1 Friday, 19 May 2006
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is case number
8 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Mr. Seselj, can you hear me in a language you understand?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Could I have the appearances.
13 Prosecution first.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the
15 Prosecution, my name is Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and I appear with
16 Mr. Dan Saxon, and we are accompanied by our case manager, Ana Katalinic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
18 For the Defence. I see, Mr. Seselj, you are present. You are
19 defending yourself. And I also see that Mr. Van der Spoel, stand-by
20 counsel, is present.
21 Is there anything the parties would like to raise specifically
22 which would not be in the usual expectation of matters to be dealt with at
23 a Status Conference? Mr. Seselj, are there any specific issues you'd like
24 to be dealt with?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have 12 issues of status to raise,
1 but they are not unusual in any way. These are issues that have to do
2 with regular Status Conferences.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll first go through an agenda which I
4 have in my mind. If there would be anything that should be added, then
5 you'll have an opportunity to raise them.
6 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, any specific issues you'd like to raise
7 which might have slipped out of my mind?
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The only additional issue that doesn't appear
9 here but could actually be -- belong to point 4, start of trial, is the
10 matter of e-court, whether we will have the exhibits dealt with in e-court
11 fashion or otherwise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then let's get started.
13 First of all, I'd like to inform the parties to the extent they're
14 not yet aware of it that on the 4th of May, 2006, the President has issued
15 a decision assigning this case is Trial Chamber I, which is composed of
16 Judge Moloto, Judge Robinson, and myself. As matters stand now, I will
17 preside over the case. On the 12th of May, I designed -- designated
18 myself as the Pre-Trial Judge in this case.
19 I further inform the parties that there is a fair chance that the
20 Chamber which will finally hear the case will consist of Judge Robinson,
21 myself, and an Ad Litem Judge still to be appointed. So that's what the
22 parties could reasonably expect since Judge Moloto is sitting on another
24 That's by way of introduction. The next matter I'd like to raise
25 is, Mr. Seselj, your health and your present conditions of detention. Is
1 there anything you'd like to raise in this respect? And please first
2 mention the issue and then we'll see where we stand. So if you would
3 please mention any issue you'd like to raise in this respect.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Recently I was subjected to a large
5 number of medical examinations; an examination of my heart with a scanner,
6 an EEG, ultrasound, and all the results were good. My blood-work is
7 excellent. I've had my eyes examined, and they're in good order. The
8 spine in the neck area, the cervical spine, is excellent. But I was very
9 surprised when the prison authorities refused to let my wife come for her
10 regular visit unless she signed a promise not to inform anyone about my
11 state of health. I was immediately frightened that the Registry has a
12 dangerous disease in store for me. That is why I have submitted a written
13 motion, asking you to ask for a complete report on my health from the
14 Registry and the Detention Unit.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj, I do understand you have filed a written
16 motion for that. We'll consider the matter.
17 For the sake of the transcript I would like to have my name rather
18 than the name of Judge Agius on it. I don't know how it's -- probably
19 technically resolved. So I do understand you have filed a written
20 motion. I take it you are aware of what are the competences of the
21 Registry and at what point you should address whom if you disagree with
22 any decision of the Registry. We'll see what we find in that motion
23 there. Is there any word count in that motion at the end, Mr. Seselj?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That motion is ten-pages long, as
25 prescribed, and unfortunately I have not been allowed to communicate and
1 receive technical assistance from my collaborator so I have not been able
2 to conduct a word count however, length is 10 pages.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, to count the words, everyone can do that.
4 That's just you start at the beginning with 1 and then you see where it
5 ends. I'm raising the issue because I noticed that you didn't do it, and
6 I also noticed that one of your last responses most likely -- and I got
7 the effort of one page -- most likely goes beyond 3.000 words. It's not
8 10 pages, but if 10 pages would be more than 3.000 words, you're limited
9 to 3.000 words.
10 I add to that the following: It's not prescribed that you should
11 use 10 pages. It is just the limit set by our president. I also noticed
12 that some of your submissions are quite often repetitious, that they are
13 quite prolix. If you would continue with writing repetitious arguments,
14 if you would continue to be as prolix as I found you to be in the recent
15 and perhaps also in the older submissions, the Chamber might well set
16 another limit for submissions. So I leave it up to you to either to --
17 not to file any submissions which are prolix and which are repetitious.
18 Then, of course, we'll receive them, at least if all the other
19 requirements are met.
20 If you would continue to be prolix and repetitious, it might well
21 be that we will set other limits for you. And again, the 10 pages is an
22 upper limit determined in general for cases, which leaves discretion to
23 the Chamber to reduce that number if specific circumstances require us to
24 do so.
25 So -- but we'll have a look at the -- at the written submission
1 you made. I already reminded you what the procedure is. Any further
2 submission should be with a word count at the bottom of it.
3 Any other matter in relation to your health, Mr. Seselj, you'd
4 like to raise?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, but I have something to say
6 about the conditions of detention.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please raise any issue related to the
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the Detention Unit, there is a
10 major problem. I am referring exclusively to the detained Serbs. I am
11 not going into Croats, Macedonians, Albanians, or others. I'm not
12 interested in that. But, Mr. Orie, I demand that there be an immediate
13 separation between all those who are Serbs and who have entered into a
14 plea or an agreement with the Prosecution and who have agreed to testify
15 falsely in other -- in various proceedings. Otherwise, you may expect
16 bloody showdowns. The problems are enormous, and you should remove all
17 those false witnesses from our milieu.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Have you made any request yet to the Detention Unit
19 and to the Registry in this respect?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I orally asked the warden of the
21 Detention Unit to remove from the group I'm in a person of that nature.
22 This is Admiral Miodrag Jokic. He is the only one in my group. But today
23 I have also submitted a motion in writing to the Pre-Trial Chamber,
24 Pre-Trial Chamber I, with a similar request. I made this same request to
25 the warden orally some ten days ago.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's already received by the Registry or not,
2 Mr. Seselj? Is it still in the Detention Unit, or is it already sent out?
3 Are you aware of that?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know. It's my duty to give
5 the motion to the guard on duty on my floor, and I have no idea what
6 happens to the motion after that. I am not able to monitor that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any word count in it?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the first time that a Judge
11 has drawn my attention to the word count. Previously, they drew my
12 attention to the 10-page limit.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if you'd be interested, you could be
14 provided with the information needed in this practice direction since it
15 seems that you're not aware of it.
