Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15826

 1                           Tuesday, 30 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing -- Mr. Registrar,

 6     could you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor

 8     versus Vojislav Seselj.

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

10             This is Tuesday, March 30th, 2010, and I welcome everyone here,

11     Mr. Seselj, all members of the OTP, and everyone helping us.

12             The Trial Chamber is first going to issue an oral decision on the

13     Prosecution's motion dated March 23rd, 2010, in order for additional time

14     to meet the requests of Mr. Zupljanin and Stanisic to access all

15     confidential material in the Seselj case.  The Trial Chamber, after

16     having deliberated, decides that the dead-line will be April 6th, 2010.

17     The Prosecutor must file its submissions by then.  That's the first

18     decision.

19             Let us now move into closed session, and I would like to ask the

20     usher to please drop the blinds.

21                           [Closed session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 15827











11 Pages 15827-15852 redacted. Closed session.















Page 15853

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Open session]

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're now in open session.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  In open session

20     let's raise the blinds.

21             In open session we still have three Court witnesses.  Out of

22     these three, there are two for which we received medical records which

23     are such that obviously they will not be able to testify, which means

24     that we still have one witness to hear.  The Trial Chamber is considering

25     hearing him in early May, but we will soon issue a Scheduling Order to

Page 15854

 1     this effect.

 2             Given this, this will be the last witness heard and then the

 3     Trial Chamber will move to the Rule 98 bis procedure, but there will also

 4     be a Scheduling Order for this procedure.  This is just to give you an

 5     idea of the schedule ahead.  The last witness which should be heard, if

 6     it turns out that he cannot come because of his health, then we will have

 7     no witnesses left for -- Prosecution witnesses and Court witnesses of

 8     course.  This is where we stand today, and therefore we will probably

 9     soon hear Mr. Seselj on Rule 98 bis in May as well as the Prosecution.

10             Mr. Seselj, we have some time left.  Do you have any housekeeping

11     matters you would like to raise?  You have some time, so take advantage

12     of it.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, things have cropped up now.

14     First of all, I still have not received any information as to what

15     happened to your order for The Hague Tribunal expert to examine the

16     health condition of Witness 008 with regard to the origin of his disease

17     and whether it was his disease that actually prevented him from

18     participating in the war.  If memory serves me well, the dead-line was

19     February for the order to be executed and for the witness to be examined.

20     This is very important.  If the report of The Hague expert is --

21     corresponds with my statement with regard to that witness, I believe that

22     you will be duty-bound to start the proceedings for contempt of court

23     against that witness.  Second of all --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Mr. Seselj.

25     Regarding Witness 008, I'm slightly taken aback that you did not receive

Page 15855

 1     the expert witness because from memory, if I remember correctly, this

 2     report had been disclosed.  And I would like to ask Madam Registrar to

 3     confirm it -- the Legal Officer to confirm it to me, but I think that it

 4     was disclosed, if I remember correctly, but actually don't have it here.

 5     But if I remember correctly, the expert witness told us that the injuries

 6     that this witness sustained, the eye -- the injuries to his eyes could

 7     have been caused during the war and that, furthermore, he also suffered a

 8     degenerative illness, or suffered from a degenerative disease, and that

 9     he may have had this disease during the war as well.  This is what the

10     expert confirmed.  Nevertheless, at the time of war, while the war was

11     still taking place, he was able to see.  That's what the expert told us.

12     This has been disclosed to us in the month of November 2009, it may have

13     been lost.  But you should have this report.  I'm very surprised if you

14     did not get this report, if you didn't get it.  So we will check to see

15     what may have happened with the report, but we believe that you should

16     have it.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't have this

18     report.  What knows what else is being kept in the evidence, in the body

19     of evidence, without me knowing anything about it.  That was the first

20     thing.

21             Secondly, since you indicated a possibility for the statements of

22     the witness who didn't testify be admitted into evidence, I found two

23     more passages from the French legal school that at a certain time was

24     provided to me by the late Dragan Tasic, a member of my team who died two

25     years ago.  In order to support my opposition to be entered into

Page 15856

 1     evidence, anything that has to do with the previous two statements, let

 2     me quote the following.  Faustin Healy [phoen] in his book "Criminal Law"

 3     says the following:

 4             "Every debate before the court must be an oral one.  That is one

 5     of the fundamental processes of the criminal procedure.  Only oral debate

 6     can make the truth accessible and visible because it puts the witnesses

 7     and the accused one opposite the other.  It removes all the illusions and

 8     presents only the bare facts as they truly are.  It can only create

 9     explanations and revelations.  Admissions and lies and truth.  Any

10     written debate is cold, reserved, and formatted.  Even if it may serve

11     for the purpose of collecting evidence to serve in the debate, it is not

12     an actual debate itself.  Debate about the facts and evidence and the

13     truth can only be conducted orally."

