Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16372

 1                           Tuesday, 21 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           --- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please call the

 6     case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

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

 9     Vojislav Seselj.

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

11             Today is the 21st of September, 2010.  Let me first greet the

12     learned representatives of the Prosecution.  I want to greet Mr. Seselj

13     and all the people assisting us, together with the legal officers taking

14     part in their first hearing today.

15             There are several items on today's agenda for this hearing

16     dedicated to housekeeping matters.  Let me first read out two rulings.

17     One has to be issued in private session, so let's move into private

18     session for a few moments, Mr. Registrar.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16373

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Decision on the Prosecution's

13     oral motion for admission of Zoran Rankic's witness statements.

14             Being seized of the oral motion presented by the Prosecution at

15     the hearing of 12th May, 2010, for the admission of three witness

16     statements of the Chamber's witness Zoran Rankic, formerly VS-017:

17     namely, first statement dated 13th of June and 18th and 19th September,

18     2006, 65 ter 7540; a second witness statement dated 17 and 18 October,

19     2006, 65 ter 7541; and the third statement dated 1st to 10th of November,

20     2006, 65 ter 7542.

21             Noting Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the

22     Tribunal, pursuant to which the Trial Chamber may admit any relevant

23     evidence which it deems to have probative value; noting that the

24     statements have been cross-examined by the Prosecution during the

25     witness's testimony in order to highlight the contradictions between the

Page 16374

 1     written statements and the witness's testimony before the Court, since

 2     the accused did not say anything as to the admissibility of these written

 3     statements, since the Trial Chamber is of the view that the witness

 4     statement whose -- the admission of which is sought are relevant in

 5     order to assess the credibility of the witness because they relate to

 6     facts alleged in the indictment, since the witness statements have been

 7     given with the help of an interpreter who was duly qualified and

 8     authorised by the Tribunal's Registry, given that Witness Zoran Rankic

 9     signed his statements in B/C/S and testified to the accuracy thereof,

10     given that the Trial Chamber is, therefore, of the view that the witness

11     statements present sufficient indicia of reliability and probative value

12     prima facie, given that the Trial Chamber recalls that a basic

13     distinction exists between the admissibility of evidence and the weight

14     that will be given to such evidence in the determination of the accused's

15     guilt or innocence, at the current stage of these proceedings the

16     Trial Chamber has made no final assessment as to the relevance, the

17     reliability, or probative value of the above evidence.  Such

18     determination shall only take place at the end of the trial proceedings

19     in the light of the overall evidence as introduced by the parties, be

20     they the Prosecution or the Defence evidence.

21             For the above reasons, further to Rule 89(C) of the Rules, the

22     Trial Chamber orders that 65 ter documents 7540, 7541, and 7542 be

23     admitted into evidence, orders the Registry to assign exhibit numbers to

24     each of the above documents.

25             So, Mr. Seselj, I'm going to first deal with three items, and

Page 16375

 1     then I'll give you the floor.  The Prosecution will also be able to say

 2     something, but we have to finish by 12.00.  Indeed, the accused has a

 3     commitment in the early afternoon.

 4             Mr. Seselj, we haven't seen each other for close to two months

 5     because, of course, we had the summer recess and we also had a lot of

 6     trouble to organise a hearing in September because the courtrooms were

 7     taken up with other cases and my two colleagues also were working on two

 8     other cases.  So that raises a lot of problems for me.  This is one of

 9     the reasons why Judge Harhoff is not sitting with us today, because he

10     has commitments in another case.  Still, we had to meet, so Judge Harhoff

11     agreed to us sitting in his absence.

12             During the recess, Mr. Seselj, every day I sought to know whether

13     the so-called Mladic note-book motion had been translated for you.  Late

14     August, when I returned to The Hague, I was told that the motion still

15     was to be translated, and I summoned all the courage I had and I turned

16     to the Registrar in person to ask him to provide me with explanations.

17     And he answered that, given the current staff level within CLSS, because

18     there'd been the summer recess, and on account of priorities given to the

19     Karadzic and Tolimir cases, it had been decided that the submissions

20     would be translated only after the Karadzic and Tolimir submissions had

21     been translated.  So this is why you only recently received the

22     submissions translated into your own language.

23             A similar problem is bound to arise soon.  Indeed, following the

24     Bar Table motion for the admission of documents, the Prosecution filed

25     new submissions following the Trial Chamber's request, and the said

Page 16376

 1     submissions also have to be translated for you.  All this to tell you

 2     that we very much depend on CLSS, which may account for some of the

 3     delay.