16 So we will receive a written motion on that as well. We'll see --
17 well, at least your attention has now been drawn two times to it. And
18 again, you're not encouraged to raise any issue -- all the issues in 10
19 pages. As I said before, the Chamber will certainly look at your
20 submissions, and again, if they are repetitious, if they are prolix, other
21 -- other limits may be set.
22 If for this reason you'd like to -- I don't know whether -- no,
23 please, Mr. -- I was asking something to Madam Registrar. Has it been
24 filed already or is it received? Are you not aware of it?
25 We will find out. If there would be any wish on your side, for
1 these reasons, to receive it back and reconsider your submission, I'd like
2 to hear from you. If not, we'll deal with it in accordance with the
4 Any other matter about detention conditions, Mr. Seselj?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I demand that you
6 implement your new restrictions as of today, that you don't apply them to
7 the motions I submitted this morning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- that's on the record. Any other issues in
9 relation to the conditions of detention, Mr. Seselj?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I had some items I reviewed -- just I mention them to
12 be sure that we -- that there's nothing forgotten. Asthma and allergies
13 of yours have not been again raised, so I take it that that's no actual
14 problem. Yeast and mould allergy, similarly. Air quality and
15 construction work have not been raised again. I do understand that you
16 have moved from one cell to another so that you would be at a further
17 distance from the construction works.
18 Anything other on health or conditions of detention, Mr. Seselj?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, as regards my asthma and
20 allergy, that is a permanent situation. I raised this last year, asking
21 to be moved back to the old building of the UN Detention Unit. As that
22 building is no longer in use and all the detainees are now in the same
23 building, I am no longer raising this issue, because I don't believe you
24 would open up the old building for myself alone.
25 As for my asthma and allergy, I am taking medication and I cannot
1 avoid the aggravating circumstances prevailing in the Detention Unit.
2 It's true that I have been moved to a cell from which the dust from the
3 building construction work in the courtyard does not reach. That happened
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your assumption that I would not open the old
6 building is correct.
7 I move to the next issue, disclosure. Any matter to be raised on
8 disclosure which is not yet raised in any written submissions? And,
9 Mr. Seselj, I can inform you that the Chamber is working hard at this
10 moment in preparing a decision on disclosure issues, including language
11 and format matters such as electronic format or not. So we're working
12 hard on it. I have read a lot about it, what was submitted. So please be
13 convinced that the matter at this moment has our full attention and that
14 we hope to deliver a decision soon.
15 Any disclosure matter at this moment specifically to be raised?
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the only additional information that we
17 would provide beyond what is contained in the written filings that you're
18 already aware of is that if a decision is issued soon regarding the Trial
19 Chamber's appropriate form for disclosure, then we expect very soon to be
20 able to begin disclosure of additional witness statements under Rule
21 66(A)(ii). And if we are permitted to make this disclosure in electronic
22 form, we expect to be able to complete this work no later than the end of
24 We consider that -- the Prosecution considers, Your Honour, that
25 it is up-to-date vis-a-vis its obligations under Rule 68. As you are
1 probably aware, the Prosecution, since 2003, has been attempting to
2 disclose potentially exculpatory material to the accused. The accused has
3 accepted material disclosed to him when it has been provided to him in the
4 B/C/S language and in hard copy form. Where the Prosecution has
5 attempted, as it has, quite frankly, many times, to provide disclosure to
6 the accused --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Saxon, I think that whole history is known even
8 to the new Chamber. That is extensively dealt with in all written
9 submissions. I don't think there is anything new at this moment you want
10 to bring to my attention.
11 Of course, if it delivered a decision on what is acceptable
12 disclosure, then of course most of these matters will have been settled.
13 Perhaps there would be need to re-offer it to the accused in the format
14 prescribed by the Chamber. We'll see. It depends, of course, on the
15 decision whether there's any need to do so or even any necessity to do so.
16 But if you wait for the decision, it's appreciated that you give us some
17 information on what you expect about the time you need once the decision
18 is there. Thank you very much for that.
19 Any further disclosure issue? No?
20 Mr. Seselj, any disclosure issue which is not yet on paper? And
21 please keep in mind what I just said about a decision to be delivered
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something to raise that I
1 have not raised hitherto, Mr. Orie. At every Status Conference over the
2 past three years and several months, literally at each and every one, your
3 predecessor was Mr. Agius. He always said that the Chamber would soon
4 issue a decision on the language and form of disclosure. This has never
5 been done. I'm not doubting your promise. I'm just drawing your
6 attention to my very bad experience.
7 Secondly, I insist that everything be in the Serbian language. If
8 Hitler's henchmen had to receive everything in German at the Nuremberg
9 trial, you cannot go below that standard.
10 Secondly, the fundamental form is on paper.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you're repetitious now. You're repeating
12 some of the arguments. I do understand that you wanted to draw my
13 attention to the fact that you would be disappointed if we took as much
14 time as the other Chamber did in deciding the matter. As I said before,
15 we will come up with a decision soon.
16 Any other disclosure issue? If not --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, Mr. Seselj.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to draw your attention to the
20 following: As for exculpatory material under Rule 68 of the Rules of
21 Procedure and Evidence, it is the duty of the Prosecution to be equally
22 diligent in searching for exculpatory material as it is on its Prosecution
23 because, as a servant of international justice, they have two equal tasks.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you. The duties of the Prosecution
25 under Rule 68, as far as Rule 68(i) is concerned, that is exculpatory
1 material, will be dealt with in the decision and is broadly presented in
2 the written submissions.
3 Any other issue on disclosure, Mr. Seselj?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have to underline the issue
5 of the disclosure of 21 documents relating to the exhumation of corpses in
6 Prijedor. And Prijedor is very far from any location on which I may have
7 committed any crimes. So those bodies found in Prijedor can have nothing
8 to do with any alleged victims of mine. Isn't it enough for me to have to
9 deal with the bodies mentioned in the indictment and not to have to deal
10 with these bodies from Prijedor in addition to that?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, are you aware of any
12 documents, 21 documents relating to the exhumation of corpses in Prijedor?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And there was, actually, a
14 purpose for providing this document under Rule 68, because against the
15 organisation that had provided these 21 exhumation reports, there was a
16 challenge of validity of their reports, and that's why we found that
17 Mr. Seselj should know that, because some of the exhumation reports that
18 relate to the crime bases he is charged with are actually from that same
19 organisation. This is why --
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you? Were they part of what I
21 would call your disclosure efforts until now?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. They were Rule 68
23 materials. We considered it Rule 68 because of that purpose.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So then the matter will be resolved once we have
25 given a decision on the format and the language of disclosure obligations
1 and, as I said, we hope to and we intend to deliver that decision soon,
2 and then, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, you'll know whether your efforts until
3 then were sufficient or whether any additional effort is required from
5 Any other matter, Mr. Seselj, on disclosure?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I have noticed - and I haven't
7 submitted any motions yet in relation to this - that the Prosecution marks
8 even the most trivial material as confidential. It remains a mystery to
9 any reasonable person why 80 per cent of the material labelled as
10 confidential should have been labelled as such. It's an absurdity.