14             Another legal theoretician Gorf in his work, assessment

15     evaluation of evidence before the court says --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the accused please start the quotation

17     from the beginning.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Previous translation continues] ... "-- as much as

19     it is necessary to hear the evidence, the truth will come between this

20     countering of witness and the accused.  Only such statement become live

21     evidence, whereas written statement is a dead piece of evidence."

22             As Delagraseli [phoen] says, "a written statement throws a veil

23     over testimony and leaves only a shadow behind."

24             There is also a binded [as interpreted] decision by a French

25     court cassation court of France, dated 27th June, 1990.  It was published

Page 15857

 1     in a journal for criminal law number 265 on page 678.  It reads as

 2     follows:

 3             "The principle of oral statement, the highest court in France

 4     that deals only with crimes prohibits a statement given by the witness

 5     during investigation to be read either in full or in part, and that

 6     should be done to the judge not only -- never to the prosecution."

 7             Whereas here you have statements written by Prosecution in many

 8     instances, and even the witnesses who were extremely hostile towards me

 9     often questioned the veracity of certain parts of their statements.  So

10     these are additional arguments that corroborate my absolute objection to

11     the admission of any previous statement into evidence.  I believe that

12     this kind of an admission will jeopardise the legality of the whole

13     proceedings regardless of what is written down in the Rules.  The Rules

14     of the Tribunal are the matter for arbitrary decisions by the Judges.

15     What is written in the Rule is not written in the Roman law that are the

16     fundamental principle and no case law in the world recognises.  Only in

17     property civil litigations can written statements can be admitted.  This

18     is absolutely unacceptable in criminal law.  Also in the continental law,

19     a statement given during an investigation in the presence of the Defence

20     and the accused, with a possibility for the two of questioning the

21     witness and asking him counter questions can be admitted into evidence.

22             So this is what I wanted to tell you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, your position is

24     noted in the transcript, but let me ask the following.  The opposition

25     that you have regarding the statements given to the OTP, do you also

Page 15858

 1     oppose -- are you also opposed to the statements that are received by

 2     your own associates on the 14th and 11th of August, 2008, regarding the

 3     witness in question?  Do you also object to the admission of statements

 4     received by your associates?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm a man of principles.  I have

 6     never requested for statements given to my associates to be admitted.

 7     I've never requested that.  I've used those statements only during my

 8     cross-examination as a factual matter on which my cross-examination can

 9     be based.  I can't put questions off the top of my head, I have to have

10     something in writing, and that is why the statements were obtained in the

11     first place.  The statements obtained by the Prosecutor are statements

12     which tried -- convinced the Judge to prove the indictment and then are

13     used both by myself and you to carry out examination in the courtroom, to

14     prepare ourselves.  That's the sense in the meaning of the statements

15     obtained by the Prosecutor.  That allows me to know in advance what the

16     witness is going to testify about, and that's the long and the short of

17     it.  Violating procedural rules in the Milosevic case, who did not have

18     adequate representation, means that the practice was launched here for

19     those statements to be admitted left, right, and centre.  Another

20     Trial Chamber that's unsuccessfully started my case, they wanted

21     90 per cent of the statements to be admitted from bar table, and you know

22     about that.  The Prosecutor spoke about that very openly, and they had

23     the Trial Chamber at their disposal headed by Mr. Alphonse Orie who were

24     prepared to do that.  Ninety per cent they wanted to bar table without

25     any witnesses.  Here you have admitted a lot of statements, but there is

Page 15859

 1     one thing that I regret, and I regret the fact that you allowed one of

 2     the main culprits for the crime in Ovcara to walk through that courtroom

 3     like he was walking through a park.  The colonel who was the commander of

 4     the 80th Motorised Brigade withdrew the military police in order to

 5     enable the execution.  And he was here, the Prosecution witness pursuant

 6     to Rule 92 ter.  It was a walk in the park.  You knew that I would not

 7     cross-examine him, and instead of him sitting here instead of me, I have

 8     to take responsibility for his crimes and the crimes of I don't know who

 9     else.  And that's one thing I still begrudge you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

11             Mr. Seselj, you just talked about Ovcara, and I would like to ask

12     you what your position is.  The Chamber has three decisions rendered in

13     Belgrade regarding people who had participated in the events of Vukovar.

14     So we have these three judgements.  Can you tell us if you object as to

15     those judgements be admitted into evidence.  And for your full

16     information, I would like to tell you that we received the last judgement

17     regarding - and I say this off the top of my head - a certain Sveta, who

18     was convicted in Belgrade.  It's a 51-page-long judgement, very thorough,

19     detailed judgement, which details the law, et cetera.  So everything is

20     in that judgement, and we have three judgements of that kind.  Would you

21     object that these judgements be admitted into evidence?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what it is about