 4             The other item on the agenda is a vital one.  It has to do with

 5     your health.  As you know, Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber ordered an

 6     expert examination, requesting an examination by several specialists,

 7     including a heart specialist, a cardiologist.

 8             Some days ago, I received a very alarming letter from one of your

 9     close relatives.  I won't tell you who that was because I don't know

10     whether that person wrote to me with or without your consent.  But this

11     person close to you was very worried about the situation; your health

12     situation, that is.  And together with the letter, he sent me a medical

13     document which he obtained from a very reputable Serbian cardiologist,

14     and it is together with the letter.  As soon as I read this mail, I sent

15     a letter answering this mail by your close relative to say that I had

16     taken due note of the mail and that I was forwarding this medical

17     document without delay to the specialist appointed by the Trial Chamber.

18             Upon reading the Serbian press, I realised that your health

19     condition was also mentioned at a recent meeting held in the Sava Centre

20     in Belgrade, attended by 4.000 people, including many Russian MPs coming

21     from the Duma, the Russian Parliament.  And at that rally, mention was

22     made of your state of health, and some made a connection between you and

23     what happened to Mr. Milosevic.

24             Personally speaking, I do not want to find myself in such a

25     situation.  I'll do everything I can to make sure that you remain in good

Page 16377

 1     health, and I look forward to the expert report we requested from medical

 2     experts.  And also with regard to legal proceedings, whether they are

 3     national or international proceedings, the problems remain the same.

 4             There's a host of questions arising, the first being this one:

 5     Is the state of health of the accused compatible with the situation of

 6     detention?  This is a question to be answered by the expert.  Indeed, if

 7     your health situation is not compatible with detention, the question

 8     arises whether we should stay the proceedings until the person who is ill

 9     has recovered.  So this would be a major decision to be taken, based on

10     what the expert is going to say.

11             Personally speaking, I tell you that there will be various

12     possibilities or options, the first being that we might appoint a new

13     bench or group of experts with personalities of world format and world

14     reputation, and I would not at all be against the idea of having an

15     expert who might be a Russian expert, there could be a French expert, and

16     a Serbian one, and they might answer this very basic question:  Is your

17     state of health compatible or not with the situation of detention?

18             The other question arising from the first is as follows:  If your

19     health condition is compatible with the situation of detention, do you

20     need to be treated?  And if treatment is necessary or surgery necessary,

21     what should it be?  In the affirmative, what kind of surgery do you need?

22     Depending on the answers provided, we may ask where you might have

23     surgery, in which location.

24             So starting with these basic very vital questions, a reasonable

25     Judge may issue decisions to ensure that the interest of justice is

Page 16378

 1     complied with, and that would mean continuing with the proceedings,

 2     striking a balance with the best possible protection of the detainee's

 3     health, medically speaking.

 4             So to sum up, as soon as we receive the expert's report, the

 5     Trial Chamber shall take all necessary steps to meet the medical

 6     situation.

 7             Third item.  It has to do with the issue of indigency.  The

 8     Trial Chamber will soon issue a decision on the matter.  We're just sort

 9     of putting the finishing touch to it, and it should be filed very soon,

10     in the next few days.  I pledge, and so do my fellow Judges, no doubt --

11     I pledge and I hope that through this decision, the Registrar will find

12     all necessary remedies to the current situation.

13             In conclusion, I want to deal with another subject that is very

14     important to me; namely, the current contempt proceedings following your

15     complaint lodged against the Prosecution, the OTP.

16             As you know, the Trial Chamber has to appoint an amicus curiae

17     who's going to process your complaint.  To date the amicus curiae has not

18     yet been appointed.  It seems that the Registry is coming up with

19     enormous difficulties to find the right person, the person who would meet

20     all the necessary criteria, one of these criteria being that the

21     amicus curiae in question may not be Italian, French, or Danish in any

22     event.  Therefore, the Registry is looking for, you know, the really

23     exceptional person, and I hope they will find him or her.