11 Secondly, the Prosecution has attempted to hand to me 14
12 voluminous files of material under Rule 92 bis. I have extracted only
13 those documents which are in Serbian, in the Serbian language, and
14 returned everything else to them. Everything that is in English is
15 completely useless to me, and my Defence will never have anything to do
16 with that material. You can issue a decision that material be disclosed
17 to me in Chinese, but I don't care. My rule is that everything should be
18 disclosed to me in Serbian. You can issue a decision saying we are living
19 on Mars or Jupiter and not on the Earth; I don't care.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Seselj, I do understand that you find it
21 unnecessary that any English material is provided to you in relation to 92
22 bis. I make two observations before I give you an opportunity to raise
23 any remaining issue.
24 The first one is that for the 92 bis material to be understood it
25 should be in English because the Chamber doesn't read your -- the language
1 in which the witnesses have given their statement, or at least the
2 language they are speaking. That's one.
3 And the second, you said your rule is -- I may remind you that the
4 Rules of this court apply, and if in contradiction with your rules, that
5 it would be the Rules of the Court.
6 Any other issue? Mr. Saxon.
7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, very briefly. The accused complains that
8 much of the material that the Prosecution has disclosed to him has been
9 marked, to use his term, "confidential."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. SAXON: There is actually a very good reason for that,
12 although I believe the actual word should be "non-public domain," versus
13 "public domain." I believe in March of 2003 the then Presiding Judge,
14 Judge Schomburg, issued an order to the Prosecution that any materials
15 disclosed to the accused you should be marked whether it is material that
16 is already in the public domain, in which case the accused does not have
17 to treat it as confidential or sensitive materials, versus material that
18 is not in the public domain and which the accused should treat as
19 confidential or sensitive material. So I just wanted to clarify that.
20 That is the reason why we've been putting these labels on our disclosure
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that if there's any reason to -- to
23 change that ruling from the Chamber at the time, that we'll not only hear
24 from Mr. Seselj that he wants it to be changed, but also the reasons to be
25 given why it should be changed.
1 Any other matter, Mr. Seselj? No. It seems from your silence, I
2 take it, that you have no other issue to raise in this respect about
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do. I do.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then, please, if I give you an opportunity, please
6 say something instead of remaining silent. Please.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, you probably do not have
8 in mind the fact that I have to wait for the interpretation to finish
9 after you finish speaking. Perhaps you think that my reactions are
10 delayed but, no, it's a question of interpretation.
11 I have a specific problem in terms of providing material that is
12 marked as non-public domain to my associates who are preparing the Defence
13 together with me. Before, with the permission of the Registry, I had the
14 possibility of taking these documents out and perhaps 2.000 or 3.000 pages
15 of confidential material were taken out, but my legal associates never
16 disclosed this to the public.
17 However, during the past year they did not allow me to do this any
18 more. Now I have lots of material that are marked as confidential, and I
19 cannot send to my legal associates and therefore they cannot follow all
20 these matters that are so relevant to my Defence which they cannot
21 participate in.
22 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I am aware, this is the subject of one of
23 the pending motions, and as I said before, this Chamber intends to, not
24 only in the motion I just mentioned but also in other motions, to come
25 with decisions in the near future, and we'll certainly take that into
2 Any other disclosure issue to be raised?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Disclosure? No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move to the next point, which is the start of
5 the trial.
6 Mr. Seselj, as far as we can see now, your trial will start after
7 the judgement in another case has been delivered, which is scheduled to be
8 not later than by the end of September. Therefore, it would be a fair
9 expectation to this trial -- your trial to start somewhere early October.
10 This is for your information.
11 Any need to further comment on this matter apart from that? I do
12 understand, Mr. Seselj, that you find that too late, that -- you have put
13 that on paper as far as I'm aware of.
14 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I don't know whether under this
16 point you would like to hear from us some estimates on the witnesses and
17 on the duration of the trial that we estimate.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are --
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We have filed -- or, rather, I have
20 provided to the Registrar for official filing our witness list on the 9th
21 of May, 2006. It is not yet translated and, therefore, not yet with
22 Mr. Seselj.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'll come to that, on filing and translation, soon.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: What we have on our witness list are 52
25 witnesses that we would like to present viva voce, and 66 92 bis
1 witnesses. This is a total of 118 witnesses that would be heard, at least
2 in cross-examination.
3 In addition to that, we have on our witness list four deceased
4 witnesses for which we will request admission of written evidence. And
5 perhaps if the Trial Chamber would appreciate that, also have an
6 investigator testifying on the circumstances of the taking -- of the
7 interview in which the testimony or the statement was taken.
8 We also have on our witness list eight witnesses for which we have
9 requested admission of written evidence without cross-examination, but the
10 decision on these matters are still pending.
11 According to the time estimates for the examination-in-chief and
12 the cross-examination, we have calculated 327 hours of Prosecution case,
13 which, when you take 3.5 hours of testimony each day and five days a week,
14 it would come up to 94 days for the Prosecution case, meaning roughly 19
15 weeks, and a bit less than five months. And we have actually estimated
16 that the same amount of time should be available to Mr. Seselj for his
17 defence case. So the end --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait and see how much time Mr. Seselj thinks he
19 would need. And the same is true for you as will be for Mr. Seselj, that
20 of course the Chamber will consider this to be an assessment and a
21 proposal, and the Chamber will consider whether it will use its discretion
22 in order to reduce the size of the case as it deems fit.
23 May I ask one question? The eight witnesses you suggest without
24 cross-examination, would they be in the 66 or would they be in addition to
25 the 66 you mentioned?