23     regarding this most recent judgement.  But in principle I have nothing

24     against the judgements rendered by the Belgrade court be admitted into

25     evidence, especially in view of the fact that the main judgement is to my

Page 15860

 1     benefit.  It's a first-instance judgement, as far as I know.  There was a

 2     first-instance, then the second-instance court decision which ordered

 3     re-trial.  I don't know whether the first-instance a new judgement has

 4     been rendered.  I don't know who this Sveta is.  But there are --

 5     nevertheless, in principle, I always believe that any court judgement can

 6     be beneficial.  And I would like to draw your attention to the fact that

 7     according to this latest judgement not a single volunteer from the

 8     Serbian Radical Party was convicted for executions, neither it was Kameni

 9     or anyone who was in his unit.  The only one who was convicted was the

10     man known as Kinez.  I think that his name was Predrag Milojevic, but

11     that was done based on false testimony by two associate witnesses.  I

12     asked numerous times why no one found cartridges from his handgun that

13     were allegedly used to kill the prisoners in Ovcara.  Kinez wore the red

14     star throughout the war.  I don't know who is guilty or who is innocent.

15     I wasn't there.  I have no will to go into any investigation about who

16     the perpetrators were.  Here under the code-name 051, a man appeared, a

17     retired colonel, who had been ordered, who was re-engaged, and he was

18     sent to carry out the executions at Ovcara along with two other colonels.

19     But there is no written trace when they were re-activated, whereas we

20     have an abundance of evidence that they were involved in this.  He we

21     also have no information about Aleksandar Vasiljevic, who was in charge

22     of the military security service, and the military security service was

23     responsible for all these prisoners.

24             So the Ovcara case is not closed yet.  One day everything will

25     surface.  I personally don't care who took part in that crime or not.  It

Page 15861

 1     has nothing to do with my trial because there was not a single volunteer

 2     among them that I sent to Vukovar.  But why is it that the masterminds

 3     were never tried?  That's the question for me.  I heard about Ovcara only

 4     two years after the event, and that is when the Croatian newspapers

 5     started writing about it.  There were people who knew about it.  There

 6     was a town commander of Vukovar.  There was a camp commander in Ovcara,

 7     and they appear here as witnesses against me.  Where is the logic in

 8     that?  In response to your question, I have nothing against the Belgrade

 9     judgements being entered into evidence because they do show something.

10     They might be refuted, they might be verified, but they are a kind of

11     document that has validity, whereas what the Prosecution writes are no

12     documents at all.  These documents only demonstrate the methodology

13     implied by the Prosecution.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, since you are here,

15     you are present, as you saw, earlier we had granted a delay up until the

16     6th of April for the Prosecutor to submit his submissions, to file his

17     submissions.  And this is in response to the Zupljanin/Stanisic

18     request -- motion.  Do you object that the counsels for Stanisic and

19     Zupljanin be given information which were gathered in your trial so --

20     and also confidential elements that were gathered during the case -- your

21     case?  That is to say protected witnesses, closed session hearings, they

22     would like to have access to everything.  Would you please give me your

23     position on that.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for the interpretation

25     to be over.  You may find it strange for me to keep quiet a long time

Page 15862

 1     after you finished.  Not only do I not object.  I agree fully that the

 2     Mico Stanisic Defence and the Stojan Zupljanin Defence should be provided

 3     with all documents that they've requested, all documents, confidential

 4     testimony, and the rest.  The OTP has sent me a few other requests; for

 5     example, the Mrksic and Sljivancanin Defence teams to be provided with

 6     statements of some of the witnesses which were provided to my team

 7     members.  I'm talking about General Miodrag Panic's statement and the

 8     Colonel Vukasinovic's statement, as far as I can remember.  And I don't

 9     object to that either.  I don't object for those statements to be

10     provided to the aforementioned Defence teams.  In principle, whenever the

11     Defence team of some other accused before this Tribunal requests

12     documents pertaining to these proceedings, I don't object.  I am in

13     favour of the full transparency of any case and the availability of the

14     entire file to all the other Defence teams.  I personally have nothing to

15     hide.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Would you like to

17     talk about something else?  Do you have another topic to raise?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The only thing that I would still

19     like to say, if you have just one more witness, I would like us to be

20     able to hear him sooner.  Why do we have to wait until the 4th or 5th

21     May?  I suppose that next week you will not be here because of Easter,

22     but there are a few more weeks before the end of April.  So why don't we

23     do it sooner?  Why do we have to wait until May?