24             I want to say this in open session to avoid any misunderstanding.

25     Personally speaking, some time ago, after the book by Ms. Carla Del Ponte

Page 16379

 1     was published in which she named me, personally, and on account of the

 2     fact that an interpreter had made a specific statement, I was called upon

 3     to -- I had to seek disqualification for myself under Rule 15(A), and I

 4     did send a letter to the President of the Tribunal to the effect.  The

 5     President of the Tribunal did not follow up on my letter for

 6     disqualification because, based on his legal analysis, he was of the view

 7     that before he was seized, the Trial Chamber had to amend the decision

 8     that had been taken by Trial Chamber III whilst the President of the

 9     Tribunal was the Presiding Judge.  Based on his position, this

10     Trial Chamber has, therefore, issued a decision amending the prior

11     decision by Trial Chamber III, entrusting to the amicus curiae the onus

12     of representing you on this initial complaint of yours.

13             One thing is clear to me, and I say this to remove any

14     misunderstanding:  Once the amicus curiae has completed their work, in

15     the event that the amicus curiae would conclude that the situation is

16     worthy of an indictment being issued, I would automatically seek again to

17     be disqualified under Rule 15(A).  However, if the amicus curiae were to

18     conclude that there was no evidence to support an indictment, or nothing

19     to support the idea of an indictment being issued, the question would be

20     moot.

21             So to sum up, we're waiting for the amicus curiae to be appointed

22     by the Registrar, we're waiting for the work to be done by the amicus

23     curiae.  Forensically speaking, I think that this is going to be arduous

24     and time-consuming work, and once we have the amicus curiae's report, the

25     time will have come to draw conclusions and consequences from his report.

Page 16380

 1             These were the various items I wanted to raise on a personal

 2     note, but my fellow Judge wants to express herself as well.

 3             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I will not actually express my

 4     point of view; I will only say that some of the things that have been

 5     said were confidential and, therefore, I do not share the responsibility

 6     for that.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have heard both

 8     decisions or rulings being read to you.  You've also heard what I said on

 9     several topics, and I would like to see what you personally have to say.

10     I would like to know, sorry, what you have to say.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have prepared

12     about a dozen questions that I want to raise today, since we haven't been

13     sitting for about two and a half months, but first I will go -- or

14     rather, deal with the topics that you have raised, and some are the same

15     as the ones I prepared in advance.  We will save time this way.

16             About the decision of the Trial Chamber to admit Zoran Rankic's

17     statements, you said initially that I didn't oppose that.  I must remind

18     you, however, that I generally opposed the tendering of any previous

19     statement in this courtroom.  This practice is unknown by both the

20     common-law system and the continental European system.  In England,

21     America, France and Italy, that is impossible for a statement taken by

22     the OTP or the police to be admitted into evidence.

23             There is the principle of viva voce testifying, the principle of

24     directness of testifying, so that's why this Trial Chamber's decision is

25     illegal, is unlawful, but that is not the only one.  I insist the OTP's

Page 16381

 1     submissions to be translated as well as the relevant part of the

 2     so-called Mladic diaries to be forwarded to me, too.

 3             I acknowledge the historical roles of Mr. Karadzic and

 4     General Tolimir, but yet I consider that to be a brutal violation of some

 5     basic legal principles, because my detention has been going on for over

 6     eight years.  Mr. Tolimir has been in detention for some three years, and

 7     Mr. Karadzic something over two years.  So, in any case, my trial should

 8     have been given priority, and not other trials.  I hold the record when

 9     it comes to staying in detention without interruption.  If eight years of

10     detention without a final decision, and without the OTP even having

11     finished their case, is not enough to alarm the bodies of this Tribunal,

12     then there is no need to comment.

13             It is, therefore, a political issue that Karadzic and Tolimir be

14     convicted as soon as possible, and that's why they are being exhausted

15     day and night by trials, whereas here it has become obvious that it's not

16     possible to pass a convincing conviction, and that's why the end of these

17     proceedings is not a priority.

18             As for the so-called Mladic diaries, I prepared for that because

19     I think it's a crucial issue that needs discussion today.

20             There are three basic problems here.  I have not received the

21     complete diaries from the OTP but only such parts they consider relevant

22     for these proceedings.  I have already informed you that --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, just stop here,

24     please.

25             Mr. Marcussen, could you please tell me whether the OTP has sent

Page 16382

 1     the 3.500 pages of the Mladic diaries to Mr. Seselj?