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: They would be in addition to the 66.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So that makes 74 plus 52 altogether. No --
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, no. Altogether it's -- without the four
4 deceased, it's 126.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that information. Yes.
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We also - just to add - when you look at the
7 figures -- I don't have them available now but very soon when the official
8 filing has reached everybody -- you may find that perhaps the estimated
9 hours for each witness seems to be rather limited. That relates to the
10 fact that even for the viva voce witnesses we intend to prepare written
11 statements according to Rule 89(F), and we -- as soon as we have these
12 statements available, we will actually file a respective motion with the
13 Trial Chamber to allow at least part of the evidence that will not
14 directly relate to the accused be coming in as -- in written form.
15 That's what I wanted to add. Yes. That's actually all that needs
16 to be known.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Any submissions to be made on your
18 behalf, Mr. Seselj, in respect of the start of the trial?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Orie. First of all, I wish
20 to say that, as far as I'm concerned, the beginning of October is not too
21 late. I am full of elan vitale, energy, and I'm in top form, and I expect
22 to live long beyond that. However, I believe that all reasonable
23 deadlines for the start of the trial have already been passed. So the
24 previous Pre-Trial Chamber did not take this into account at all. So all
25 -- all the 66 92 bis witnesses, I would like to cross-examine all of
1 them. I do not trust Defence counsel who examined them in previous
2 trials, because usually they were paid by the Court, and usually they
3 tried not to do anything that would be against the wishes of the Registry
4 and of the Court, because they didn't want to do anything to offend them.
5 Also, they were heard on completely different circumstances and a
6 completely different situation, nothing that has to do with my trial.
7 As for the four deceased witnesses, if you go on delaying the
8 start of trial this way, you're going to have even more deceased
9 witnesses. People are dying all over the place. We have done with those
10 who have deceased. If I cannot cross-examine them, their statements mean
11 nothing. I will not be examining them, so that's it. And at any rate, I
12 think it's all false testimony.
13 And this one investigator who died as well, well, I'm so sorry,
14 you should have taken more care of him.
15 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, I invite you to speak a bit slower
16 because the interpreters have difficulty in following your speed. That's
18 Second, there are rules on the admission into evidence of
19 statements of witnesses who have deceased. This Chamber will apply those
21 Third, if there is any specific reason, where I do understand that
22 in general you wish to cross-examine all the 92 bis witnesses, that is
23 witnesses whose statements are introduced in written form, you can briefly
24 bring to the attention of the Chamber the specific reasons for each of
25 these witnesses and the subjects on which you'd like to cross-examine
1 them. That certainly assists the Chamber more than general observations,
2 although it is on the record that you would insist on -- at least, you
3 strongly advocate that all of the 92 bis witnesses would be called for
5 Any further comments?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Orie. If you make it
7 possible for me to have normal communication with my legal associates, for
8 every one of these 62 witnesses, I am going to provide you information in
9 writing as to why I challenge their statements and what are the elements
10 on the basis of which I'm saying that they are presenting falsehoods.
11 Then also, these witnesses that the Prosecution wants to call, the
12 eight witnesses referred to, I'm absolutely against that, because I have
13 to examine them to see whether their statements are credible at all.
14 The Prosecution believes that there should be five trial days per
15 week. I have very important health reasons for which I insist that there
16 should be only three workdays per week. I had a lot of problems. I had
17 back surgery. Also, I cannot sit for a long time because of my lumbar
18 back problems. Also, I have a third problem and a fourth problem which is
19 the fact that I represent myself and I have to have two days a week for
20 contacts with my associates, my investigators, so that I could efficiently
21 cross-examine the witnesses called by the Prosecution.
22 Since that kind of precedent already exists in the Milosevic case,
23 I ask that three trial days per week be established as a rule in my case
24 as well, due to all of these special circumstances involved.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It is on the record, Mr. Seselj. The Judges will
1 consider the matter.
2 Any other matter as far as the start of the trial is concerned?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for the start, I have nothing
4 further to add.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then next point on the agenda for me is filing dates.
6 Currently, the practice in this case is that a document is not officially
7 filed until the document is available in both English and a translation,
8 if need be, in the language of the accused. Therefore, the date of
9 signature of a decision which is found on the cover page and the signature
10 page is rarely the same day the decision was filed and issued. This
11 practice appears to have arisen as a result of an oral instruction from
12 Judge Schomburg.
13 This practice - and this is an oral decision - will be changed. I
14 request that the Registry files the submissions in this case following the
15 procedures of other cases before this Tribunal; that is, that documents
16 are filed on the date they are submitted in a language of the Tribunal.
17 Time limits will be calculated from the date the respective parties
18 receive translations. That means that the time limit for the accused will
19 be calculated from the date he receives a translation in his own language,
20 and the time limit for the Prosecution will be calculated from the date it
21 receives the English translation.
22 That is as far as filing dates are concerned.
23 Since we are coming closer to the start of the trial, I would like
24 to inquire into whether there have been any discussions on agreement on
25 certain facts or whether the Prosecution or the Defence have developed any
1 thoughts on adjudicated facts. Perhaps since, of course, the trial will
2 start with the Prosecution's case, I first address the Prosecution.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. At a very early
4 stage of these proceedings we have actually submitted four very basic
5 facts to Mr. Seselj to consider whether he agrees to the fact, and
6 actually, he wanted to speak and address the facts during a Status
7 Conference. It's quite -- I think it was in 2003, something like this.
8 However, he was advised not to do so by the then Pre-Trial Judge, and I so
9 wonder whether we should pick that up again now with this Trial Chamber.
10 That's one point.
11 The other point is that because we do not have had communication
12 in person with the accused, we are currently preparing a filing of an
13 adjudicated facts motion. It will be quite an extensive one including
14 about 400 facts. Roughly 80 of these facts are related to the
15 disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, and the rest is related to
16 specific municipalities and the pattern of conduct occurring there in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina. We will actually file this motion next week.
18 That's all I can say to this at the moment.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
20 Mr. Seselj, anything on --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff is not telling
22 the truth. The Prosecution did not submit this in 2003 but sometime in
23 April or May in 2004, that is. I wanted to state my views regarding those
24 four facts, but Judge Agius did not allow me to do so. I only managed to
25 state my views on one of these matters. He interrupted me a lot more than
1 you, Mr. Orie. I should tell you that. This was in 2004, and it wasn't
2 at the very beginning.