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The problem is actually we

25     don't know how the witness will feel.  We did our best, but we cannot do

Page 15863

 1     what we cannot do.  Since the month of January we were trying to have all

 2     these witnesses here, it's very difficult times, we're trying to do our

 3     best.  But for now, as you know, health issues may change.  So for the

 4     time being, apparently this person will be able to be present at the

 5     beginning of the month of May but not before.

 6             Mr. Marcussen, would you like to raise some points?  Do you have

 7     any issues to raise?

 8             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Two points.  The first

 9     point is that on the 18th of March this year the accused filed a request

10     for any interviews conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor with

11     Tomislav Nikolic.  I propose to make an oral response to that, so we

12     don't have to burden the record with a written response.

13             Your Honours, this is obviously one of these requests that are

14     part of the accused's manoeuvring against his political opponents in

15     Serbia and have nothing to do with this actual trial.  It is not the

16     Prosecution's normal practice to confirm or deny whether or not the

17     Prosecution have spoken or interviewed any particular person, but in

18     light of the circumstances of this particular request the Prosecution

19     wishes to inform the Court that we have not -- we have not spoken to

20     Tomislav Nikolic.

21             The second issue I wish to address with the Court was one that

22     came up --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, please,

24     Mr. Marcussen.  So are you telling us - and this is very important - that

25     the OTP never had any interviews with Tomislav Nikolic?

Page 15864

 1             MR. MARCUSSEN:  We have no interview with Tomislav Nikolic.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 3             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The second issue was one that, in a way, has come

 4     up before.  But today you asked the accused whether or not he would be

 5     opposed to the admission into evidence of certain local statements or

 6     statements rendered by courts in the region that we're concerned with.

 7     And the Prosecution would like to seek guidance from the Trial Chamber as

 8     to for what purpose the statements would be admitted into evidence.

 9     Thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I will hand the

11     floor to Mr. Seselj, but it is obvious that when a Trial Chamber decides

12     to admit statements, it is in the interests of justice and so that the

13     truth can be heard.  No other reasons of course.

14             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Sorry, Your Honour.  I -- maybe that wasn't

15     clear.  What I'm not asking about is not the statements -- oh, I'm sorry,

16     I seem to have been -- misspoke.  The issue is -- oh, I obviously

17     misspoke.  Let me start all that over.

18             My request is the purpose for the admission of the judgements

19     from local proceedings.  Today there was mention of judgements rendered

20     in the Vukovar cases, and there have been other -- there have been talk

21     of judgements from the Belgrade court as well.  So the question is if the

22     Chamber were to admit those statements -- those judgements, what would be

23     the purpose of their admission?

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will explain right away.  I

25     thought that there were three judgements, but in fact we have two

Page 15865

 1     judgements.  And these judgements were -- actually, are ten-page-long

 2     judgements, approximately, and they talk about how the events took place

 3     at the hospital and what happened in Ovcara, how people -- what were --

 4     what was the participation of people at Velepromet, et cetera, et cetera.

 5     So all the elements, all the technical elements are there, such as, for

 6     instance, it was established that 18 calibres were assessed, meaning that

 7     there was at least 21 shooters, and all this is explained very clearly in

 8     the judgements.  We can see what was the role played by people, and it is

 9     in the interest of justice - and I do not see why we should deprive

10     ourselves from all that work that was accomplished by Serb judges who

11     rendered justice in an independent way from materials that they had and

12     that they quoted because they quoted decisions that were even rendered

13     here by this Tribunal.  So it can be useful so that we can understand the

14     events better.

15             MR. MARCUSSEN:  So if I understand correctly, the Chamber would

16     be intending to use the judgements as substantive evidence in the case?

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is correct.  Just like the

18     Trial Chamber, according to the Rules, can conclude things, can conclude

19     matters, from judgements that were brought by this Tribunal as well.  And

20     we can -- we find interesting facts.  We can see who did what under oath,

21     who testified, how did the proceedings take place.  So we have pages and

22     pages of very interesting -- it's a very interesting judgement, so I

23     would like to invite you to read these judgements.

24             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you for that, Your Honours.  We will, in

25     all likelihood, make a written submission on this issue.

Page 15866

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very good.

