Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5811

 1                           Tuesday, 8 April 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could you please

 6     call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is Tuesday, April 8, 2008,

10     and I welcome the representatives from the OTP, Mr. Seselj, as well as

11     all the people helping us.

12             In the meanwhile, the problem has cropped up.  Witness VS-031,

13     who was scheduled to testify today, and I will not give his name because

14     he was a protected witness, well, this person told the OTP, by fax on

15     Friday, April 4th, at 8.47 that he decided to be a Defence witness after

16     all, and because of this the OTP was not able to get Witness VS-031 in

17     time here.

18             Furthermore, Witness VS-1014 is scheduled to come, but he was

19     unable to be here today because of a visa problem.  However, I believe

20     that this person will be here tomorrow, at the latest.

21             Witness VS-1062, who is scheduled to come, will come, but it was

22     impossible to get him here today.

23             Because of this, the Prosecution has decided to continue with the

24     videos, the videos which we have already seen last week, but we did not

25     finish the entire list of videos last week.

Page 5812

 1             Furthermore, I also understood the Prosecution wanted to add new

 2     videos to its list.  As soon as I was informed of this, I asked the legal

 3     officer yesterday to immediately tell Mr. Seselj about this, about the

 4     possibility that there may be new videos.  The legal officer ran into

 5     terrible difficulties trying to transfer this information to the UNDU.

 6     She had to stay until 9.30 p.m. to try to get the information through.

 7     So this is proof that, as I say, this Trial Chamber is doing its utmost

 8     around the clock to make sure everything runs smoothly.  Unfortunately,

 9     despite all our efforts, sometimes there are difficulties, and because of

10     this some problems escape unsolved, at least can't be solved in realtime,

11     which means, Mr. Seselj, that today we will be watching the rest of the

12     videos, the videos which had been scheduled last week, plus - but

13     Mr. Mundis must confirm this to us - new videos, new videos, and you must

14     have received the list of these videos.  Maybe so, maybe not.

15             Mr. Mundis, regarding the videos, will we see new videos also?

16             MR. MUNDIS:  Good, Your Honours, Dr. Seselj, and everyone in and

17     around the courtroom.

18             Unfortunately, we will not be showing any additional videos this

19     morning, due to the fact that we are undertaking a review to determine

20     the precise videos that absolutely must be shown, and as a result of that

21     we determined that it would be best for us to come up with a priority "A"

22     list of videos, and we were not able to sort through all of those videos

23     in the time that was available to us.  So we will simply be showing those

24     videos which were previously listed and for which everyone in the

25     courtroom has sufficient notice that those videos would be played.

Page 5813

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, very well.

 2             I was talking about difficulties.  Here we have one.  The light

 3     goes on, the light goes out, but fortunately the light is back on.

 4             Now, let's go into private session, because I have something that

 5     requires private session, Ms. Registrar.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before that, first I wish to

 7     express my standpoint on some issues you have already raised,

 8     Mr. President.

 9             Yesterday, in the prison, I was not informed of your intention to

10     show new video clips today.  Yesterday, our floor moved, so maybe they

11     couldn't find us at our new address, because there's some kind of

12     construction work going on there.  However, that's not a problem.  I

13     could adapt to these surprising announcements that new video clips are

14     going to be shown.  I don't prepare for these videos because I don't have

15     a DVD projector in my prison cell, so there's no way I can prepare.

16             I'm always prepared to have videos shown in the courtroom, even

17     if not announced, as long as I'm provided with a list of these clips in

18     the Serbian language.

19             I have to tell you, however, that I never previously contacted

20     Protected Witness VS-031.  He contacted my legal advisers for the first

21     time on Friday.  He personally sought them out, with his lawyer, and on

22     that occasion he made a statement to them.  I haven't received it yet.

23     I can obtain it in the course of today.  But in that statement, he said,

24     among other things, that he was disgusted by the acquittal of Ramos

25     Haradinaj, and he refuses to cooperate with The Hague Prosecutor in any

Page 5814

 1     way.

 2             He has put himself at the disposal of my Defence team, but we'll

 3     consider whether or not to call him as a Defence witness.  I just wish

 4     you to know that we never had any previous contact with him.

 5             A third point, very important, in my view, is that I demand that

 6     you re-examine your decision to admit 92 ter witness statements,

 7     especially in the case of Witness VS-1014.  This witness I consider to be

 8     a very important one, and I have some important questions to put to him.

 9     But I will only do so if he testifies viva voce.

10             I therefore propose that the OTP has one and a half hours at

11     their disposal and I one and a half hours, one hour of reserve for

12     questions from the Trial Chambers and procedural issues, and we will be

13     able to deal with that witness in one day.  I have important questions to

14     put to that witness, but unless you agree to my proposal, I will

15     certainly not put them.

16             And, fourthly, yesterday I received from the OTP a document

17     entitled "Receipt 309."  This was delivered to me as a public document,

18     so I will mention a name contained in it.

19             The OTP disclosed to me a letter from a certain Dusan Damjanovic

20     from Kragujevac.  I have never heard of him before.  This letter bears

21     number 06328586, so I assume it can be provided in electronic form on the

22     monitor and that you will be able to see it before you, if the Registry

23     makes this possible.  This Dusan Damjanovic, and let me mention that he

24     was never mentioned as an OTP witness in this case and no document I

25     received bore his name, nor was he mentioned, to the best of my

Page 5815

 1     recollection, in any of the documents.  However, here he's informing the

 2     OTP in The Hague that he doesn't wish to be a Prosecution witness in the

 3     proceedings against me, and he says that Natasha Kandic called him up

 4     more than once with her collaborators in order for him to be interviewed

 5     by investigators.  So he wants to know in what capacity Natasha Kandic is

 6     calling him up or, rather, his lawyer is asking this, in what capacity

 7     she's calling him up, attempting to persuade him to be interviewed by the

 8     OTP.

 9             I did not know that this man existed until last night.  I had

10     never contacted him.  And although the investigation is over and the OTP

11     list is complete, some names are still cropping up.  Natasha Kandic is

12     attempting to exert pressure on certain people still, so the OTP should

13     tell us in what capacity Natasha Kandic is acting.  Is she an official

14     representative of the OTP or is she some sort of external associate?

15     She's eminence grise in The Hague OTP.

16             I don't know about this man.  I don't know what he might testify

17     about.  I had never heard his name before.  But now my legal advisers are

18     going to contact him, and we will see who he is and what this is all

19     about.  He may be useful as a Defence witness, but I can't say that in

20     advance.  However, I'm duty-bound to inform you that such things are

21     happening here and nobody is providing any kind of explanation.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23             Two things, Mr. Seselj, and I will deal with them in reverse

24     order.

25             First, Dusan Damjanovic, if I understand you well, this witness,

Page 5816

 1     who is not on the 65 ter list, contacted your associates to tell them --

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me correct you, Mr. President.

 3     He has not contacted my collaborators yet.  He has sent a letter to the

 4     OTP, and last night the OTP delivered to me a copy of the letter with its

 5     ERN number.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You are right to

 7     correct this.

 8             So this Dusan Damjanovic, who you do not know and whom you have

 9     never heard of before, sent a letter to the OTP to say that

10     Natasha Kandic had approached him so that he would testify, and he is

11     saying that he would rather be in favour of being a Defence witness,

12     rather than a Prosecution witness.

13             Mr. Mundis, does this mean that you are continuing the

14     investigation and collecting testimonies from potential witnesses in

15     order to possibly ask for -- possibly call some witnesses?  Is this the

16     framework in which we have this witness, which seemed to be unknown by

17     the Defence?

18             MR. MUNDIS:  Mr. President, in the event, the Prosecution would

19     seek leave to amend its witness list, I can assure everyone that we would

20     do so in a timely manner.  This person, Mr. Dusan Damjanovic was, to the

21     best of my knowledge, unknown to the Prosecution prior to him sending

22     this faxed letter.  I don't believe at this point we're even close to

23     potentially calling this person as a witness.  I don't believe we've ever

24     interviewed him.  We've never spoken to him.  The Office of the

25     Prosecutor gets faxes and correspondence and information on a daily basis

Page 5817

 1     from a large number of sources, not just relating to this case but to all

 2     of our cases.  When we determine that that information should be

 3     disclosed, we disclose it.  But at this point, it's entirely premature to

 4     be discussing whether or not this person will be a witness for the

 5     Prosecution, or the Defence, or for anyone else.  He simply sent us a

 6     letter, and we determined that that needed to be disclosed to the

 7     accused.  And that's as far as this issue has been taken.

 8             And so it's certainly not at the point where we're contemplating

 9     seeking leave to add Mr.  Damjanovic to the witness list.  We've never

10     even spoken to this person, to the best of my knowledge, and so it's

11     entirely premature at this point to be discussing anything relating to

12     this witness or potential witness as it relates to this case.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

14             The second thing, Witness VS-1014.  Let me remind you that on

15     February 27th, the Trial Chamber decided -- made a decision according to

16     which this witness would be heard as a 92 ter witness.  Since then, no

17     certification of appeal has been filed.  Of course, if need be, the

18     Chamber can review its decision in light of two criteria.  The first

19     criterion, a new circumstance.  And what is this new circumstance which

20     would lead the Trial Chamber to review its decision?  And a second

21     criterion, err in law, the Trial Chamber could be made an error, could

22     have erred in law.

23             Now, Mr. Seselj, regarding this first circumstance, the first

24     criterion.  What would be the new circumstance that would lead the

25     Chamber to decide to switch to a viva voce procedure with one hour thirty

Page 5818

 1     for Prosecution and one hour thirty minutes for Defence?  Could you

 2     please tell us?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have decided not

 4     to appeal your latest decision because I have expressed my objections to

 5     the application of Rule 92 ter more than once.  So I don't want my legal

 6     advisers and you to waste time about this.  I know that my appeal would

 7     be rejected.  I am concentrating on this witness, who is supposed to

 8     appear tomorrow.

 9             A new circumstance which might be relevant to your decision and

10     induce you to change it is that his statement about certain events, given

11     to the Muslim authorities, differs considerably to the statement compiled

12     in his name by the OTP and signed by him.  These two statements are so

13     different from each other that it would be quite incredible for you to

14     turn a deaf ear to my motion.  However, that's up to you.