3 Secondly, I did not avoid contact with the Prosecution. As a
4 matter of fact, I was even prepared to talk to them on the condition that
5 my legal associates attend and that everything is recorded on video
6 camera. They will not allow my legal associates to attend. They are
7 offering Van der Spoel to me. I am not taking him at the cost of my life.
8 He does not have the right to say a single word on behalf of my Defence.
9 And that's how it all ground to a halt.
10 So on the Prosecution -- so, actually, it is the Prosecution that
11 is to blame for all of that.
12 As for these facts that they are going to offer, I'm asking you to
13 give me a reasonable deadline so that I could respond in writing on all of
14 these facts, and I'm going to do that with the assistance of my legal
16 JUDGE ORIE: Once the motion is received, you'll receive, of
17 course, a translation of it, and you'll be -- you'll have an opportunity
18 to respond to it. And the response should be focused on the criteria that
19 apply on the admission of adjudicated facts. It's not at that moment
20 proper to enter into a long debate on whether they are true or not. An
21 admission of facts as adjudicated facts means that without further
22 evidence the Chamber could adopt them as true facts, which does not
23 prevent the Defence from challenging them, but the Defence under those
24 circumstances should keep in the back of their mind on what basis they are
25 established by other Chambers, and the Defence should also keep in mind
1 how it wants to use the resources also in terms of time that is allotted
2 to the Defence.
3 So then we'll hear from you, Mr. Seselj, once you have been
4 provided with a translation of the motion of the Prosecution.
5 Any other issue in relation to adjudicated facts or agreed facts?
6 I do understand that you blame the Prosecution, just as the Prosecution
7 blames you for the fact that communication has not developed as I now
8 understand that both parties had wished it to be developed. The issue of
9 the status of your legal associates is, of course, one of the pending
10 issues and will be dealt with by the Chamber soon as well.
11 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Just a clarification. Ms. Katalinic has
13 actually found the Status Conference in which the matter was discussed.
14 It was actually on the 14th of June, 2004. So Mr. Seselj was right; I got
15 the year wrong.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think you appreciate that he noticed your
17 mistake and that he corrected it.
18 Then any other matter on adjudicated or agreed facts? Yes.
19 Then I move to my next topic, which would be protective measures.
20 Is there any issue, and I don't know whether it could be discussed
21 in open session - yes or no - Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, is there any issue in
22 relation to protective measures now that we're coming closer to the start
23 of trial on protective measures the Prosecution would like to be either
24 decided upon or to be continued?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. Actually, there are a few
1 issues upcoming. Two I can deal with in -- in open session, but one I
2 would like to raise in closed session.
3 The first thing is the Prosecution is still waiting for a decision
4 on its request for certification of appeal of the denial of protective
5 measures that we have filed some time ago. Then we still have out there
6 the Prosecution's seventh motion for protective measures, and we still
7 have to file, and that we will do in the very near future, some trial
8 related protective measures for witnesses for which we haven't yet
9 requested trial related protective measures such as image and voice
11 The other issue I would like to raise in private session because
12 it relates to a filing that we made recently in relation to an urgent
13 court order and to which Mr. Seselj has a few days ago responded to, and I
14 would -- as we had asked to change the status of a submission, number 145,
15 to confidential, I would like to address this matter in private session.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We turn to private session. Closed session is
17 not needed, I take it, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, private session should be ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 [Private session]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The matter which has been qualified as urgent is
22 understood by the Chamber to be of urgency, and I suggest that you wait
23 until the end of this Status Conference to see whether there's still a
24 reason to further discuss the issue.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay. Of course I can wait, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll return into open session.
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, any matter in relation to protective
4 measures at this moment to be raised by you which is not already the
5 subject of any written filing?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. Orie. I have
7 something to raise that I have not raised before either in writing or
9 At this International Tribunal, a category has, unfortunately,
10 emerged. That is the category of professional protected witnesses; people
11 who are unemployed in their countries, who have social welfare problems,
12 and who have adopted the role of protected witness in an effort to be
13 granted housing in a foreign country, to get a job, and since they are
14 under protective measures, they can testify falsely in more than one case.
15 The Prosecution has really overstepped all boundaries, and has
16 excessively asked for protective measures. I have never threatened a
17 single witness of theirs. I will be threatening the witness during my
18 cross-examination by showing him up as a liar, but we cannot say that I'm
19 going to threaten them physically. That's absurd.
20 I am the one who is under threat. The Prosecution is trying to
21 obstruct my Defence. It's trying to give me as little time as possible to
22 prepare for my cross-examination, and I insist that this is their only
23 reason for asking for these protective measures.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Mr. Seselj, it doesn't assist
25 me in any way at all to give general statements on all witnesses lying or
1 all witnesses be trained to lie, et cetera, et cetera. It's fully up to
2 you that if you think that these witnesses are not going to tell the
3 truth. First of all, we do not know yet what that testimony is. Once
4 they testify in this Court, you can cross-examine the witnesses or have
5 them cross-examined, and then within the limits of proper procedure, you
6 will have an opportunity to establish whatever lies a witness would tell.
7 It is, however, of no use whatsoever to speculate on what witnesses are
8 going to tell us and to say in advance that these are liars, because as
9 long as we do not know what their testimonies are, the Chamber can't do
10 anything about that.
11 I noticed that it's one of your favourite topics, to say that
12 they're lying, all of them, that they're instructed to lie, et cetera.
13 Apart from this insulting language and abusive language, you are guided to
14 wait what the testimony will be. And in cross-examination, if you are
15 convinced that they did present lies to the Chamber, to, in
16 cross-examination, to establish that they were lying.
17 Again, general statements on what witnesses in general will do and
18 any unsubstantiated allegations on witness to be professional witnesses,
19 witness to be trained to lie, witnesses -- makes no sense at all.
20 Any other matter to be raised, Mr. Seselj, in relation to
21 protective measures?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Orie. I have already
23 received a large number of statements from protected witnesses. I will
24 not quote any of these statements now - they are marked as confidential -
25 but I will say that one Prosecution witness who is not protected but is
1 also lying states that just before the rally in Subotica I danced the
2 wheel dance.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I said before that it doesn't assist to
4 make general statements on who is lying or not. I said that we should
5 wait, hear what their testimony is, or in any response to a 92 bis motion
6 by the Prosecution you may indicate that a certain witness statement
7 should not be admitted or should be admitted only if you have an
8 opportunity to cross-examine that witness because you consider his
9 statement to be false. We'll wait and see what your submissions will be
10 at that time.