 2             Mr. Seselj, I believe that you wanted to say something with

 3     regards to Mr. Nikolic.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.  The

 5     Prosecutor, as usual, is not right.  Tomislav Nikolic used to be the team

 6     leader assisting my Defence.  I never said that he gave an interview to

 7     the Prosecution.  But at least on one occasion in Budapest he met with

 8     David Tolbert [Realtime transcript read in error "Gobillard"] who was

 9     first Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal and then Deputy of the Chief

10     Prosecutor.  And he also met Carla del Ponte in Brussels at least on one

11     occasion.  They had a very cordial conversation.  That was saw by

12     witnesses.  I demand that from Carla del Ponte and David Tolbert an

13     official declaration is sought to the effect of confirming whether they

14     met with Mr. Nikolic and what was the subject of their conversations.  If

15     Mr. Marcussen doesn't have the interview, that doesn't mean that they

16     didn't meet.  I understand that he doesn't have the interview, but there

17     must be some notes about these meetings.  I don't think that the two of

18     them would meet with Mr. Nikolic without leaving any notes behind.  I can

19     see no other motive for that other than this trial against me.

20             One more thing concerning this witness who eventually is not

21     going to testify at all who appeared here today, but is not going to

22     testify.  You have his 2006 statement.  At the end of this statement you

23     will find a list of documents that the Prosecution --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Mr. Seselj.

25     Before you talk about the other witness, I would like to go back to

Page 15867

 1     Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Tolbert.  Tolbert is spelled T-o-l-b-e-r-t, not

 2     Gobillard, as we can see it in the transcript.  Mr. Tolbert is somebody

 3     who is very well-known in this Tribunal.  There we are.  Now his name is

 4     written in the transcript correctly.

 5             Secondly, Mr. Prosecutor, it would seem that Mr. Seselj would

 6     like to have the notes that may have been taken by the OTP following the

 7     meeting with Mr. Nikolic, not during the meetings because there was no

 8     interviews actually formally, but Mr. Nikolic may have met Mr. Tolbert

 9     and also may have bumped into Madam Carla del Ponte.  That's what he

10     would like to know.  If you have something, please let us know; but you

11     may also tell us, Upon research we did not find any notes whatsoever.

12             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The accused --

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may add just one more thing.

14     I insist on statements being requested from Carla del Ponte and

15     Mr. Tolbert about those meetings.  Let them provide their official

16     statements about those meetings.  They may have spoken about weather,

17     about romance, the nights on the Danube, and so on and so forth.  But let

18     them put that in writing on at least half a page.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

20             Mr. Marcussen.

21             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The accused's motion is actually requesting for

22     detailed information of any interview and audio recording of any such

23     interview and detailed description on the context of any meetings.

24     That's the request by the accused.  I'm not aware of any notes.  We may

25     look for it, and if we have anything, we will determine whether or not it

Page 15868

 1     is disclosable if we have it.  We understand this then to be a request

 2     under Rule 66(B), and we will treat it as such, but I think the motion

 3     can be denied irrespective of what the accused have said today.  And I

 4     believe this issue has been brought up several times before the Court and

 5     these things about the meeting.  But we will look, and we will inform the

 6     accused if there is anything we need to disclose.  And we can also inform

 7     him that if we don't think we have anything that needs to disclosed so

 8     that he can renew his application if he finds necessary.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Marcussen, I

10     completely agree with you.  Please do everything you can to see if you

11     have any documents of the type, and hypothetically, of course, I have no

12     concrete evidence.  While Mr. Nikolic was defending Mr. Seselj, some

13     interviews or meetings may have taken place between the OTP and

14     Mr. Nikolic without the knowledge of the accused.  So if that took place,

15     then there is a problem.  There is a dysfunction.  And of course nobody

16     can deny that fact.

17             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Maybe the accused could provide us with a date

18     where this particular meeting is supposed to have taken place.  That

19     would assist us actually in finding the information.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're asking this,

21     and it's probably because you have elements, you know things.  According

22     to you, when did this happen?  If it happened after your divorce, if I

23     can call it so, with Mr. Nikolic, then there's no problem.  But there is

24     a problem if it happened to be when you were still with Mr. Nikolic, you

25     know, and when he was campaigning for your party and when his name was on

Page 15869

 1     your -- as one of your Defence counsels.  When was -- when did it happen?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm absolutely not

 3     interested in the possible contacts between Tomislav Nikolic and

 4     The Hague Tribunal after our divorce, as you call it.  I'm absolutely not

 5     interested in that.  They can talk about whatever they want to talk now.