15             I have some very important specific questions, concrete

16     questions, to put to that witness, but they are not important enough for

17     you to alter your decision.  You can look at his statement given before

18     the Muslim authorities and the statement disclosed by the OTP, and you

19     will see to what extent the two statements differ.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

21             Let me ask the Prosecution about these new circumstances.  It is

22     true that when the Trial Chamber made its decision on December 27th, 2008

23     [as interpreted], we did not know that a statement had been made to the

24     Muslim authorities.  This emerged just a few days ago when another

25     witness said that he had been heard by the Muslim authorities.  We knew

Page 5819

 1     nothing of this.

 2             What is the position of the OTP regarding the possibility of

 3     switching this 92 ter into a viva voce witness?

 4             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, there is absolutely no new

 5     circumstance whatsoever, other than the fact that Dr. Seselj has now

 6     decided that perhaps he would like to cross-examine the witness.

 7             Your Honours are well aware of the position taken by the accused

 8     in this case with respect to Rule 92 ter.  As a matter of fact, just last

 9     week the Presiding Judge, in effect, advised the accused that perhaps he

10     should reconsider his decision.  There is absolutely no reason or

11     justification whatsoever for the Trial Chamber to reconsider its

12     decision.  The accused always will have the opportunity, pursuant to

13     Rule 92 ter, to cross-examine the witness.  The witness will be brought

14     here.  The witness can be challenged with any previous statements that he

15     may or may not have given.  He can be fully cross-examined as to that

16     statement or statements.  What the Prosecution would certainly oppose

17     would be any situation where the accused declines to cross-examine the

18     witness and then subsequently sought to tender into evidence a prior

19     statement of that witness which the accused thought would be

20     inconsistent having had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness on

21     that point and then having decided not to do so.

22             There is absolutely no bar to the accused cross-examining this 92

23     ter witness or any other 92 ter witness.

24             This procedure, as the Trial Chamber is well aware, is designed

25     to expedite the proceedings.  The Prosecution, in its pre-trial filings,

Page 5820

 1     had indicated preference for a large number of Rule 92 ter witness in

 2     order to put before the Trial Chamber all of the evidence which the Trial

 3     Chamber will require in order to fulfill its obligations with respect to

 4     making final and ultimate decisions in this case.  In the event the

 5     Prosecution is unable to rely upon Rule 92 ter, then we will certainly be

 6     coming back before the Trial Chamber asking for significantly longer time

 7     in order to lead the evidence that we feel is necessary in order to

 8     establish the charges set forth in the indictment.

 9             I cannot stress enough, Your Honours, the simple fact that the

10     accused has decided not to cross-examine 92 ter witnesses.  That's his

11     choice.  If he chooses not to do so, the responsibility for that falls

12     squarely on his shoulders.  The witness will be here.  The witness can be

13     cross-examined.  There is absolutely no reason for the Trial Chamber to

14     reconsider its decision simply because the accused decides he now wants

15     to cross-examine the witness and he had earlier made a stand that he will

16     not, as a matter of principle, cross-examine any of the 92 ter witnesses.

17     So the Prosecution would vehemently oppose reconsideration of the Trial

18     Chamber earlier decision concerning this witness, and we will again

19     telegraph for the future that in the event we are unable to rely upon

20     Rule 92 ter as a means of putting forth the evidence that we need in the

21     limited time available to us, we will have no choice but to come back to

22     the Trial Chamber and ask for significantly more time in order to lead

23     the evidence that we feel duty-bound to lead so that the Trial Chamber

24     has all of the evidence that it needs to reach the ultimate decisions

25     that the Trial Chamber is called upon to decide.

Page 5821

 1                           [Technical difficulties]

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Let's come back

 3     to -- let's resume, because we had a technical problem.

 4             The Prosecution decides that there is no new circumstances.

 5             Now, Mr. Seselj, over the last three days I've tried to think

 6     about the stand you took, which was to systematically oppose Rule 92 ter.

 7     I tried to understand why you reject this procedure.  It's quite

 8     complicated to try and anticipate why someone is doing something.  I was

 9     thinking and I wondered whether maybe at first you were not making a

10     mistake as to the admission of the written statement.  Maybe you're

11     thinking that the written statement will automatically be admitted if the

12     Prosecutor asks for Rule 92 ter to be applied.  But if this is what

13     you're thinking, this is a mistake.  The Trial Chamber will only rule on

14     the admissibility of the written statement after the cross-examination of

15     the witness.

16             For example, if it suddenly appears that a written statement

17     totally contradicts another statement that would have been made to

18     another jurisdiction, well, in such a case the Trial Chamber could very

19     well decide not to admit the written statement.  The written statement

20     will only be admitted after the cross-examination and after the Judges

21     have heard the cross-examination.  It's only after having assessed the

22     entire procedure that the Judges will decide to admit the written

23     statement or not to admit it.  That's the first thing.

24             The second thing:  I also wondered whether, in reality, if you

25     just didn't feel that you -- you felt that there was a deficit of

Page 5822

 1     information for the audience following the trial, because it's -- when

 2     there is a written statement, no questions are -- no specific questions

 3     are asked as to this written statement, only a few general questions are

 4     asked, and because of this part of the written statement would be hidden

 5     from the audience, whereas in a viva voce procedure you're assured that

 6     the trial is public and you're assured that the audience will hear

 7     everything the witness is saying.  Of course, when there is a written

 8     statement, the witness just says, "I confirm what I said to the

 9     investigator," and then the cross-examination starts.

10             So I wondered whether this was not one of your motivations, to

11     reject this 92 ter -- the Rule 92 ter procedure, because I must say very

12     humbly that as of now, I have not really fully understood the real

13     motivations behind your opposition to this procedure.

14             As I reminded you, you know, you can use this procedure yourself,

15     you can resort to this procedure yourself, when you have a number of

16     witnesses you want to call and when you don't have enough time to call

17     all your witnesses to ask all your questions, you can resort to

18     Rule 92 ter yourself.

19             So this is where things stand now.  If you wish to take the

20     floor, you may, but I must tell you that the Bench does not really

21     understand your position.  We're a bit lost here.  We don't really

22     understand why you so vehemently oppose Rule 92 ter, especially since, as

23     Mr. Mundis said, you have the opportunity to cross-examine this witness.

24             Furthermore, when you have elements at your disposal that could

25     contradict the written statement, according to the Rules you can confront

Page 5823

 1     the witness with this.  This is Rule 98(ii).  I will quote it in full so

 2     that it is on the record.

 3             Rule 90(H)(ii):

 4             "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give

 5     evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel

 6     should put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom

 7     that counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by

 8     the witness."

 9             Which means that if you have this declaration, this statement to

10     the Muslim authorities, and that in the procedure we have the written

11     statement, well, you can resort to this Rule.  But I believe my fellow

12     Judge would like to take the floor.

13             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes.  I would like to add one

14     thing to what the Presiding Judge just said.

15             I understood Mr. Seselj's opposition to Rule 92 ter as follows:

16     In principle, it is against -- he's against any trial based on documents,

17     which is why also he is also presenting all sorts of documents when there

18     is a witness, but never asks for these documents to be admitted.

19     Therefore, this is, of course, as the Prosecutor has said -- I'm sorry, I

20     don't know why I'm hearing the English.  Can you speak in English now,

21     please?  I can't hear it anymore.  I'm sorry, I had a problem, because I

22     could hear both languages at the same time.

23             So this is a question of principle.  This Tribunal, for reasons

24     that have been decided a year ago, maybe more than that - I don't

25     remember - in order to speed up the trials and in the interests of the

Page 5824

 1     accused, the Trial Chamber has decided, as regards 92 ter, that this

 2     should be the case, so we, the Bench, cannot accept challenges as a

 3     matter of principle.

 4             I would like to add something to what the Presiding Judge has

 5     said; namely, this procedure -- to corroborate what he has said, this

 6     procedure does not mean that the prior statement of the witness is

 7     automatically admitted.  This is why I don't see in what way the trial

 8     does not benefit from the fact that this is an oral -- that these are

 9     oral and public proceedings if Rule 92 ter is applied.  The accused has

10     all latitude and has even more than that, because he might even rely on

11     those challenges to the prior statement rather than if the witness

12     testifies viva voce, because when the witness testifies viva voce, he

13     starts telling a story all over again, whereas if it's 92 ter, he can

14     work and rely on the contradictions that stem from this.  So as far as

15     logic is concerned, I believe that the Trial Chamber should not bear this

16     in mind and the accused can work on this and challenge it.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I fully agree with what my

18     fellow Judge has said, something which might have escaped some people.

19     We have realised that you never ask for documents to be admitted.  You

20     might do this at a later stage, but as my fellow Judge has just said, as

21     far as you're concerned, you feel that the procedure should be a fully

22     oral procedure, which would explain your position.  In other words, you

23     would not be in favour of any form of statement.

24             Now, this is just on a personal note, Mr. Seselj.  I must tell

25     you that as far as I'm concerned, given that I have been in my job for

Page 5825

 1     the last 30 years and I've been involved in criminal law, a written

 2     document is always important, and sometimes it is even more important

 3     than what a witness can say when he comes and talks about events which

 4     occurred more than 20 years ago, and he may suffer from memory loss.

 5     However, a document that was drafted 20 years ago can be relied upon,

 6     unless of course it's a forged document.  This is why it is extremely

 7     important to have documents.  And if, as a matter of principle, you

 8     declare that you are only in favour of oral proceedings, well, this could

 9     handicap your own Defence because you might have crucial documents that

10     you wish to have admitted in support of your case.  In that case, those

11     documents could be vital to you.

12             This is a mixed -- these are mixed proceedings.  It's a

13     combination of civil law and common law proceedings, and this Tribunal is

14     tending to admit more and more evidence that has already been admitted in

15     other cases, or in favour of admitting material evidence that was

16     collected through documents.  Oral testimony is one thing, but oral

17     testimony, when it is not corroborated by evidence, has less of a

18     probative value.  Oral testimony in addition to documents has a greater

19     probative value.

20             Would you like to say something again on this crucial

21     issue, i.e., Rule 92 ter?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll take these matters in

23     reverse order as well.