11 Any other matter in relation to protective measures, Mr. Seselj?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Then are there any other issues
14 apart from the ones I raised until now --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- that should be raised? Yes, Mr. Seselj.
17 Please --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My initial 12 issues, Mr. Orie, have
19 now been reduced to six by you, Mr. Orie, and I wish to say something
20 about each one of them here.
21 The issue of my legal associates and my communication with them
22 has not been settled yet because the Registry is asking that my legal
23 associates meet the requirements for counsel.
24 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, decisions have been taken before on
25 your legal associates. You have revisited the matter. We'll see whether
1 there's any reason to revisit it again and whether there's any need to
2 take further decisions on it. It is all in written submissions,
3 Mr. Seselj. To that extent, there is no need to raise the issue again in
4 this Status Conference. Please first wait and see what decisions this
5 Chamber will deliver on short term.
6 Any matter apart from the legal associates?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I have five more issues.
8 I am speaking fast, Mr. Orie, and you don't have to speed me up. I have
9 not been allowed to object to the indictment. I filed a 50-page motion
10 which was returned to me, and I was asked to reduce it to 10 pages at the
11 most. I asked for confirmation in order to appeal to the Appeals Chamber,
12 and Trial Chamber II never responded to my motion.
13 Furthermore, as I never received this, I consulted my legal
14 associates, and they established that both the Prosecution and the Trial
15 Chamber - that is Trial Chamber II - misled me about the deadline for
16 filing an objection, because it was only in February that I received the
17 supporting material for the amended indictment, and therefore, the
18 deadline should have been calculated as of February.
19 Please consider this, and if you conclude that I am right, that I
20 was misled, I ask that you set a new deadline.
21 Thirdly, another question that has not been settled yet is that of
22 funding my Defence. Judge Agius, at the last Status Conference,
23 instructed the Registry to settle this issue.
24 JUDGE ORIE: One by one. It's on the record that you consider to
25 be misled by Trial Chamber II on the issue of the time limit for filing in
1 relation to your objections to the indictment. We'll consider the matter.
2 We'll have a look at it.
3 Then the funding of your legal associates, your Defence, is
4 submitted in writing. Therefore, the Chamber will deal with this motion,
5 and it was -- let me just have a look. It was your submission number 124,
6 filed on the 16th of January. We'll dispose of that as soon as possible.
7 Any other? I think we're now -- you have raised the fifth one,
8 and the fourth one is in writing. Could you --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Two more, Mr. Orie.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please tell me, Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The issue of photocopying has not
12 been resolved yet. At the last Status Conference, I told Judge Agius that
13 I had about a thousand densely handwritten pages of material which I was
14 supposed to photocopy and deliver to my legal associates so that they
15 could use them in drafting my Defence. He replied that he would try to
16 resolve this issue. This hasn't been done yet, and I'm still waiting.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This Chamber was informed that you have not
18 applied for a photocopying machine to be imported in the Detention Unit
19 which would allow you to make those photocopies. I take it that you take
20 the view that the Tribunal should provide you with it, whereas the
21 position of the Tribunal until now - and I'm talking in administrative
22 terms - is that it's not their obligation but it's up to you to take care
23 that you have available photocopying material.
24 It is a matter which, as you may be aware of merely by the fact
25 that already we sought the information from the Registry, a matter which
1 has our attention, that for the time being I see that you have raised the
2 issue in September, 2005, but also again on the 24th of January, 2006, and
3 the origin goes already as far as back as the 27th of November, 2003.
4 Let me just consult my notes.
5 On the 24th of January, 2006, you were informed by Judge Agius
6 that it had been decided that if you wanted to make photocopies, that you
7 must make them and that you should make your own arrangements for it. And
8 at that occasion, Judge Agius reminded you that you had not requested
9 certification to appeal the decision that was taken on this matter, and
10 then you responded by saying that you were not asking the Detention Unit
11 to make the copies for you, but that it was the responsibility of the
12 Court to provide you with the necessary facilities to prepare your
13 Defence, and Judge Agius then invited you to file a motion on the matter
14 provided that it would substantially be different in argument from any
15 previous submission. That is my observation at this time as well.
16 Any other matter, Mr. Seselj?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I refer to the Statute,
18 and I am asking for the means I need to prepare my defence. I will
19 persistent in asking for this, and you can be just as persistent in
20 denying it to me.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the matter has been decided. You did not
22 request a certificate for appeal. The matter has been raised again on the
23 26th of January of this year. You're invited to file any motion if it
24 would not be on the same argument, because we will not decide on motions
25 which have been dealt with already on the same arguments, and you are
1 again invited to do so if there are any reasons. I'm not encouraging you,
2 but if you think there are other reasons different from the ones you
3 raised before to again address the Chamber on the matter, you are invited
4 you to do so.
5 Mr. Seselj, any other matter?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Another issue, Mr. Orie, that I wish
7 to raise is the following: It concerns putting under the protection of
8 the Registry by Trial Chamber II as regards illegal actions by the
9 Registrar. The Trial Chamber issued a decision that standby counsel be
10 appointed for me, and there were two conditions attached to this. He had
11 to be on the list of counsel of the International Tribunal, and he had to
12 speak the Serbian language. The Registry has gone against this decision.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, this issue has been raised if not 10
14 times, then at least five times in writing. Again and again it is
15 revisited. There is no need to further discuss the matter at this Status
17 Any other matter, Mr. Seselj?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You misunderstood me, Mr. Orie. I'm
19 not raising the issue of standby counsel, I am raising the issue of the
20 Trial Chamber protecting the Registrar when he does something illegal by
21 appointing a person who fails to meet the two essential conditions.
22 In response to my motion, Trial Chamber II subsequently erased
23 these conditions from the list of requirements. So I'm drawing attention
24 to the illegal practices at this Tribunal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please stop for a moment. Isn't it true,
1 Mr. Seselj, that in your request for the revocation of the decision to
2 provide standby counsel, your submission 125, that this aspect is also
3 thoroughly raised and expounded upon considerably?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's correct, Mr. Orie. But the
5 point of the issue now is the contravention of law by the Trial Chamber,
6 not the merits of the issue I raised. The Trial Chamber changed the law
7 in order to adapt it to what the Registrar previously did instead of
8 punishing the Registrar.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You think that the Chamber has competence to
10 punish everyone. I do understand, but that might not be fully true.