 6     However, Tomislav Nikolic met with Carla del Ponte in Strasbourg during

 7     the session of the Council of Europe.  After the meeting with

 8     Carla del Ponte, unbeknownst to me and without my consent, submitted an

 9     amendment requesting for the proceedings against me to start as soon as

10     possible, and you mentioned at one of the Status Conferences what the

11     Council of Europe's position was, and I could -- oppose that.  It was not

12     in my interest to start the proceedings as quickly as possible.  It was

13     in my interest for all the procedural foundations to be in place.  And as

14     a Trial Chamber you made the decision that it would not be counted that

15     my proceedings would start at the moment when the OTP deliver their

16     opening speech, but rather when the first witness appeared two months

17     after that because the Prosecutor had not even met all the conditions for

18     the proceedings to start.  Do you remember our argument about that?  I

19     insist and I'm going to request from the Trial Chamber to subpoena during

20     the Defence case both Carla del Ponte and David Tolbert.  And I'm going

21     to ask them to tell them -- to tell us about that.  I'm asking for the

22     Trial Chamber to ask for statements both from Carla del Ponte and

23     David Tolbert as to when they met and what they discussed.  And

24     David Tolbert met with Nikolic in Budapest on the occasion of a meeting

25     of the Commission of the Council of Europe even before that.  Maybe a

Page 15870

 1     year or two before that.  I can't give you the exact date, but I'm sure

 2     it can be found.  There was a session of the Council of Europe which took

 3     place in Budapest.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I thank you for all

 5     this -- all these details that you have just given us, but I can answer

 6     right away.  During the pre-trial proceedings, it is true that at one

 7     point in time I did mention this resolution of the Council of Europe,

 8     resolution made so that you could have a speedy trial.  But let me rest

 9     assured that it is not because of this that your trial started.  You know

10     me, Mr. Seselj.  No one can force me into doing something I do not want

11     to do.  And at the time when it was decided to start this trial, when I

12     remember that you were asking for six more months to prepare yourself, I

13     said, No, let's go ahead.  The trial must start.  And when I said that

14     the trial would start, no one - and I insist no one - intervened in order

15     to make me change my mind.  No one would ever do that.  I can guarantee

16     that when your trial started, it started, but it was not because of any

17     pressure exerted by of the Council of Europe or anyone exerting any

18     pressure.  On my own I decided to start the proceeding at a certain date

19     without anyone forcing me to do anything.  And the first person who would

20     try to exert any pressure against me isn't born yet; I can tell you that.

21     Your trial started without anyone intervening.  And of course not because

22     of Mr. Nikolic that would have been manoeuvring behind your back --

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Overlapping speakers] [Previous translation

25     continues] ... of course not.

Page 15871

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Previous translation continues] ... however, the

 2     problem is entirely different here.  In principle it is possible for the

 3     Defence team members to meet with members of the OTP, but they are not

 4     allowed to do that unbeknownst to the accused that they represent, and

 5     especially they can't do that unbeknownst to the accused who represents

 6     himself.  And this is the problem that I keep on insisting on.  He was

 7     the head of my Defence assistance team.  He met with Carla del Ponte.

 8     There are witnesses who saw them chatting very amicably, and I didn't

 9     know anything about that, and I insist on being provided with information

10     about that.  It's very simple for you to request statements to be

11     forwarded to you from Carla del Ponte and David Tolbert, and that would

12     be the simplest thing to do.  We don't need to wait until the entire

13     Defence case is over.  After my opening statement and my testimony, I'm

14     going to ask you to subpoena both Carla del Ponte and David Tolbert, and

15     I'm not going to even hear about calling any other witness before that

16     happens, and bear that in mind, please.  And I'm going to tell you

17     something else that you might find of some interest, I believe.

18             I've mentioned a statement that this witness who has not

19     testified today provided on the 14th of June, 2006.  At the end of that

20     very lengthy statement there is a list of documents which that witness

21     allegedly handed over to the OTP, and the OTP submitted those documents

22     both to yourselves and to myself.  And under the remarks it says that

23     those documents are the testimony, are the evidence that there was indeed

24     a joint criminal enterprise because the Serbian Radical Party and its

25     War Staff and I personally had their disposal confidential documents that

Page 15872

 1     belonged to the state at the time.  And now look at the titles of those

 2     documents, please.  Everything is marked as state secret.  A draft of the

 3     decision on the Defence plans in the Socialist Republic of Serbia dated

 4     back to June 1979.  This is under tab 19 in the binder provided with

 5     today's testimony.  So this is just a draft decision -- and not a

 6     decision, it is a preparatory document possibly leading to a decision.