24             Firstly, as far as the issue raised by Judge Lattanzi, your

25     colleague, is concerned, the issue on documents that I submit or do not

Page 5826

 1     submit.  I have submitted documents to you.  I suggested they be admitted

 2     into evidence, but you refused this request.  I have tried to collect 160

 3     documents through my associates, assistants.  They concerned the Sarajevo

 4     battlefield, and these documents show that there were no volunteers from

 5     the Serbian Radical Party there at the relevant places and at the

 6     relevant times.  So I'm talking about volunteers who were sent to the

 7     battlefield from Serbia.  The Prosecution said that they don't bring this

 8     into question, but you refuse to admit this into evidence.

 9             Secondly, as far as Prosecution documents are concerned, you are

10     quite prepared to admit even the most trivial documents into evidence.

11     There are photographs that are marked with arrows by someone or that had

12     previously been marked with arrows by someone, and these are things that

13     I have never contested or challenged.  I never challenged the idea that

14     there was a crime in Ovcara and that should have been sufficient for you.

15     That crime has been demonstrated before this court, before the courts in

16     Belgrade so there is no doubt as to the existence of a crime there.  But

17     many Prosecution documents of a trivial nature have been admitted into

18     evidence, and therefore I don't think that I'm being treated fairly.  I

19     won't suggest anything be admitted into evidence.  I'll use documents in

20     the course of my cross-examination.  But as to what you admit into

21     evidence or not, well, finally, that's not something that concerns me.

22             Secondly, the Registry is very late with the translation of those

23     documents.  They haven't even translated documents that I submitted five

24     months ago, and I'm no longer providing the Registry with new documents

25     for translation.  Those two large books has been extended until the

Page 5827

 1     beginning of the Defence case, or the translation of those two large

 2     books.

 3             I'm adapting to the situation.  I'm not protesting.

 4             As far as Rule 92 ter is concerned, that Rule provides for the

 5     possibility of taking statements outside the framework of a trial or

 6     hearing.  Rule 71 provides for the way in which such statements should be

 7     taken, a statement of any witness, if it is to be admitted into

 8     evidence -- well, such a statement should be taken by the Prosecution in

 9     my presence or in the presence of a member of my legal team.  And as

10     such, a document can be admitted into evidence.

11             The legal nature of statements taken by the Prosecution outside

12     the framework of the courtroom and without the presence of a member of

13     the Defence team is such that such statements can be part of the

14     indictment, but not part of the evidence.  Everything noted or drafted by

15     the Prosecution as part of the indictment or of something that supports

16     the indictment, not evidence.  Evidence must be something objectively

17     obtained with regard to the purpose and intentions of the Prosecution.

18     The Prosecution cannot present evidence, and here the current practice is

19     for the Prosecution to present evidence by taking such statements and by

20     suggesting that they be admitted into evidence and also by putting

21     forward members of its own team as experts in this case.

22             In certain other cases, the Prosecution investigators would

23     appear, and before the Judges in the courtroom they would summarise the

24     testimony of a large number of witnesses, and that was a procedure

25     followed in some cases.  The investigator took statements for about 20

Page 5828

 1     witnesses who were victims and then compiled a statement of his own, a

 2     summary.  And in certain cases, the Prosecution called such investigators

 3     to testify, instead of calling the 20 victims, the 20 witnesses.  They

 4     will call, in such cases, their own investigator, who tells you about the

 5     experiences of the victims, and this is not something that can be

 6     accepted, in legal terms.  This will go down in the history of

 7     international law, I'm quite persuaded of the fact, and I don't want to

 8     adapt myself to such a procedure.

 9             You should bring 92 ter in line with Rule 71, because there's a

10     confrontation here between 92 ter and the main rules as laid out in

11     Rule 71.  Not a single Trial Chamber has tried to resolve the problems of

12     that conflict between those two Rules because of the corrupted or

13     incompetent lawyers who work here.

14             Proceed as you wish.  In one specific case, I asked you to

15     re-examine your decision.  If you refuse to do so, I'll adapt to that,

16     and that's it, but I will not cooperate in this procedure that is

17     contrary to the law.  It's contrary to the law to have such provisions in

18     the Rules and to include previous statements of witnesses, statements

19     drafted by the Prosecution.  The Prosecution also confirms that they

20     drafted such statements.  There's no doubt about this.  This is something

21     that has been compiled by the Prosecution.  The Prosecution knows that

22     the witness is not capable of telling the story in an identical manner

23     here in the courtroom.

24             The last witness, we had a notorious criminal and quite obviously

25     a liar.  Well, in his case, the Prosecution wrote a statement for him,

Page 5829

 1     and the witness, who was prepared to lie all the time, could not remember

 2     all of his incredible lies.  He wasn't able to repeat those lies in the

 3     courtroom.  I reminded him of the lies that he forgot to mention or

 4     didn't have time to mention, because it's more difficult to remember lies

 5     than facts, it's easier to forget lies.  Someone who lies a lot will trip

 6     up on his own lies, whereas facts leave indelible traces in one's mind

 7     until the end of one's life.  And when witnesses who are victims are

 8     concerned, that's even more so the case.  When someone starts

 9     manipulating with the tragedy of certain victims, well, this is quite

10     simply a new crime.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber will

12     deliberate on the matter to see whether we stand by our previous decision

13     or modify it, in light of what you have said and in light of what

14     Mr. Mundis has told us.

15             So we shall now show the videos up until 10.30, last week's

16     videos.

17             Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.

18             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             Perhaps before or while we get these videos ready to go, I do

20     have two other very short matters that I'd like to raise.  The first

21     one --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is another issue

23     which I wanted to address and which I didn't because Mr. Seselj wanted to

24     take the floor, so I shall give you the floor, Mr. Mundis, in a few

25     moments, but I would like to ask the Registrar to move into closed

Page 5830

 1     session, please.

 2                           [Private session]

 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   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5831











11 Page 5831 redacted. Private session.















Page 5832

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

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

14             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             Just two very brief matters to raise before we commence with the

16     videotapes.  The first concerns a list that was provided to the Registry

17     for transmission to the accused yesterday.  This is the list that follows

18     from our discussion, I believe it was on the 20th of March, in which we

19     indicated we would make a list of all videos in the Prosecution's

20     possession available to the accused so that he could review that list.  I

21     wanted to indicate that a list was provided.  I'm not sure if it was

22     handed to the accused yesterday or perhaps this morning or later today,

23     but we have provided him with a 979-page spreadsheet in English, which he

24     agreed to accept at the earlier hearing, and I did want to follow up with

25     the Trial Chamber on that because I informed you that I would be

Page 5833

 1     notifying you when that lift was made available.  So the accused either

 2     has or will have shortly a list of -- a 979-page list of videos in the

 3     Prosecution's possession with a tick box for him to indicate which

 4     videotapes he would like and we will endeavour to disclose those to the

 5     accused.

 6             The second point, Your Honours:  Yesterday afternoon, the

 7     Prosecution filed a motion seeking leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list

 8     to include a booklet we've produced of insignia and uniforms worn by

 9     certain armed formations and military units during the conflict 1991 to

10     1995.  Attached to that motion was a DVD containing an electronic version

11     of this booklet.  I do have about six copies of that book here in the

12     courtroom today, and if it would be helpful, I can distribute those to

13     the Trial Chamber, legal officer, and the accused at this point in time.

14             Perhaps if I could have the assistance of the usher, we could

15     distribute these books.

16             I will also indicate, for the benefit of Dr. Seselj, that the

17     translation of the first couple of pages of this book is -- into the

18     Serbian language is forthcoming.  Other than that, everything, I believe,

19     is self-explanatory in the booklet.  But the cover page and the first

20     page are two that require translation, is in the process of being done,

21     and will be disclosed as soon as that's available.  And, again, I simply

22     wanted to prepare or produce for the Chamber a hard copy of this book.

23     It is the subject, as I indicated, of a motion to add to our exhibit

24     list, and that was filed yesterday afternoon.

25             Thank you.

Page 5834

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Mundis.  The

 2     Trial Chamber will, of course, examine this book, which is made up of

 3     photographs of soldiers and various insignia, which will help us better

 4     understand these insignia which are mentioned.

 5             On page 109, for instance, the White Eagles, we can see the

 6     insignia here fairly well.  Two eagles are shown.  The Assault Battalion

 7     of the White Eagles.  This could be extremely interesting.  Mr. Seselj,

 8     of course, will give us his comments, if he has any, on the insignia in

 9     question.  If need be, this booklet will be given an exhibit number, but

10     only once Mr. Seselj has told us whether he is in favour or against, and

11     if he's opposed to it, for what reasons.  But take your time, Mr. Seselj.

12     We are not going to be asking you today to take a stand on this.  But if

13     you tell us right away that you agree, then we can give this booklet an

14     exhibit number.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've already had a

16     look at the document.  This can be dealt with immediately.  I know

17     everything about the document, and I think it's impossible to have this

18     document admitted into evidence because we don't know who the author of

19     the document is.  This isn't stated anywhere in the document.  I don't

20     know whether this book was published somewhere or not, or did members of

21     the Prosecution compile this on the basis of their own criteria?  No

22     explanation is provided.  This isn't a book in any sense of the term.

23     It's only a book in that someone compiled something in this way.  It's a

24     handmade book.  It can't admitted into evidence.  We don't know when this

25     was drafted.  We'd need an expert report to accompany this.

Page 5835

 1             And as I had a look at this immediately, from page 78, the

 2     insignia of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, have a look at

 3     page 79, this was never the insignia used by volunteers from the Serbian

 4     Radical Party, nor was it the official flag of the Serbian Radical Party

 5     or its section of the Serbian Chetnik Movement.  We never produced a flag

 6     of this kind, never, and the Serbian Chetnik Movement didn't have any

 7     particular insignia that distinguished it from the Serbian Radical Party.

 8     The Serbian Radical Party has one symbol, and that symbol is used for all

 9     the party -- for the entire party and all its sections.  So page 79, what

10     we have on 79, is invented.  Such flags were the handmade products of

11     individuals, of certain enthusiasts, certain individuals who had fallen

12     in love with the Chetnik traditions, so we didn't believe that old

13     Chetnik traditions needed such symbols.

14             On page 80, this is the flag of the Serbian Radical Party.  It's

15     been visually modified to a certain extent here, but on the whole that's

16     the flag.

17             Page 81, this flag and emblem have nothing to do with the Serbian

18     Radical Party, nor did the Serbian Radical Party ever produce anything of

19     this kind.  This has been produced by someone on an independent basis.