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, this topic was discussed at our

 3     last administrative hearing.  As we explained back then, the entire

 4     diaries are available on the EDS, the Electronic Disclosure Suite, for

 5     the accused to get, and he has received the base that we have tendered

 6     with the filing that we made.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you probably

 8     remember your decision back when you were the Pre-Trial Judge, which was

 9     then confirmed by this Trial Chamber as soon as it was established;

10     namely, your decision that it was the duty of the Prosecution to disclose

11     all documents to me in Serbian in hard copies.  Nothing else is

12     acceptable.  What I received is a hundred or so pages from Mladic's

13     diaries.  The Prosecution will probably never disclose to me 3.600 pages

14     in hard copies, nor the transcripts of conversations that had been taped

15     that had also been found.

16             In the public, we see serious doubts being expressed about the

17     authenticity of these diaries.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Just so we deal with this issue of the

20     transcripts of the tape-recordings straight away:  All that material, as

21     it is being -- as tapes are being transcribed and as translations are

22     being made, that is also being made available to the accused on the EDS,

23     as well as a number of related documents, so it's all available to the

24     accused.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please proceed.

Page 16383

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have asked the Registrar, before

 2     we started our hearing today, to photocopy six pages from the most

 3     reputable Croatian weekly, "Globus."  This is Globus edition 1017 from

 4     the 4th of June, 2010.  On the cover page, you see the famous Serbian

 5     general, General Mladic, and then the title is:  "Mladic's Diaries, the

 6     Big Fraud."  Graphologists, apparently from Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia

 7     apparently all doubt the authenticity of, as the Croats call him, the

 8     butcher's diaries, because for Croats, all Serbs are either butchers or

 9     worms that crawl on the ground.  However, this article contains a number

10     of arguments as to why --

11             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, one moment, please.

12             You're fully in your right to challenge the authenticity of the

13     Mladic diaries, but, please, you should do that through other means,

14     other documents, while we will have proper hearings and we will be able

15     to deal with those diaries, and as part of your cross-examination, if the

16     subject arises, you can do that, or in writing you could also oppose the

17     motion that will be translated for you, but you cannot do so right now on

18     the basis of newspapers which have also been given to the Presiding Judge

19     and to myself, but I refused because it's in Serbian and I do not

20     read the Serbian language.  So you are talking about things, and we have

21     basically to take your word for it.  So I'm sorry, but I do not feel that

22     we should waste any time on this today.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj -- just a second,

24     Mr. Seselj.  I do not share the point of view of my colleague, because

25     the Trial Chamber has to rule on the 10 Mladic diaries, should they be

Page 16384

 1     admitted or should they be rejected.  And there is one basic issue, which

 2     is the authenticity of those 10 diaries.  And on this point, even if I do

 3     not read B/C/S, based on the document that you have brought to my

 4     attention, I see that someone, probably a graphologist, has looked into

 5     the handwriting of those diaries and has compared it with other

 6     documents.  As I'm used to false documents and falsifications as well as

 7     forgeries, I'm very careful as to what I see before my eyes.  And since

 8     there's only two of us out of three of us here and the Presiding Judge's

 9     voice prevails, I will proceed.

10             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Well, I would like to add

11     something:  Those documents are not part of the actual case.  Therefore,

12     we could not actually look at the documents before they are admitted, and

13     we could not actually look at them before they have been translated once

14     we've accepted to put them on record.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to convince you that there

17     is absolutely no reason to grant the Prosecution motion to have parts of

18     these diaries admitted into evidence and then to produce some improvised

19     witnesses here to support this, without waiting for what you say,

20     Madame Lattanzi, to have that admitted and then call their witnesses and

21     then to challenge this.  I'm not --

22             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, perhaps I was

23     misunderstood.  Perhaps I was not very well translated, but I don't

24     believe so, because interpreters do their work very well.  Perhaps you do

25     not want to hear me.  I said that you are fully in your right to

Page 16385

 1     challenge the authenticity of those diaries, and once the motion has

 2     been translated and you have received it, you can either orally or in

 3     writing make your submissions, and you can do so with documents that

 4     we can read, that we can check, whether they are in English or in French,

 5     in one of the two officials languages of this Tribunal, but not in B/C/S.

 6     As far as we're concerned, unfortunately, we cannot do that.  But as I

 7     was saying, you are fully in your right, you are fully entitled.  What do

 8     you think, that I would argue that you are not entitled to do that?  You

 9     are fully entitled to do that.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madame Lattanzi, I have already

11     received everything that the Prosecution planned on disclosing to me, and

12     based on the submission of the Prosecution, I took it that there is

13     nothing they are going to disclose to me and I am now expressing my point

14     of view orally.  I got tired of making written submissions.  I want to do

15     this orally, if you have patience enough to listen out to me.  If you

16     don't, let us just stop with this hearing.

