 The Court has to take a position of principle about this. Who established

15 this, on what basis, and for what reasons, and why precisely such attire?

16 That is so frustrating to me. You see, after the Judges and the

17 Prosecutors and the standby lawyer and the Court officials appear in such

18 clothing, I expect to be boiled in a cauldron after that, tortured,

19 killed. That is the kind of thing that comes to my mind, this kind of

20 attire that you wear. It is just like an SS or Gestapo uniform, as far as

21 I'm concerned.

22 The history of my people has identical experience with this kind

23 of clothing worn by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and also the experience

24 we've had with the Gestapo, the SS, et cetera. So once and for all,

25 please take a stand with regard to such matters, and don't say that I am

1 dealing with this frivolously. I'm not. I'm not dealing with any of this

2 frivolously. The Court has to take a position on this and explain why it

3 is precisely so.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Seselj. The Court will do

5 nothing about this, what you have mentioned. If it is a problem to you, I

6 am afraid you will have to live with it. And if my predecessor, Judge

7 Schomburg, said that he would provide you with the Rules that govern the

8 clothing, et cetera, I am reversing that decision. I will provide you

9 with nothing. These are our robes, and if you don't like them, look in

10 some other direction.

11 Anything else before we rise? So I declare this Status Conference

12 to come to an end now. The next Status Conference will be convened in

13 accordance with the Rules, that is, within 120 days from today. Thank

14 you.

15 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

16 12.35 p.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25