20     It's handmade work.  There's not a single company in Serbia that is

21     involved in producing flags, symbols, badges, and that produced these

22     items in a serial manner.

23             Page 82, similarly, this has been nothing to do with the Serbian

24     Radical Party.  The Serbian Radical Party never produced items of this

25     kind, and our members never had such emblems on them.

Page 5836

 1             On page 83, this is an emblem that again is a handmade emblem.

 2     It does say "The Serbian Chetnik Movement" on it, that's true, but this

 3     was never the official emblem used by the Serbian Chetnik Movement.

 4     There was a section within the Serbian Radical Party, that was a branch

 5     of the Serbian Radical Party.  Perhaps it was an independent Chetnik

 6     movement.  Such movements appeared in various places.

 7             On page 84, again this emblem says "The Serbian Chetnik

 8     Movement," but we don't know who produced this or when, and it has

 9     nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party.

10             Again we're talking about someone's handiwork here.  On page 85

11     it says "The Main Staff of the Serbian Chetnik Movement."  It has

12     absolutely nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party.  The Serbian

13     Radical Party never had items of this kind, nor did it produce or

14     distribute such items.

15             On page 86, it's one of the modified versions of the old cockade

16     Chetnik caps.  Someone produced these items as souvenirs and sold them in

17     the street.  This was never officially accepted by the Serbian Radical

18     Party.

19             And then if we carry on and have a look at page 87, we can see

20     that it has to do with the Ravno Gora Serbian Chetniks.  Well, these

21     Chetniks never had such official insignia.  This is someone's handiwork.

22     Again, the Prosecution has to compile a list of the various Chetnik

23     organisations in existence in Serbia, Montenegro, at Republika Srpska,

24     and the Republic of Serbian Krajina, they had to break it down on the

25     base of these various organisations.

Page 5837

 1             On page 88, yet again this is a -- is some produce of symbols

 2     that was sold at street stalls.  This wasn't legally produced, it wasn't

 3     legally sold.  This was sold from cardboard boxes in the streets of

 4     Belgrade.

 5             On page 89, well, look, this emblem contains the Serbian flag,

 6     the skull, crossed swords, and it says "Freedom or Death."  That's a

 7     Chetnik slogan that's one century old, but it has absolutely nothing to

 8     do with the Serbian Radical Party.  It doesn't say the Serbian Radical

 9     Party.  It doesn't say the Serbian Chetnik Movement, either.

10             On page 90, the Sarajevo Chetnik Detachment, well, that's the

11     detachment that later joined the Army of Republika Srpska.  It was the

12     2nd Company of a certain battalion within a certain brigade of the Army

13     of Republika Srpska and it has nothing to do with the Serbian Radical

14     Party.

15             On page 91, you can see it again, a cap with a cockade or kind of

16     cockade cap.  What does this have to do with the Serbian Radical Party?

17     The Serbian Radical Party cannot appropriate a traditional Serbian cap or

18     Subara.

19             On page 92, we have the traditional Serbian "sajkaca" cap with a

20     cockade cap.  What does this have to do with the Serbian Radical Party?

21     We can't appropriate such items because this is the heritage of the

22     entire Serbian people.

23             On page 93, you can see a group of individuals, two of whom have

24     beards, and one of them has the flag -- or a flag with Chetnik symbols.

25     Where's the proof that this has anything to do with the Serbian Radical

Page 5838

 1     Party?  One of them is wearing a Montenegrin cap.  It's the second one.

 2             On page 94, again you can see a group of soldiers.  This is a

 3     photograph we've already seen in the courtroom, and one of the soldiers

 4     is wearing a Subara cap and a kind of -- a version of the cockade cap.

 5     We can't see what version is at stake.  What does this have to do with

 6     the Serbian Radical Party again?

 7             Sir, on page 95, 96, and 97, on those pages you can see two

 8     versions of the insignia of the Special Manda Unit in Bilek [phoen].

 9     This one individual became a member of the Serbian Radical Party.  I did

10     declare that he was a Chetnik Vojvoda, but the Serbian Radical Party

11     didn't form his unit, and his unit wasn't formed of volunteers from the

12     Serbian Radical Party it sent to the unit from Serbia.

13             Mitar Maksimovic, Manda, subsequently joined the Serbian Radical

14     Party.  He was a member of ours, later he was the president of the

15     municipality in Bilek, the people elected him, Mr. President, and then

16     five or six years ago he died in a traffic accident.  So none of this can

17     be tied to the Serbian Radical Party, apart from the flag on page 80.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You have made your


20             Mr. Mundis, first we'd like to know who made this document.  I

21     assume that it is the OTP.  The second observation, we would like to know

22     where these insignias come from, which witness brought them.  We know

23     nothing of this.  There are insignias that don't request any comments.

24     The one on page 5, JNA insignia, I believe this will not be challenged.

25             As to the TOs, well, Mr. Seselj now is challenging a good number

Page 5839

 1     of insignias, starting with number 80 and so on and so forth, as of

 2     page 78.  All this is under SRS volunteers or SCP volunteers, and he is

 3     challenging all this.

 4             MR. MUNDIS:  Mr. President, the photo book indeed was compiled by

 5     the Office of the Prosecutor based on a large number of sources.  Many of

 6     those insignia are simply -- or uniforms are simply photographs that are

 7     in our possession.  The information comes from a wide variety of sources.

 8     There's not one witness who provided us with the photos, or pictures, or

 9     actual uniform insignia themselves.

10             Let me just put on the record and make it very clear the purpose

11     of this book.  It doesn't serve any independent purpose or function.  The

12     usefulness of such a tool is to assist the Trial Chamber in those

13     situations where we have a live witness come in and testify about what he

14     saw on someone's uniform, and in that sense the proper recourse for the

15     accused is to cross-examine the witness.  For example, we bring in a

16     witness who says, "I saw a soldier wearing a uniform with insignia on it.

17     It looks to me or to the best of my recollection it was the patch on

18     page 112."  If the accused thinks that that patch on page 112 is a bogus

19     patch or something that was made up or something that we created, he can

20     cross-examine the witness on that.  It's simply a tool to allow us to

21     visualise the various insignia that witnesses might indicate in the

22     courtroom here during their testimony that a person was wearing.  The

23     book serves no value whatsoever in the course of the witness testimony,

24     and the proper recourse for the accused would be to cross-examine the

25     witness who says, "I saw a someone wearing a uniform or an insignia that

Page 5840

 1     looks just like the one on page 7 or page 12 or page 96."

 2             So it's not some sort of expert compilation booklet that we'll be

 3     relying on in the absence of any witness testimony, so I think that to a

 4     certain extent it's a bit of much a do about nothing.  The book serves no

 5     purpose unless and until a witness comes in and says, "This is the

 6     uniform I saw someone wearing on the day of this attack," and the accused

 7     can cross-examine on that point, the Trial Chamber can ask questions on

 8     that point.  The book, sitting on a shelf by itself, serves no purpose

 9     whatsoever without witness testimony to identify the various patches or

10     insignia.  I would also guess during the course of this trial that a

11     large number of those pages in that booklet probably won't be identified

12     by anyone, but we simply put together a compilation of material gathered

13     by this office over the course of many years concerning uniforms and

14     insignia, and there's nothing secret about that.  It's simply something

15     that would assist the Trial Chamber again in visualising material that --

16     that would be helpful to the Trial Chamber in terms of identifying

17     uniforms, units, insignia, et cetera.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the insignia on

19     page 80, the insignia of the Serbian Radical Party, you're not contesting

20     this one, are you, two eagles, "Serbian Radical Party" on a blue

21     background?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a

23     strangely-deformed flag of the Serbian Radical Party.  The eagle is

24     elongated.  The letters are too close together.  The original Serbian

25     Radical Party flag has an eagle which is not elongated in this way.  And

Page 5841

 1     the spacing between the letters is greater.  The letters are in a

 2     semicircle.  Here somebody intentionally wanted the letters to form the

 3     letter U, which has an extremely negative meaning in the Serbian national

 4     consciousness because it is reminiscent of the Ustasha in World War II.

 5     We would never have done something like this.  If it's a semicircle, then

 6     it's the flag of the Serbian Radical Party.

 7             So this is an intentionally-distorted flag of the Serbian Radical

 8     Party, in my opinion.

 9             However, I wish to draw your attention to something else, Judge.

10     This is something put together in haste.  It's not the result of

11     systematic research.  It's simply a compilation of things the OTP has

12     come across over a number of years.  It might have a certain value in the

13     proceedings.  For example, had I had this available when the two Muslim

14     protected witnesses were testifying, and one of them mentioned some sort

15     of Seselj assault units, you remember how I challenged this.  I had never

16     heard of assault units.  And on page 111, we have a symbol "White Eagles

17     Assault Battalion."  Had I had this at the time, I might have shown this

18     to the witness and said, "Did these assault troops which were allegedly

19     mine wear this sort of insignia?"  And had the witness confirmed this,

20     this would have proved my point.  However, the form has not been met for

21     this to qualify as evidence, because the OTP cannot produce evidence.

22             We can be grateful to the Prosecutor, because we have now

23     discovered that the OTP is the author of this book, because it provided

24     us with material that we can use with more or less success.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, given Mr. Seselj's

Page 5842

 1     objection, we will not give a number to this book.  But if a witness

 2     says, "I saw an insignia," that the OTP can show him the book at

 3     such-and-such a page, and say, "Yes, this is what I saw," "This is not

 4     what I saw," and through this means we will be able to obtain

 5     information.

 6             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I want to say that

 7     we will not give a number -- will not admit this document because the

 8     Prosecution so far has not tendered this document.

 9             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Judge Lattanzi.

10             Yes, at this point, Your Honours, all we're asking is that we be

11     allowed to add it to the exhibit list.  We're not simply tendering it.

12     And, of course, to reiterate, in light of the accused's last comments,

13     this book is not evidence until a witness or witnesses come in and start

14     pointing to various pages or describing material on various pages of the

15     book, at which point in time we will, in fact, tender the book into

16     evidence, or at least those pages of it that a witness has identified.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So in the first

18     step, you're just asking for this document to be added to the exhibit

19     list, and whenever witnesses come and recognise such-and-such insignia,

20     you will tender the page in question?

21             MR. MUNDIS:  That's correct, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I think everyone

23     understood.