17             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I fully understand what you're

18     saying, but I need to have arguments in support of your claim that those

19     documents should not be admitted.  You have to give us arguments, and

20     these are not the arguments that we could take into account.  I am afraid

21     we cannot do that.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So what am I supposed to do now,

23     stop this hearing?

24             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Well, it's the Presiding Judge

25     that gives you the floor.

Page 16386

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in is that,

 2     from a technical point of view, are you in a position to give us some

 3     evidence which would help us rule that those diaries have not been

 4     written by Mr. Mladic?  That's what I'm interested in.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not interested in that.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm all the more interested in

 7     this because I learnt that the son of Mr. Mladic took part in the rally

 8     that was organised by your political party in Belgrade.  Perhaps you have

 9     some first-hand information which would allow you to say that those

10     diaries are not coming from the father of this son.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not going to go into that at

12     all.  All I want to do is to bring this to your attention, that there are

13     some very serious doubts raised about the authenticity of these diaries.

14     I have concluded on this topic.  Doubts are raised about authenticity.

15             Now, what I have not concluded with yet is that the Prosecution,

16     in the materials submitted to me, proposed that two improvised witnesses

17     be heard here.  One of them is the former associate of Mladic who is the

18     only remaining who has not yet been indicted by this Tribunal.  He was in

19     the General Staff, and he also appeared in some cases here, perhaps as a

20     secret witness, or I don't know, and now the Prosecution proposes to

21     bring him here as an expert who would confirm the authenticity of those

22     diaries.  I happen to have met that man two or three times in my life,

23     and on each occasion he was drunk.  That person cannot testify here about

24     the authenticity of Mladic's diaries.  He can say, perhaps, that Mladic

25     always took notes on every meeting.  I will not go into debate about the

Page 16387

 1     authenticity of these diaries, but I deny the right to the Prosecution to

 2     call in a witness who simply attended a number of meetings, who could

 3     confirm here that this is, indeed, Mladic's handwriting.  It is only the

 4     graphologists who can confirm here the authenticity of the handwriting

 5     and compare the handwriting to the alleged diaries, and then based on

 6     which a conclusion could be drawn.  This is the testimony that one could

 7     accept, not the testimony of a drunk associate of Mladic who would come

 8     here and say, Upon my soul, upon my honour, this is, indeed, the diary of

 9     Mladic.  It's ridiculous.

10             Or perhaps to have somebody who works for the Registry or the

11     Prosecution to come here and testify -- am I allowed to mention this

12     person's name?  I'm not sure if I can do that.  So she proposes to

13     testify about how this had been delivered to her while in Belgrade.  This

14     is a ridiculous proposition.  You, as the Trial Chamber, may not allow

15     this, may not allow this.  This is a procedural issue, and I'm explaining

16     to you now the grounds why the request of the Prosecution should be

17     rejected.  And if you do not accept what I say and you grant this motion

18     by the Prosecution, then perhaps I would not take part at all in such a

19     hearing.  Why would I?

20             The Prosecution here gives several fragments from the so-called

21     Mladic's diaries which are to be tendered into evidence in this case, and

22     the Prosecution says here:

23             "An expanded session of the Presidency from the 1st of February,

24     Ranko Kostic speaks about the long-term interest of the protection of the

25     Serbian population.  And then the Prosecution says that this shows that

Page 16388

 1     the task of the JNA was changed and there was a unity of Serbs in one

 2     state.  This is an idiocy.  There is no other expression to describe

 3     this.

 4             Further on, meeting with Krajisnik, Adzic, and a group of

 5     generals from Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Karadzic explains strategic goals