 7     And God knows from what garbage bin that was pulled out from.  In 1979 I

 8     resided in Sarajevo.  In 1979 I took my Ph.D.  And then started serving

 9     my compulsory military service.  In June 1979, I was preparing to defend

10     my doctoral dissertation.  In 1979 this is.  Furthermore, the Presidency

11     of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, that's under number 17, a proposal,

12     not the decision, but the proposal on the decision to establish the

13     defence plan for the Republic of Serbia dating to -- back to

14     February 1981.

15             Furthermore, under 35 an analysis of an exercise called Sumadij,

16     All People's Defence.  After that, minutes of the inspection of defence

17     and self-protection preparations in the self-interest community of

18     employment in Belgrade dating back to 1978.  And then under 49 the

19     republican committee on the work of the SRS of Serbia, the Socialist

20     Republic of Serbia dating back to 1978, the month of February, minutes of

21     the inspection of defence and self-protection preparations in the

22     municipal committee on finances pertaining to the work relations.  Under

23     number 50, the year is 1988, the place is Svetozarevo, the Municipal

24     Assembly of Svetozarevo, which is now Jagodina, the municipal committee

25     on economic committees, minutes on the inspection of defence and

Page 15873

 1     self-protection preparations --

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think we are --

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're losing patience, are you

 4     not?

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, I'm not.  I thinking that we are far into

 6     your providing testimony and evidence in your trial.  This is perfectly

 7     legitimate, but not at a moment where we're discussing administrative

 8     matters.  So save your powder for the time when you have to burn it off.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're making a

10     mistake --

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, sir.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Overlapping speakers] [Previous translation

13     continues] ... we said that we would admit the statements, we would enter

14     them into evidence.  But we did not say that we would enter into evidence

15     the elements handed over by the witness, notably if these are very old

16     documents dating 1979 or 1981.  We never said that.  Now, you can write

17     submissions to challenge these exhibits.  But at the moment we were not

18     going to enter these documents into evidence.  This was not our logic.

19     So maybe you made a mistake.  Maybe you confused the -- you mixed up the

20     statements with the documents.  We only talked about the statements, not

21     the documents.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the titles of these

23     documents constitute an integral part of the last statement from 2006.

24     I'm not testifying at the moment.  I'm just raising a procedural

25     objection to the conduct by the OTP.  From this, Your Honours, you will

Page 15874

 1     understand how I am truly sorry for not having an opportunity to examine

 2     this witness.  If you have no patience to listen to the titles of these

 3     documents, there's another one from 1980 issued by the committee for

 4     finance in Uzice on the inspection of the financial issues relating to

 5     the national defence.  Then Municipal Assembly of Kragujevac sending to

 6     the republican committee for labour is sending meeting minutes of 40

 7     different municipal organs.  Then 61, an inspection report of defence and

 8     self-protection preparations in the institution for planning, development

 9     of the municipal of the Danube basing and regional community in Smederevo

10     dated September 1989.  Then confidential Official Gazettes of Republic of

11     Serbia.  There is a huge number of them, and they're all official secret.

12     I just picked one randomly.  This is an Official Gazette from 1984; it's

13     issue number 1, containing the decision on distribution of funds from the

14     postal savings deposits aimed for development in Serbia.  So you see how

15     many documents there are, and each and every one of them is marked either

16     confidential of All People's Defence or state secret.  In the witness's

17     statement it is said that he had stolen these documents from

18     Ljubisa Petkovic -- actually, from his office at the Serbian Radical

19     Party war staff.  I am truly and really sorry for not having an

20     opportunity to put all these documents to this witness and to ask him

21     from which garbage bin he obtained these documents, whether it was him or

22     somebody from the Prosecutor's office.  This is proof, or allegedly that

23     I was in collusion at the time with the Serbian regime because it was a

24     regime who provided me with these confidential documents for safekeeping.

25     You see how grotesque this trial is and to what things the OTP is

Page 15875

 1     resorting to.  You tell me now that you've already decided to admit this

 2     into evidence.  You can take any decision you please.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we said that the

 4     Trial Chamber can enter into evidence the statements, statements made to

 5     the OTP as well as statements made to you.  This is all we said.  Now, we

 6     never said that we would enter into evidence the documents.  Now, as far

 7     as these documents are concerned, these documents that you're

 8     challenging, when you will present your case, when you will testify, you

 9     will have the opportunity to re-visit these documents, even if they're

10     not entered into evidence.  Your trial is fair.  The rules are abided by,

11     and you will have ample opportunity to challenge these documents.  These

12     documents have not even been entered into evidence yet.  You're

13     challenging them way ahead of time.  You don't even know whether they

14     have been admitted or not.  As far as I'm concerned, since these

15     documents were not presented viva voce to a witness, I really don't see

16     how they could be entered into evidence.  But this is my position of

17     course, and maybe my fellow Judges don't share it.  But at least my

18     position is now on the record.