24             It's 10.20.  I think we should have a 20-minute break, and then

25     we will resume with the videos, since we will have checked all

Page 5843

 1     administrative and technical problems.

 2             Another topic, Mr. Mundis, first?

 3             MR. MUNDIS:  Mr. President, with all due respect, it would be

 4     very helpful perhaps after the break if we could get a ruling from the

 5     Trial Chamber as to the reconsideration on the 92 ter issue.  That, of

 6     course, affects our planning in terms of how we discuss with the witness

 7     who is --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll consult on this

 9     immediately.  We're going to study it and deliberate over the break.

10                           --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 10.42 a.m.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber will

13     issue its decision on whether or not we will apply Rule 92 ter for

14     Witness VS-1014.

15             The Trial Chamber deliberated and maintains its former position,

16     the position of February 27th, 2008.  Therefore, the OTP will tender the

17     written statement and will ask the normal questions to the witness in

18     order to confirm the entirety of the written statement.  The Prosecutor

19     will show a number of documents.  I don't believe that there's many, I

20     think there's only two.  After this, the Trial Chamber will put questions

21     to the witness so that the witness gives explanations on a few points in

22     his written statement.  Then the Trial Chamber will give the floor to

23     Mr. Seselj, asking him if he wants to cross-examine the witness.  If he

24     does not want to cross-examine the witness, Mr. Seselj will still have

25     the possibility of tendering the statement made to BiH authorities which

Page 5844

 1     he believes contradicts the written statement, and later on, when

 2     examining the written statement, the answers given by the witness to the

 3     Chamber is put, and after having possibly looked at the statement made to

 4     the authorities of the BiH, that the Trial Chamber will decide whether

 5     the written statement will be admitted or not.

 6             This is the ruling, and the Prosecution can now prepare for

 7     tomorrow.

 8             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             I will put on the record, as I indicated earlier, that it is

10     almost certain, if not very likely, that in the event Mr. Seselj declines

11     to cross-examine the witness and then seeks to tender a prior statement

12     of the witness, that the Prosecution will be vehemently opposed to that.

13     Our view would be that he has the opportunity to cross-examine the

14     witness on the prior statement, and if he foregoes that, then our view

15     will be that he should be precluded from tendering that statement.  I

16     simply indicate that now so that the accused is very well aware of the

17     position we will be taking with respect to any prior statements of the

18     witness.

19             Having said that, Mr. President, we are ready to commence with

20     the next chapter, if you will, or category of videos.  These concern

21     instigation, hate speech, and propaganda.

22             The first clip bears 65 ter number 6002B.  This document -- or

23     video was received around the 18th of August, 1999, from an unknown

24     source.  This again is amateur footage of a speech by the accused.  This

25     clip runs for several minutes.  This is 65 ter number 6002B.

Page 5845

 1                           [Videotape played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover]  "What represents our most

 3     vulnerable point, the Kosovo-Metohija issue, the issue of the Albanian

 4     separatist insurgent.  The current military police action in

 5     Kosovo-Metohija succeeded in eliminating the most extreme aspects of

 6     Albanian separatism and repression of the Serbian population that lives

 7     there, but I'm convinced that a lasting solution cannot be achieved in

 8     this way.  In order to achieve a solution to the Kosovo and Metohija

 9     question, I propose a new colonization of Kosovo and Metohija.

10             "The question now is how.  Of course, one should have no

11     illusions about the possibility of returning those Serbs who have left

12     Kosovo and Metohija, who have learned what it means to live with

13     Albanians, a primitive and uncivilised people, as their next-door

14     neighbours, who have reached Belgrade and Serbia proper, the possibility

15     of returning them to the -- they have found jobs, they send children to

16     school.  A possibility of returning them to the nightmare of Kosovo and

17     Metohija, it would be inhumane of any regime to force them by any

18     political means to go back.  But the fact that the Serbs who had fled

19     Kosovo and Metohija for the most part would not come back to Kosovo and

20     Metohija does not mean that there can be no new colonization.  In order

21     to carry out a new colonization of Kosovo and Metohija, I propose that

22     the Yugoslav and Serbian capital be moved to the area of Kosovo and

23     Metohija.

24             "Whether it is moved to Pristina, Prizren, or some other place is

25     not so important.  What is important is that by moving the capital, the

Page 5846

 1     state institutions would be moved, all the state bodies and institutions,

 2     several hundred thousand government employees, the civil servants and

 3     members of their families would be moved.  In this way, the overall

 4     ethnic composition of the population of Kosovo and Metohija would change

 5     in a significant way, and it would mean a fresh financial injection, and

 6     the economic development of this depressed region would accelerate.  Of

 7     course, I propose that all the military and police academies not directly

 8     linked to the commands of particular military districts also be moved to

 9     the region of Kosovo and Metohija, which means that several thousand

10     commissioned and non-commissioned officers and police officials and their

11     family members would move, which would also impact the overall ethnic

12     composition of the population of Kosovo and Metohija.

13             "Further, I propose that any economic assistance to Kosovo and

14     Metohija, that is, to the Albanian population that lives there, be

15     immediately stopped.  According to the data published by the

16     regime-backed media in Belgrade sometime in March of this year, Kosovo

17     and Metohija receives a million dollars a day from the so-called

18     assistance fund for underdeveloped republics and regions, and what this

19     does for the most part is subsidize the outsized Albanian birth rate.  I

20     have nothing against the Albanians continuing to multiply as fast as they

21     do, but not at the expense of Serbs.  We, the Serbs, will not finance

22     their disproportionate birth rate.

23             "If they want to procreate at this rate, they should themselves

24     support their children or face the fact that their children will starve.

25     We, the Serbs, will no longer finance them.  Since it has become evident

Page 5847

 1     that Albania, as a state, has taken a staunchly hostile position towards

 2     Yugoslavia and Serbia, and since it has become evident that the vast

 3     majority of members of the Albanian ethnic minority living within our

 4     borders are staunchly hostile towards the Serbian and Yugoslav state

 5     sovereignty and territorial integrity, especially in this vital part of

 6     our country, I believe that Yugoslavia and Serbia states have all the

 7     authority based on the international law to do anything in their power to

 8     protect our state sovereignty and territorial integrity.  In that sense,

 9     I propose that a zone of 50 or perhaps even 100 kilometres along the

10     Albanians border be declared a zone of strategic interest for our

11     country.

12             "That the entire Albanian population be moved out of this zone,

13     with just monetary compensation, and be directed to resettle themselves

14     elsewhere in other parts of Yugoslavia, I repeat, with a just

15     compensation, to resettle, let us say, in the territory of the

16     present-day Croatia and Slovenia because they are the most developed.

17     Because these are the most developed parts of Yugoslavia, they would have

18     the least problem in absorbing them, giving them jobs, securing them for

19     civil protection, and it turns out that the Croats and the Slovenes like

20     them the most, support them the most.  I am convinced that they will

21     enthusiastically accept this proposal of mine.

22             "By presenting this proposal, I am taking into account the

23     indisputable fact that the real centre of the Albanian separatist

24     insurgence is neither Pristina nor Tirana but Zagreb, and the arable land

25     in this zone along the Albanian border could temporarily be placed under

Page 5848

 1     military management.  The army would establish agricultural farms,

 2     organise agricultural production.  This is the most fertile land in all

 3     of Europe which under the current Albanian management is yielding the

 4     lowest crops in all of Europe because the Albanians are used to living

 5     off the assistance of the rest of Yugoslavia and have no need to work or

 6     farm this land efficiently.

 7             "Military management of several years, let us say 10 or 15 years,

 8     would significantly contribute to the country recovering from its

 9     economic crisis, especially the bread basket of Metohija could feed

10     almost all of Central Europe and to date cannot even feed Kosovo and

11     Metohija.  And what I consider the most important at this time, the most

12     important point, I propose that all 360.000 Albanian immigrants who have

13     crossed into Serbia and Yugoslavia from Albania since the 6th of April,

14     1941, urgently be sent back to Albania, that they be delivered to the UN

15     High Commissioner for Refugees.  Throughout the world there are so many

16     richer and larger countries, so let them take them, let them show a

17     little of their humanity.  Why should we, the Serbs, always prove our

18     humanity and be stabbed in the back by these Albanian immigrants?

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do you have any


21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Even today, I am very proud of this

22     speech of mine made in 1989.  I regret that the OTP did not play the

23     entire speech.  I wish that in 1989, I had had an opportunity to come to

24     power.  However, there are several problems here.

25             First of all, the dating of this speech is incorrect.  It can't

Page 5849

 1     have been on the 8th of August, 1989.  It can only have been towards the

 2     end of August or in early September 1989.

 3             Secondly, the question arises as to the temporal relevance.  The

 4     speech was made in 1989, and my indictment covers the period from the 1st

 5     of August, 1991, to September 1993.

 6             A third issue is also one of relevance.  Kosovo and Metohija and

 7     the events there are not, unfortunately, covered by the indictment

 8     against me.  The question then arises of the motives of the OTP in

 9     tendering this document.

10             Fourthly, one must bear in mind that the year 1989 was still a

11     year of full communist dictatorship in Serbia and Yugoslavia.  There was

12     no multi-party system.  In 1989, I was still a dissident, I was still

13     being persecuted, and I was making speeches and giving lectures as an

14     individual.

15             When I left prison in 1986, until the spring of 1989, I couldn't

16     even travel abroad.  The right to a passport was denied me.  After a

17     battle of three years, after a judgement of the highest court in

18     Yugoslavia, I was granted a passport, and that was the first time I was

19     able to travel abroad after many, many years.

20             All this has to be borne in mind, and yet the OTP is unable to

21     explain why they wish to tender this speech.  As the OTP cannot provide a

22     single argument to induce the Trial Chamber to admit this document, I

23     support the admission of this document so the Trial Chamber can do this

24     without entering into all these objections.

25             I do want this speech to be admitted because I am proud of it.

Page 5850

 1     However, what I say about relevance remains.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This speech was held in 1989,

 3     end of August or beginning of September.  You specify that it's the 8th

 4     of August, but this is challenged.

 5             The second point, this has to do with Kosovo.  Nobody challenges

 6     that Kosovo is not part of the indictment, which the accused regrets.

 7     This is what he's just told us and has told us on several occasions.

 8             The accused is telling us that in 1989, former Yugoslavia was

 9     operating as such and he was a dissident.