11 It's on the record now, Mr. Seselj, that this is an issue which is
12 considered by you to be relevant and is a separate aspect of the issue you
13 raised in your submission 125. We'll have a look at whether it's
14 sufficiently covered by your request or whether it needs separate
15 attention. That's on the record.
16 Anything else, Mr. Seselj?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I wish to draw your attention
18 very briefly to something you said today, Mr. Orie. You told me that I
19 was often raising the same issues, whereas I'm drawing your attention to
20 the practice of this Tribunal, which is evident from many judgements and
21 decisions, and that is that the accused often has the right to raise the
22 same issue. Things change. The Trial Chamber can change, other things
23 can change, the standpoints can change. So it's my right to raise an
24 issue as many times as I like unless it is resolved in the Rules. So even
25 if I have no additional arguments, it is my right to raise issues again
1 and again.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the -- your position, Mr. Seselj. I can
3 tell you already that I would disagree that this is -- that it's a right
4 to raise issues again and again, as you said. And you may have noticed
5 from some of my previous remarks that if a case is transferred from one
6 Trial Chamber to another, that the new Judges will thoroughly look at what
7 has happened in that case before. So for that reason, there is as such no
8 necessity to raise matters again and again.
9 Any other matter?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's all.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I, at the end of this -- of this Status
12 Conference, I will give a few oral decisions.
13 I'll give a decision on submission 144.
14 The Trial Chamber is seized with the motion for Trial Chamber II
15 to decide on all status issues raised by Professor Vojislav Seselj at
16 Status Conferences.
17 Submission 144, filed by the accused on the 18th of April, 2006,
18 whereby the accused raises numerous issues which he submits have not been
19 decided by the Trial Chamber.
20 On the 26th of April, 2006, the Prosecution responded to the
21 motion and submitted that, "Any matters raised of potential relevance to
22 the Prosecution are or have been in any event subject of ongoing or prior
23 litigation in these proceedings."
24 The Trial Chamber has considered the very detailed submission by
25 the accused and notes that the majority of issues raised by the accused
1 either have already been decided by the Trial Chamber or is subject to
2 current litigation. The only issue which the Trial Chamber has identified
3 which does not fall into either of these categories is the accused's claim
4 that "Your Honours" had been added to the English of the first Status
5 Conference, even though the accused did not say that.
6 The accused is correct in his submission that no decision has been
7 taken on this issue by a Trial Chamber, and it is correct that the
8 transcript of the first Status Conference of the 25th of March, 2003,
9 includes in English, and I quote, "Your Honour."
10 The accused then at the Status Conference of the 14th of June,
11 2004, at transcript page 261, stated: "Furthermore, I looked at the
12 transcripts of Status Conferences which were submitted to me in the
13 English language. The content was changed of what I was saying, and even
14 the word 'Your Honour' was used. That's a word I never used, because in
15 my country it is a polite form of address and customary form of address to
16 say 'Mr. Judge,' or 'Madam Judge,' and that is the same thing that the
17 Muslims and Croats do. And I cannot allow the interpreters to
18 misinterpret my words in such a way. It is sufficiently polite in the
19 Serbian language to say 'Mr. Judge,' and that is the only way in which
20 lawyers and the accused and prosecutors address the Court. Anything else
21 would be different."
22 The Trial Chamber appreciates the politeness used by the accused
23 in his own language, and wishes to stress that the interpretation into
24 English is also the polite and customary form used in English. It notes
25 that interpretation should not be a recount word by word. It further
1 stresses that it does not wish to have debates or submissions on
2 translation issues unless the issue is material to the case, which this
3 one is not. And it is now on the record that although, Mr. Seselj, you
4 wishing to be polite, that it's not your intention to express anything
5 which would come down to consider this Court and the Judges to be
7 The Trial Chamber denies your request.
8 The Trial Chamber also notes that the accused complained about not
9 having received the videos of the proceedings which he is entitled to in
10 accordance with the Trial Chamber's decision on motion number 19, dated
11 the 30th of September, 2003, filed on the 1st of October of that same
13 The Trial Chamber has consulted the Registry and has been provided
14 with the delivery slips. In this respect it was noted that there is no
15 delivery slip for the further initial appearance of the 3rd of November,
16 2005, and the Trial Chamber has been informed that this will be organised
18 The Trial Chamber considers that since all other matters are
19 subject to other pending motions, the Trial Chamber considers that it has
20 appropriately responded to this motion.
21 I'll now deliver a decision on your submission 145, Mr. Seselj.
22 The Trial Chamber is seized with a motion for Trial Chamber II to
23 commence the trial of Professor Vojislav Seselj as a matter of urgency,
24 filed by you on the 20th of April, 2006.
25 The Chamber considers that the motion includes phrases and
1 statements of obscene or otherwise offensive language. Motions containing
2 such language have been considered by the Tribunal as frivolous or an
3 abuse of process. Therefore, taking notice of Article 6 of the Practice
4 Direction on the procedure for the review of written submissions which
5 contain obscene or otherwise offensive language, a Direction of the 14th
6 of November, 2005, IT/240, this Chamber will not consider the motion and
7 orders the Registry to return it and, if it would have been filed, to
8 de-file it.
9 The Trial Chamber advises you, Mr. Seselj, to avoid making such
10 submissions in the future. I repeat here what I said before: Repetition
11 and prolixity in motions will not be accepted by the Chamber. If you
12 would wish to revisit the matter, you're instructed to specifically focus
13 on the argument you want to put forward, to leave out any repetition, not
14 to use prolix language, and to do that in, as far as this subject is
15 concerned, in not more than five pages.
16 Finally, I will deliver a decision on the Prosecution's
17 application for an urgent court order in relation to submission 145.
18 The Trial Chamber is seized with the Prosecution's application for
19 an urgent court order in relation to Defence motion for Trial Chamber II
20 to commence the trial of Professor Vojislav Seselj as a matter of urgency,
21 filed on the 27th of April, 2006.
22 The Chamber notes the accused's response to the Prosecution's
23 application of 17th of May, 2006.
24 The Trial Chamber notes its decision to return submission 145 to
25 the accused and therefore declares the Prosecution's application moot.