19             I believe it will be time to put an end to this.  The tape is

20     almost finished.  We will file a -- we will render a Scheduling Order for

21     the next witness and probably also for the Rule 98 bis procedure.  And in

22     the meanwhile the Trial Chamber will render a few decisions that are

23     still pending.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One more thing that I need to ask

25     you or an issue to raise.  How much time will you give me to submit my

Page 15876

 1     motion as per 92 [as interpreted] bis rule?  I will need about four hours

 2     for that.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We have not

 4     discussed this among each other, but I have given it some thought, and I

 5     will suggest to my fellow Judges that you may have one full day, 4 hours

 6     and 30 minutes, because that's the length of a hearing.  And then on the

 7     next day the Prosecutor will also have 4 hours and 30 minutes.  So let me

 8     remind you, Mr. Seselj, that the Rule 98 bis procedure is a common law

 9     procedure -- at least it's inspired by common law.  It does not exist in

10     civil law, but it only has one purpose.  It is there to check that the

11     evidence provided by the Prosecutor might, for a reasonable trier of

12     fact, any -- beyond any reasonable doubt lead this Judge to render a

13     guilty verdict.  So the decision will be made only on -- based on the

14     elements provided by the Prosecution and not on the documents that

15     provided by you.  Of course you know exactly what this rule is all about,

16     but you will have one full hearing day to mention all this.  But don't

17     waste any time.  You will have to find -- demonstrate that the Prosecutor

18     has not proven anything beyond any reasonable doubt.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all when it

20     comes to giving the same amount of time to me and to the OTP, I would

21     like to draw your attention to the Milosevic case law.  Mr. Milosevic had

22     more time than the OTP.  When he was in his Defence case, the OTP had

23     only two-thirds of the time given to Mr. Milosevic because the

24     Trial Chamber bore in mind that Milosevic was representing himself and

25     the OTP had a lot of people, maybe ten of them filed through the

Page 15877

 1     courtroom representing the Prosecutor's case.  Why am I telling you this?

 2     I'm telling you this because it is necessary to give me more time after

 3     the Prosecutor has had his time; that's why I'm suggesting that you give

 4     me four hours, you give the OTP three hours, and then another hour to me

 5     because our working days is 4 hours and 5 minutes, let me remind you.

 6     And the condition has to be that neither I interrupt the Prosecutor and

 7     the Prosecutor not interrupting me.  The Trial Chamber should let us go

 8     through our motions uninterrupted.  I need three -- four hours, the OTP

 9     needs three hours, and then I will need only hour.  And I think this is

10     the only rational solution to reach.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand you correctly

12     you say that you need three hours.  The Prosecutor then takes the floor,

13     and then you need one hour to reply.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I need four hours.  Four.  I need

15     four; the OTP needs three; and you should give me another hour.  Which

16     means I should have five hours against the Prosecutor's three hours.

17     It's not the Prosecutor's final brief.  It's just a response to my

18     motion.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We will take a look

20     at the Milosevic case law on this.

21             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] It's a bit strange that the

22     accused, Mr. Seselj, can quote the Milosevic case to criticise.  But now

23     you are quoting the Milosevic case law to back your own case.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

25             MR. MARCUSSEN:  When I heard your --

Page 15878

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mrs. Lattanzi, it's only normal.

 2     What I can use from the Milosevic case, I'm going to refer to that; and

 3     what was negative practice over there, I'm going to criticise and I'm

 4     going to ask you not to apply that.  It's only normal.  I wrote a book, I

 5     personally wrote a book, it's not just a collection of documents.  The

 6     book is over 1.000 pages long and deals with the violation of procedural

 7     rights in the Milosevic case.  I had all the transcripts at my disposal,

 8     transcripts of public sessions, and I wrote over 1.000 pages, and I

 9     listed all the violations of his procedural rights.  I learned on his

10     case and I have mastered the procedure much better than any of the

11     Prosecutor team has ever done.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, to finish?

13             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, the burden that the accused or the

14     Prosecution have to lift at the 98 bis stage is obviously different.  And

15     actually I had in mind that maybe the accused needed three hours and we

16     need six hours in light of the fact that we actually have to make a

17     showing that there is evidence that a Trial Chamber could rely on;

18     whereas all the accused needs to do is get up and say there's no evidence

19     of this fact, that fact, and fact.

20             The other point I wanted to raise was just I assumed that there

21     would be at least some time from the last witness until the 98 bis

22     hearing will take place for the parties to prepare.  Is that correct?

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if the last witness is

24     heard early May, there will be two to three weeks.  We're not going to

25     wait forever, of course not.  You'll have two to three weeks, no more.  I

Page 15879

 1     mean, it's been six years now, so you've had time to prepare.

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Two, three weeks will certainly --

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Over seven years, more than seven

 4     years.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I thank everyone, and we will

 6     meet again at one point in time, and court is adjourned.

 7                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.23 p.m.