10             This document can be useful in what way, even though the accused

11     is not against the admission of this document, but what is the purpose of

12     this document?

13             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honour, it can go to evidence of state of mind,

14     the accused's thoughts and processes with respect to other matters that

15     are relevant in the indictment.  We could certainly set forth a number of

16     additional arguments if Your Honours would like to hear that.  Our view

17     would be that because the accused does not object to the document or the

18     video going into evidence, that that really should be taken into

19     consideration by the Trial Chamber.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall ask my colleagues what

21     they think about it.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Bench, after having

24     deliberated on the matter for some time, has decided to admit the

25     document and ask the Registrar to give it an exhibit number, please.

Page 5851

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P349.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to specify,

 3     because it's not mentioned in the English version, this decision was a

 4     majority decision.

 5             Let's proceed.

 6             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7             The next video clip bears 65 ter number 6015A.  This video is

 8     from May 1991.  It runs a little bit longer than one minute.  It

 9     originally was from TV Novi Sad, a programme entitled "Without Incisions

10     and Without Anaesthesia."  The Office of the Prosecutor received this

11     from AID in Sarajevo on 27 August 1998.  Again, this video bears 65 ter

12     number 6015A.

13                           [Videotape played]

14             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover]  "What do you see as the outcome?

15     Should this thing now started be continued in the sense --

16             "My opinion is that the army must disarm the Ustashas urgently,

17     and then we will recall the Chetniks, bring them all back and disarm

18     them, if the army does this.  If the army doesn't do this, and there's no

19     more time for waiting, now we will set about disarming the Croats

20     ourselves.  We sent units into Zagreb itself and into many other Croatian

21     towns, special groups equipped and trained for sabotage and terrorist

22     operations.

23             "If the Croats mistreat the Serbian people in those areas where

24     we can't protect the Serbs, if they carry out genocide against them, we

25     will conduct reprisals in places where the Croats are weakest.  And you

Page 5852

 1     know that when reprisals are carried out, when revenge is taken then

 2     revenge is blind and many innocent Croats will suffer.  But what can you

 3     do?

 4             "While they still got time, they should think about the

 5     consequences, and let's hope they don't take the Ustasha dagger and hold

 6     it up with us carrying out reprisals.  This is their last warning.  If it

 7     ends up with us carrying out reprisals, we won't be held responsible for

 8     the consequences."

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing against having this

11     admitted into evidence, in principle, and I am proud of this statement,

12     but there are a few comments I'd like to make.

13             Firstly, the video is too short.  It's one minute and five

14     seconds' long, if I have calculated the time correctly.  It's too brief

15     an extract from a lengthier discussion that took an hour and a half, if

16     my memory serves me well.

17             Secondly, the issue of relevance occurs.  This is a video from

18     May 1991.  This is outside the time frame of the indictment, and we

19     should bear in mind the framework in which this was done.

20             In May 1991, the Serbian Radical Party was a small,

21     extra-parliamentary party.  It didn't have a single member in the

22     people's assembly.  It was only registered in March 1991, and we had our

23     first member of Parliament in June of that year, and we only had one

24     representative until the end of 1992.  This should be borne in mind.

25     It's important.

Page 5853

 1             And, secondly, shortening a video in this manner is tantamount to

 2     massacring it, because naturally we're dealing with a warning here, don't

 3     do certain things, cease attacking, don't incite revenge.  Everything

 4     that was said was said as a warning, as a deterrent.  You should bear in

 5     mind the period when this was done.  It was in May, that period when we

 6     were sending volunteers to certain villages in Slavonia.  We wanted to

 7     withdraw the volunteers.  We were prepared to do this if the army

 8     disarmed the Ustasha.  And all of this was said in these several

 9     sentences.

10             If we had seen a lengthier extract from this video, it would have

11     all been a lot clearer.  This isn't a hate speech.  It's a warning.  It

12     says, "Don't take up arms.  Revenge is blind.  The innocent will suffer,"

13     and so on and so forth.  So the sense is, in fact, quite the opposite of

14     the sense that the Prosecution intends.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a speech aimed as a

16     deterrent, not a hate speech.  This is what you have just imparted to us

17     just now.  You complain about the fact that it is an excerpt of an

18     interview which lasted one hour and 30 minutes, but we look into the

19     relevance here, because this was dated the 22nd of May, 1991.  No MP was

20     represented at the time, so there is no objection as a matter of

21     principle.

22             The Trial Chamber has factored in your remarks, and we'll give it

23     an exhibit number.

24             Let me say that this was shown very quickly.  You were wearing a

25     Blazer, and on the Blazer there was an insignia there was an insignia

Page 5854

 1     which we cannot distinguish very clearly, in fact we can't see it at all

 2     but you were wearing an insignia.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I suggest that we

 4     have a look at the video again, and we could zoom in on that insignia.

 5     That's technically possible.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's see the video again just

 7     for one minute.  We have time to do so.

 8                           [Videotape played]

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop.  Seemingly, there is an

10     insignia where the heart is, but we can't see it.

11             Please proceed.

12                           [Videotape played]

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop.  We can't see it, so

14     we're having a hard time.

15             Mr. Seselj, either you were wearing an insignia or you weren't.

16     The image is not self-explanatory.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You cannot conclude that this is an

18     insignia on the basis of this video.  Perhaps it's a bullet hole.

19     Perhaps someone shot me with a large-calibre bullet a little earlier.

20     That's in the sphere of assumptions, but I'll tell you what the truth is.

21             This was really the Serbian coat of arms, a golden coat of arms,

22     the two-headed white eagle with a "Nemanjic" crown on it, surrounded by

23     olive branches, and there was a cross, four Ss, four letters S, but this

24     is something that I can tell you, although you can't see anything.  I

25     only wore such a coat of arms.  I never wore a coat of arms with the

Page 5855

 1     skull on it.  I respect that 100-year-old tradition, when Chetniks had

 2     such a coat of arms and such a flag, for certain reasons, but there's no

 3     longer any need to use such an emblem because it's a pirate symbol in the

 4     West, and anyone in the West who sees such a symbol believes that it's a

 5     matter of pirates.  We didn't want to be seen as pirates, and that's why

 6     we avoided such emblems.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, is this coat of

 8     arms in our booklet or not?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This emblem is the coat of arms of

10     Serbia today.  It's on the Serbian flag, if you have a look, and I can

11     have a look or go through the document that we've been provided with.  It

12     will take me a minute or two, if it's -- have a look at page 32.  You

13     don't have to have a look at the frame that the two-headed eagle is in,

14     but just have a look at the two-headed white eagle with the crown on its

15     head, and you'll see that this is the coat of arms that I was wearing on

16     that day in the video.  But don't pay attention to the frame, because the

17     Army of Republika Srpska constructed the frame for other reasons.  So if

18     you don't pay attention to the frame, this is the traditional Serbian

19     coat of arms, and it goes back to the Nemanjic era and the Middle Ages.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Seselj, having specified this, can I just ask

21     whether the crown is still a part of the coat of arms?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The crown is part of the state

23     Serbian coat of arms.  The crown symbolizes statehood, imperial

24     statehood.  Serbia was an empire, had two empires, the emperors, Emperor

25     Dusan and another emperor.  So this is the case for the coat of arms now,

Page 5856

 1     but it's not on flag of the Serbian Radical Party.  The coat of arms on

 2     the flag doesn't have a crown, you just have the two-headed white eagle

 3     and the two crossed swords.

 4             How did this emblem of the Serbian Radical Party appear?  We had

 5     in mind the Chetnik emblem.  The Chetnik emblem doesn't have a crown.

 6     It's a two-headed eagle with crossed swords, but it has a skull.  That's

 7     the old tradition.  When we constructed -- when we made the coat of arms

 8     for the Serbian Radical Party, we didn't use the skull.  The skull is

 9     never used as an emblem for the Serbian Radical Party.  We had the four

10     Ss and the cross and the shield, but we maintained the crossed swords.

11     It's a modified old Chetnik symbol.  It's not a state symbol.  It's been

12     adapted to the ideology of the current Serbian Radical Party.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for having specified

14     this.  This is useful.

15             Registrar, could we have an exhibit number for the video, please.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P350.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.

18             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             The next video clip bears 65 ter number 6016A.  This video is

20     from 4 May 1991.  It's a video compilation of television broadcasts from

21     4 to 6 May 1991, originating from SFRY TV, submitted to the Office of the

22     Prosecutor by Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996.  This again is 65 ter

23     number 6016A.

24                           [Videotape played]

25             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "All those who proclaimed our

Page 5857

 1     honourable duke, "Red Duke," using skilful deceits and their servants in

 2     the media should just take one look at the other side of the Danube

 3     River, and they will see how much effort our Dr. Vojislav Seselj invested

 4     in the last month in helping the Serbs of Slavonia Baranja, and the

 5     Serbian Krajina.  In the last months, helping the Serbs of Slavonia,

 6     Baranja and Serbian Krajina."

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it looks like the Prosecution

 9     overcame its timidity and now it says that Natasha Kandic is the source

10     from which they obtained this video.  This is a positive development, as

11     far as the conduct of the Prosecution is concerned, although I saw that

12     he blushed somewhat when he mentioned the name "Natasha Kandic," but that

13     doesn't matter now.  It's important to know the circumstances under which

14     this video was shot.

15             It was on the 4th of May, 1991.  The Prosecution has only taken a

16     short extract out of the video that concerns Mirko Jovic, a guest of the

17     Serbian Radical Party.  This was a short extract.  It was after the large

18     victory of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party on Borovo village

19     on the 2nd of May.  16 Croatian policemen died on that occasion,

20     according to our information many more, because the Croats never listed

21     all their victims, all their losses.  This is a protest meeting in front

22     of Tito's grave in Belgrade.  It was called "Assault on the House of

23     Flowers."

24             And when we convened this meeting, there was a state of emergency

25     in the JNA Main Staff.  Tito's grave was being guarded, and Veselin

Page 5858

 1     Sljivancanin was the commander of the unit who had organised machine-gun

 2     nests to mow us down if we really ran towards the grave, so we mocked the

 3     grave of Tito and we had a huge stake.  We wanted to show how we intended

 4     to deal with the vampire Tito.

 5             So this meeting has a very particular connotation.  This could be

 6     evidence for the Defence, this video.