1 These were a few oral decisions. I have nothing more on the
3 Mr. Seselj, is there anything that we would need -- would further
4 need to deal with at this moment?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, in order to spare you and
6 in order to make my own work easier, I don't even have to submit motions
7 to you on five pages. I can tell you now orally in a single sentence what
8 it is that I call for: I want the Prosecution to give me a copy of Milan
9 Babic's farewell letter.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's another matter. It's apart from the issue
11 which is the subject of the decision I just gave and on which I said that
12 if you want to revisit the matter, that you would have to do it in five
13 pages. That is another matter which is also the subject of a motion.
14 We will not at this moment decide on that motion since we were
15 informed that very soon we could expect a report which gives full
16 information on the matter, whatever that information will be, and we'll
17 first wait whether this report is, as we expect, to be delivered soon,
18 whether it will be a public report, and whether, as we expect, the report
19 would give the information needed.
20 I add to that that the Chamber does not want to follow you in
21 speculations on what a farewell note, if that exists, would contain as its
22 language. That would be a bad thing to do. I add to that that if a
23 farewell note would contain language as you suggest - although it's
24 totally unclear on the basis of what, but at least you suggest - we would
25 find in it, then as soon as this would become known to the Prosecution, it
1 certainly would be a matter to be disclosed under Rule 61 -- 68 -- I
2 apologise, under (i).
3 Any other matter, Mr. Seselj?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
6 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, three points: First of all, the
8 Prosecution is not in possession of any such farewell letter, and as you
9 said, it's inquiry that will actually deal with this. Just to confirm
10 that we don't have any such thing.
11 Secondly, I have already mentioned e-court. At the moment, the
12 Prosecution has actually filed, on the 14th of June, 2005, in a
13 provisional exhibit list with 2.271 items, and we have meanwhile prepared
14 our final witness list -- exhibits list, sorry, with roughly 2.400
15 exhibits. We will file it next week.
16 The question, of course, is to prepare these exhibits for court
17 presentation, and it would be very helpful for us to know whether we
18 should do it in e-court fashion or not.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From what I understand, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff,
20 the case of Mr. Seselj is not a case which will be dealt by an e-court
21 mode. That's my information.
22 Madam Registrar, if I would make a mistake at this moment, please
23 correct me. Perhaps you are not aware, because the Registrar -- the
24 representative of the Registry that will assist us in the future is
25 replaced today by one of his colleagues.
1 I will inquire into the matter. If it would be any different from
2 what I just said, I'll let you know immediately.
3 Third matter?
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. The third matter is
5 actually the one that I had already spoken about, and it's something for
6 private session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We turn into private session.
8 [Private session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the submission 145 that
12 Mr. Seselj made and to which he actually added to in his submission of 3rd
13 May, 2006, is not actually finished for us by just saying the Trial
14 Chamber doesn't receive it, it's returned, because the problem that we see
15 is, and I quote actually only two sentences this motion, we consider
16 actually the filing 145 and the additional response of Mr. Seselj to be --
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I interrupt you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff. I think
3 you are drawing my attention to the contemptuous character of -- at least,
4 what you consider to be a contemptuous character of this language. I
5 think I, to some extent, addressed the matter already where I said before
6 to Mr. Seselj that it would not assist us to hear general allegations
7 about these kind of matters. That's one. But am I right that your
8 request was limited to confidentiality of the filing and not any further
9 -- any further contempt issues to be raised? From this observation, you
10 may understand that the Chamber did not miss your point that the reason
11 why you wanted it to be a confidential filing was the contemptuous nature
12 of the language. But I did not see any further request made. So,
13 therefore, if you say this is not -- this does not resolve the matter --
14 resolves the matter, then of course please tell me what you asked us to do
15 apart from taking care that it would not be accessible to the public? It
16 will now not be accessible to anyone. It will not be filed in the
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The problem is actually -- and that is
19 something that is also in this additional response of Mr. Seselj, is that
20 he actually says -- it is said here on page 7 that this submission 145 was
21 actually an issue at a press conference. Even before filing this
22 submission, it was made public in a press conference, and I think this
23 needs to be stopped. And this practice needs to be stopped. And at the
24 moment, this is all what I can say. That's why we also filed recently
25 another -- the second motion for imposition of counsel, because this kind
1 of behaviour has to stop. I just wanted to draw your attention to this
3 JUDGE ORIE: What means did you have in mind for us to stop it?
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The means to stop it is actually what we have
5 requested in our motion, second motion for order appointing counsel, in
6 which we have actually requested that only counsel should be allowed to
7 file motions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Nevertheless, if such
9 information or rumours or whatever it is is subject of a press conference
10 given by a third person -- I don't know who gave it, we have not been
11 informed about that. I think none of the filings tell us who said this at
12 that press conference. If, for example, it would be one of the legal
13 associates, that might be a reason to reconsider the position of legal
14 associates, but it's still not entirely clear to me that even if counsel
15 would be imposed, even if legal associates would, as they were not until
16 now accepted as such, whether this would finally be an effective measure
17 to stop something which, I would tend to agree with you, is an undesirable
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just for your information, on
20 page 7, the last paragraph of Mr. Seselj's additional filing on that
21 issue, he says, actually, that Aleksandar Vucic, the spokesman of the
22 expert team, who is actually also mentioned on all the filings, was the
23 one who disclosed it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I missed that one, and we'll certainly pay
25 attention to it and -- we'll then -- we'll consider that matter. So you
1 would not expect us to be that part of the motion and to be part of the
2 decision on that motion, because I've now declared the motion moot, but
3 to --
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- consider that in relation to the issue of
6 Mr. Seselj conducting his own Defence.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. That was something that I
8 wanted to get your attention on.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
10 Mr. Van der Spoel, I think nothing triggered at this moment your
11 activity. Nevertheless, since you are here, if there's anything you'd
12 like to bring to my attention, you have an opportunity to do so.
13 MR. VAN DER SPOEL: Thank you very much, Your Honour. At the
14 moment, no. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Van der Spoel.
16 I'd forgotten that we had to return to open session first.
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are in open session again. One thing I
19 did during private session, what I should have done during open session,
20 was to invite Mr. Van der Spoel whether there was any issue he wanted to
21 raise at this moment. His answer was that he at the moment had no issue
22 to be raised.
23 This then concludes this Status Conference. We will adjourn sine
25 --- Whereupon the Status Conference was adjourned
1 sine die at 4.02 p.m.