 7             You should have seen my speech at the meeting.  I said how the

 8     Main Staff had convened, how they said that they would open fire if we

 9     approached Tito's grave, et cetera.  But Veselin Sljivancanin told me

10     that they had already organised machine-gun nests around Tito's grave,

11     and they would have opened fire if we'd really started running towards

12     the grave.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we shall give it an exhibit

14     number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  P351.

16             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the next video bears 65 ter number

17     6016B.  This tape also originates from SFRY TV.  It was also submitted by

18     Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996.  It's a clip from the same video

19     compilation as the prior video clip.  This clip runs approximately one

20     and a half minutes' long.  It was originally taken in early May 1991.

21     65 ter number 6016B.

22                           [Videotape played]

23             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "We are not playing around and the

24     Ustasha leader Franjo Tudjman is now finally aware that we are not

25     playing around.  We are going to realise everything that we defined as

Page 5859

 1     our political goals, and we are guaranteeing this with our own lives.

 2     Not even the Turkish Empire could disgrace the Serbian people, nor the

 3     Austro-Hungarian Empire, nor fascist Germany.  So what could that pitiful

 4     bunch of non-historical Croats do?  They are attacking unarmed people.

 5     They have beaten up dozens of Serbian young men in the police stations.

 6     They are attacking women and children, while the Serbian fighters for

 7     freedom are only attacking the armed Ustashas.  There is not a single

 8     unarmed Croat that was attacked by the Serbs.  There is not a single

 9     Croatian woman or Croatian child that could point their finger at a Serb.

10     We will do away with all armed Croats who are attacking Serbian villages.

11     Not one will survive."

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My first comment concerning

14     Mr. Mundis's statement.  He said that the SFRY TV produced this video.

15     Perhaps Yutel was behind it.  They were under the control of the then

16     Prime Minister Ante Markovic, but that should then be stated.  And this

17     video is of the same meeting, and so then one extract would be better.

18             And, thirdly, this is obviously exculpatory material, because I

19     quite directly state that our position is that we will never oppress the

20     Croatians, the civilians, women and children.  I said they would never be

21     the victims of our volunteers.  I said that only armed Croats attacking

22     Serbian villages would be targeted.  In my opinion, this is material of

23     an exculpatory nature, but since the Prosecution is tendering it, I

24     agree.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Number, please, Ms. Registrar.

Page 5860

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  P352.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the next clip bears 65 ter number

 4     6017A.  This clip also runs approximately one and a half minutes' long.

 5     It was submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor on or about 1 January

 6     2001, from an unknown source.  The approximate date of the video clip is

 7     6 May 1991, and this again is 65 ter number 6017A.

 8                           [Videotape played]

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "Our Western enemies are attempting

10     to carry out a new genocide against the Serbian people.  Brothers and

11     sister Serbs, it is our task to stop it, and we are sending this message

12     to our enemies:  Not only shall we avenge the present victims, but we

13     will avenge the previous ones, too, when they dared to put the Ustasha

14     knife under the Serbian throat again.  Bosnia and the brave Serbian

15     Herzegovina, it is particularly you who must not allow to be divided.

16     You have one political party, the Serbian Democratic Party.  You have

17     your leadership, which has proved its qualities in action on the front

18     lines and which has upheld the honour of Serbdom.  They showed the

19     Ustasha, who are superior in manpower, that the Serbian heroism is still

20     alive.  The Serbian Chetnik units will be active in all other areas of

21     Western Serbia, in Serbian Krajina, in Serbian Slavonia, Baranja, and

22     Western Srem.  We shall not give up a single inch of Serbian territory.

23     Let the Slovenes leave Yugoslavia.  They have never been our brothers or

24     friends.  Let the Croats go too, let Croatia secede, but we are not

25     giving them an inch of the territory to the east of the Karlobag -- of

Page 5861

 1     the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac line."

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Naturally, I'm proud of this speech

 4     of mine, too.  It was on the 6th of May, on St. George’s day on Mount

 5     Romanija.  I regret the fact that we've only seen a short extract.  We

 6     should have had a look at the entire video.  I appeared on horse back. 

 7     It was in front of the cave of a well-known Serbian "hajduk,"

 8     Starina Novak, from the period of the fighter against the Turks.

 9             But, again, the issue of relevance presents itself.  This is the

10     6th of May, 1991, and the indictment covers the period from the 1st of

11     August, 1991.

12             Naturally, there's a short extract which gives a fall impression.

13     We should have had a look at a lengthier extract.

14             As far as the contents are concerned, there's nothing that poses

15     a problem and this continues to be the policies pursued by the Serbian

16     Radical Party.  We radicals will never relinquish the western Serbian

17     territories, and sooner or later we will free the Serbian territory under

18     Croatia now.

19             So there's nothing that's in dispute now.  The Republic of

20     Serbian Krajina has to be liberated sooner or later.  As to when or how,

21     well, that remains to be seen.  Perhaps we won't carry this out, we who

22     are alive today, but perhaps our children will.  We'll never give this

23     idea up.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could we have a

25     number for this clip?

Page 5862

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P353.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.

 3             MR. MUNDIS:  The next clip, Your Honours, bears 65 ter number

 4     6019B.  This is a video clip from November 1991, from a television

 5     programme called "NS Plus."  This is the second of three videotapes

 6     connected to a collection of material from the Croatia Ministry of the

 7     Interior.  The clip in question apparently was originally broadcast on TV

 8     Novi Sad, and this clip runs approximately two minutes.  This is P6019B.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection before we have

10     a look at the video.

11             Perhaps the interpretation was mistaken.  I was told it was from

12     November.  It can't be November.  It was probably the 11th of May.

13     That's what it says on paper.  Perhaps the interpreter made a mistake or

14     the Prosecution, but this doesn't go back to November.  The date isn't

15     November, as it says here.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, it seems that this

17     video dates back to May and not November.

18             MR. MUNDIS:  It should be May.  If I said "November," then I

19     misspoke, but it is from the 11th of May, 1991, as indicated on the table

20     that was distributed.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Let's take a look

22     at it.

23                           [Videotape played]

24             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "There weren't many advertisements,

25     so let's carry on.  Ilija Srbin from Novi Sad:  A decision was taken

Page 5863

 1     today by the Croatian Parliament that the Knin Krajina would fall in

 2     June.  That was at 3.00 p.m. today.  I wasn't listening, I don't know if

 3     you heard about it.  What is your reaction to that decision?

 4             "Well, to be frank, I am personally looking forward to this

 5     Croatian attack.  It seems that they weren't taught enough of a lessen in

 6     Borovo Selo, so we'll make sure that they're given a more severe lesson,

 7     then.

 8             "Has the Chetnik detachment already been formed in Bijeli Mani

 9     Staro [phoen], when will it be ready?

10             "Yes, there is the committee of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, the

11     committee of the Serbian Radical Party for Baranja, and there are a lot

12     of Chetniks.

13             "Dragan Jandric from Futogo [phoen] would like to hear what you

14     have to say about the statement you made to Pogledi, 'I'll arrest

15     Tudjman, and what kind of guns can hit the letter U on the heads of

16     members of the Croatian MUP from a distance of 1.500 metres.'

17             "I said that I would arrest Tudjman, Mesic and Ante Markovic

18     before they arrested me.  A warrant for my arrest has been issued in

19     Croatia as well as in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  But it doesn't worry me very

20     much.  I never travel in Croatia, anyway, I travel in Serbian lines, in

21     Serbian Krajina, Serbian Slavonia, Serbian Baranja, and Serbian Western

22     Srem.  Serbian Chetniks have very good guns these days.  It is true that

23     they have a lot of old Thompsons made in 1942, but they have proved to be

24     very effective.  You know, if a Chetnik is a good shot and hits the Croat

25     in the forehead, it makes the Croat's eyes pop out, or if a burst of fire

Page 5864

 1     cuts a Croat across the neck, his head is literally severed from the

 2     body.  The gun are very good.  Naturally, we only shoot at armed Croats

 3     attacking Serbian villages.  We have never shot at an unarmed Croat."

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm surprised this is exculpatory

 6     material.  I just correct something.  We're not talking about rifles.

 7     We're talking about the Thompson automatic.  It has a large calibre.  I

 8     can't remember the calibre exactly, perhaps 45.  I can't remember

 9     exactly, but this calibre really leaves significant consequences wherever

10     it hits a man, in the head or in the chest.

11             The journalist was wrong.  The Thompson doesn't have a range of

12     1.500 metres.  Perhaps that's a range that's possible for the bullet, but

13     the effective range is several hundred metres.  This weapon is used for

14     close-range combat.  I just had to point this out.  So it's a Thompson

15     submachine-gun, and naturally there's nothing I change with regard to

16     what I said here.  But you can draw the conclusion that at almost every

17     speech, I emphasise the fact that we are fighting against those and only

18     those who attack Serbian villages and the Serbian people with their arms,

19     but I never advocate attacking civilians, women and children, and this is

20     always present in all my speeches.  This is a basis that you can see in

21     all my speeches.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could we have a

23     number.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P354.

25             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the next clip bears 65 ter number

Page 5865

 1     6010A.  This clip is from September 1991.  The clip runs for

 2     approximately 18 seconds.  This was received by the Office of the

 3     Prosecutor on 6 November 2002.

 4                           [Videotape played]

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "We will no longer forgive, like we

 6     did after the First and the Second World War.  The time has come for us

 7     to square old accounts as well.  The time has come for us to avenge all

 8     Serb victims and unite all Serb lands."

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, it's incorrect that

11     this was filmed in September 1991.  It has to come from an earlier

12     period, because this was the funeral of the first volunteer of the

13     Serbian Radical Party who was killed, Gradimir Pesic.  He was killed

14     somewhere between Borovo Selo and Borovo Naselje in eastern Slavonia.

15     The funeral was held in a village near Crna Trava in the south of present

16     day Serbia.  You will see that at that funeral, I'm wearing a

17     short-sleeved shirt, which means that had to be really hot, it had to be

18     summer, so it would have had to be before September 1991.

19             The OTP had the whole speech held at the funeral.  It was

20     published in "Velika Serbia," The Gazette of the Serbian Radical Party,

21     and it would have been better had they played the entire speech.

22             Secondly, there's something really amazing here.  It says that

23     the recipient, Mr. Ulrich Mussemeyer, he is the recipient and he is the

24     one submitting this, so I wish to learn from him how he handed over this

25     clip over to himself.  There has to be a source somewhere.  This could

Page 5866

 1     have been filmed by Belgrade Television and played on the news.  It could

 2     have been broadcast on the news, so RTS might be the source, Radio

 3     Television Serbia, or it may be some other source.  I don't know who

 4     precisely filmed this, but you can't have Mr. Mussemeyer listed here both

 5     as the source and the recipient.

 6             Secondly, the OTP has the clip of my election speech in December

 7     1991 during the election campaign.  There, I explain in detail what is

 8     meant by punishing the Croats for the crimes of World War II.  I

 9     explained there that it doesn't mean we will take our revenge by killing

10     Croats.  I say that we, the Serbs, are a chivalrous people.  The Croats

11     have to be punished in the way that people are punished in the modern

12     world.  They are punished for their genocide and their crimes by loss of

13     territory.  Just as Germany lost vast territories after World War II, so

14     Croatia should have been punished and reduced to its realistic borders,

15     the three counties of Zagreb, Krusevac, Varazdin.  It's quite clear but

16     the OTP doesn't wish to explain this here, so they play very brief clips

17     in attempting to support in this way something that they cannot prove.

18     The OTP has that footage in their archives, as it has a lot of other

19     footage as well, but it did not -- it is not presenting these clips in a

20     continuous manner.  It's simply extracting small clips out of context,

21     which can then be explained in a quite different manner from the way in

22     which they could be explained if they were seen in the proper context.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer, in the document

24     you seem to be the person who submits this video and also receives this

25     video.  Is this how it occurred?

Page 5867

 1             MR. MUSSEMEYER:  Your Honours, it's true I got this video in

 2     I think it was 2001 -- just let me check this.  No, it was in 2002, and I

 3     got it from the director of the Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade.

 4     I can give you also the name, if it's necessary, no problem.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Now we have an

 6     explanation.

 7             Ms. Registrar -- Mr. Seselj first.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's very important for

 9     Mr. Mussemeyer to say the name.  That's the most important issue here.

10     Otherwise, it seems that he both sent it and received it.  He should say

11     who sent it.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

13             Do you have the name of the director?

14             MR. MUSSEMEYER:  The name is Sanja [sic] Biserko.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to correct him.  The name is

16     Sonja Biserko, but I wanted to hear it live in the courtroom, because

17     apart from Natasha Kandic, there's a whole menagerie of creatures doing

18     similar work.  Natasha Kandic is simply the one most visible in all this.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, we need a number.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit 355.

21             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the next videotape bears 65 ter number

22     6028A, this video clip coming from the Radio Television Belgrade is from

23     the 18th of October, 1991.  It was submitted to the Office of the

24     Prosecutor by Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996.  The clip runs slightly

25     less than one minute.  This is 65 ter number 6028A.

Page 5868

 1                           [Videotape played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "In the packed hall of the sports

 3     centre in Kosovska Mitrovica with the participation of its leader

 4     Vojislav Seselj, after playing the national anthem and after the

 5     introductory remarks, Vojislav Seselj addressed the audience.

 6             "A moment of decision.  A fatal decision has arrived for the

 7     Serbian people.  We have only two possible options to choose from:  to

 8     accept the blackmail of the European community, the ultimatum of foreign

 9     charlatans to fall on our knees, and the other option is to put up a

10     fight as men and to face all the challenges, to reject this ultimatum as

11     the Serbs rejected the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum in 1914."

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To this very day, I am proud of

14     this speech of mine which I held in October of 1991.  Just as then,

15     various international tricksters were leading the European Union.  Today,

16     they are leading the European Union, and the enemy is the same.  Even

17     today, the European Union is taking away from us Kosovo and Metohija and

18     blackmailing us, but we will not give in.  We will not cooperate with our

19     enemies from the European Union in the robbing of Serbia of Kosovo and

20     Metohija.  The Serbian enemies are mentioned here, our road forward

21     cannot be towards Serbian enemies.  But the question arises of the

22     relevance of this to the indictment.  The OTP should amend the indictment

23     and say, for example, that I am opposed to the European Union.  And

24     indeed I am, because everything that it has done in the past 18 years has

25     been to the detriment of the Serbian people.

Page 5869

 1             So this is really a political issue.  Why is this not in my

 2     indictment?  And the reason I'm being tried here is that I'm hostile to

 3     NATO, that I'm opposed to the USA, and that I'm a political opponent of

 4     the European Union.  The OTP is demonstrating now that these are the real

 5     reasons why I'm on trial, but this should be put into the indictment.

 6     Why are they making up all sorts of crimes to put in the indictment when

 7     all of that is not true.

 8             It is true, however, that I am opposed to the European Union,

 9     that I'm opposed to the USA, and that I'm a vehement enemy of NATO.

10     There's no doubt about that.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We need a number

12     for this video, Ms. Registrar, please.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  P356.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.

16             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17             The final video clip to be shown today bears 65 ter number 6010B.

18     This video is from the autumn of 1991.  This clip runs for 40 seconds.  I

19     do note that the list indicates, under the description, this is clip B

20     from this videotape.  That is, in fact, an error.  It should be clip C.

21     This video excerpt comes from a documentary series entitled "Pictures of

22     Words and Hate, Year 2," produced by the Foundation for the Right to

23     Pictures and Words received by the Office of the Prosecutor on 6 November

24     2002.  It was originally broadcast on TV Novi Sad, and this is 65 ter

25     number 6010B.

Page 5870

 1                           [Videotape played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  [Voiceover] "The Ustasha came to a Serbian

 3     village here, near Kukuruzari, and captured little Ilija, slaughtered him

 4     in front of his mother, and took him away like that.  His mother is

 5     called Milica.  This was on his birth.  On his birthday -- his birthday,

 6     on the 2nd of August of this year, and his mother ran after them so they

 7     would at least give her her dead child back, but they didn't give her the

 8     child.  They took him away and burned him later on.  The only thing left

 9     of all this was the skull.  She would not have even found the skull were

10     it not for another woman, a Roman Catholic, albeit, but at least she had

11     a measure of humanity of feeling in her, and she said, 'I know where they

12     burned your child and I will tell you where the grave is.'  So she went

13     there, and all she could find was this skull."

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, what is the

15     relevance, please?

16             MR. MUNDIS:  Propaganda, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you see how brazen

19     The Hague Prosecutors Office is.  To them, this is propaganda, when a

20     Serbian priest is showing the skull of a young man slaughtered by the

21     Ustasha, the Ustasha burned his body, and this, according to them, is

22     propaganda.  One should ask whether the OTP carried out an investigation

23     to prove, by indisputable arguments, that this really is propaganda and

24     not a realistic description of an actual event.

25             This man is an eminent priest, today the bishop of Milosevski

Page 5871

 1     [phoen].  He has the honour of guarding the grave of St. Sava and very

 2     high-ranking -- he's one of the five most prominent priests of the

 3     Serbian Orthodox Church.  And the Prosecutor simply says "propaganda."

 4     The question of relevance of course arises, relevance in this case, of

 5     such a clip, but this is exculpatory material because it shows what the

 6     other side was doing, and the OTP is omitting this.  A false picture is

 7     being presented here in a calculated and tendentious manner.  A false

 8     picture is being created in The Hague Tribunal of the events in the

 9     former Yugoslavia.  This false picture is being created by the enormous

10     huge numbers of Serbs who are accused and the very small number of

11     others, Albanians, Macedonians and so on, who are accused.  These others

12     are being acquitted, such as Ramush Haradinaj, some Muslim generals who

13     were acquitted here, and so on and so forth.  And this is actually

14     evidence against The Hague OTP, because in this war all sides committed

15     crimes.

16             I am not justifying any crime committed by the Serb side, and

17     every crime has a perpetrator with a first and last name, the person who

18     executed the crime and the person who ordered the crime.  But the Croat

19     and Muslim and Albanian sides were the first to start.  They were the

20     ones who started by committing crimes against the Serbs, and then some

21     Serbs, out of blind revenge, committed other crimes.  And of course I do

22     not feel that this justifies those crimes, but it partly explains them,

23     and it is brazen to show this clip, attributing Bishop Filaret to

24     negative propaganda, whereas today they are affirming him as an

25     honourable priest, an honourable man who at decisive moments stood up in

Page 5872

 1     the defence of the Serbian people and showed to the world what was being

 2     done to the Serbs.  He opposed the Western propaganda which kept

 3     insisting that it was the Serbs who were the criminals, whereas the

 4     Croats, the Muslims and the Albanians were defenceless victims, which is

 5     why the Serbs were exposed to three months of cruel air strikes by NATO.

 6             I am grateful to the OTP for having committed this tactical error

 7     and broadcasting this clip, because it makes it possible for me to brand

 8     their intentions and their motives.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber will deliberate to

10     see whether we admit it or not.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber has

13     deliberated and decides to admit this video clip, which will be

14     interpreted by the Trial Chamber in view of what has just been said.

15             Could we please have a number, Ms. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  P357.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.

18             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             That brings us to the end of the videos listed for today.  The

20     Prosecution has nothing further for today.  We will make VS-1014

21     available tomorrow pursuant to Rule 92 ter and the Trial Chamber's

22     earlier decisions concerning that witness.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'll ask my colleagues

24     whether we should start at 8.30 or 9.00.  It all depends.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5873

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So tomorrow we will start at

 2     8.30, because my colleagues have to sit in the afternoon, and so we will

 3     start tomorrow and the day after tomorrow at 8.30.

 4             The hearing is adjourned, and we will meet again -- well, I'll

 5     give you the floor in a minute, Mr. Seselj.  But we will meet again

 6     tomorrow at 8.30.

 7             Mr. Seselj, what did you have to add?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that mean that tomorrow the

 9     second witness announced for this week will not appear in the courtroom?

10     It's very important.  Should I prepare for him or not?  If he won't

11     appear tomorrow, let the Prosecutor confirm this.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Tomorrow, we have only one

13     witness.  The second one will only be there on Thursday?  Is that it?

14     For administrative reasons or another, he'll come on Thursday?

15             MR. MUNDIS:  That is correct, Your Honours.  We have one witness

16     for tomorrow, one witness for Thursday.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             So we resume tomorrow at 8.30.

19                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.51 a.m.,

20                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of

21                           April, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.