 6     and how they define the separation of Bosnia-Herzegovina along ethnic

 7     lines, one state for all Serbs, one single army for all the Serbs.  This

 8     is on the 6th of May, 1992.  How does this concern me?  What has it got

 9     to do with this case, the fact that these people met and discussed

10     something, and that perhaps Mladic made notes from that meeting?  And

11     then the meeting between Karadzic, Mladic and Returovic [Phoen], where

12     Krajisnik enumerates strategic goals, what do I care about this?

13             But where they do mention my name is item 4, meeting of the

14     Command of the 2nd Military District.  This meeting was chaired by

15     General Kukanjac, and this took place on the 9th of May, 1992, allegedly.

16     At that meeting, the Prosecution say that one participant admitted that

17     General Perisic was destroying Mostar, whereas, in fact, it is

18     General Kukanjac speaking, and allegedly this was all taken down by

19     Mladic, and he utters these words:  It is not clear to me how come

20     Perisic is destroying Mostar and how.  So he is expressing doubts, how

21     come Perisic is destroying Mostar?  This is something someone told him,

22     this was something that was heard somewhere.  And, Mr. Antonetti, you

23     know from another case that whenever General Perisic targeted something

24     in Mostar, he would always inform the opposing side on the radio or

25     through other means that the following targets would be targeted and that

Page 16389

 1     measures should be taken, and General Perisic is not indicted for Mostar

 2     at all.  Mostar doesn't figure in his indictment.  And based on what

 3     Kukanjac says, the OTP construes and makes a conclusion that at that

 4     meeting somebody admitted that Perisic was destroying Mostar, whereas the

 5     actual words uttered are -- it is not clear to me what are these stories

 6     about Perisic destroying Mostar?  He did not destroy it, he did not

 7     destroy Mostar.  He targeted certain facilities and certain bridges, but

 8     he did not destroy Mostar.  Mostar remained almost intact.  So the

 9     Prosecution is lying.

10             And then they add that it is mentioned that some Seselj's men

11     took part in the attack on Mostar.  Where can this be found in the papers

12     that were disclosed to me?  Can the Prosecution help me now with this?

13     Where is this mentioned?  It is not mentioned anywhere in the pages that

14     I have.  I can't see it.  I have gone through this several times in the

15     Detention Unit, and I can't find it.  And this has been mentioned here in

16     this trial a number of times that there was one unit, volunteers of the

17     Serbian Radical Party the size of a company, led by Denis Baret, that

18     they were in Mostar under the command of General Perisic.  This was an

19     infantry unit, and they could not have participated in the destruction of

20     Mostar, and they have not been indicted for it.  And there is no mention

21     of this in my indictment.  I'm indicted by the Prosecution for the events

22     in the vicinity of Mostar after the JNA had withdrawn, and Perisic with

23     them as well, and you could see how they fared with those charges against

24     me.

25             Further on, item 5, morning report of the Nevesinje commander.

Page 16390

 1     It is obvious that local Serbian leaders maintain contact with other

 2     leaders from the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

 3     Republika Srpska.  A number of names are mentioned, including

 4     Major-General Perisic.  This is a meeting of the 11th May of 1992.  So

 5     what if it is obvious, what if it can be seen?  Why does this need to be

 6     admitted into evidence?  This is still back during the period when

 7     Perisic was there, in command on the 11th of May.  Perisic withdrew on

 8     the 19th of May.  So why is this important?  It is normal that the

 9     military organs should co-operate with civilian organs.  There are a

10     number of issues they need to co-operate on.  So the request to admit

11     this into evidence is groundless.

12             Let us proceed.

13             Item 6, consultations on the military-political situation in the

14     Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 6th of June, 1992.  It is

15     mentioned here that this note is relevant because it proves that there

16     were consultations between the republic, military, and municipal

17     leadership in the territory of Romanija, and it is mentioned that some

18     places had been cleansed; Bratunac, Vogosca, Ilidza, and so on.  In a

19     number of cases before this Tribunal, it was proven that mopping up the

20     area means removing members of enemy formations, and nowhere is the

21     mopping up, in military terminology, equated with ethnic cleansing.

22     "Ethnic cleansing" is a term that appeared later in a political context,

23     and it was used by those who criticised the situation on the ground.  So

24     why should this be admitted into evidence?  Because some idiot somewhere

25     said that now in Bratunac municipality there were no longer any Muslims,

Page 16391

 1     Bratunac is a completely free town.  What do I care about that?  What

 2     does Bratunac have to do with my indictment?  Just because some idiot

 3     somewhere mentioned this in some meeting.  Perhaps it was Deronjic, or

 4     some other idiot.  What do I care about that?

 5             Now, let us look at item 7.  On the 30th of June, 1992,

 6     allegedly, General Ratko Mladic made notes at the meeting with

 7     representatives of Zvornik municipality.  The Prosecution says that this

 8     proves that there was a joint criminal enterprise in Eastern Bosnia.

 9     Based on this note, we can see that local Serb authorities took part in

10     this JCE, and then they go on to enumerate; president of the municipality

11     of the SDS, paramilitary formations, Arkan's men, Seselj's men, and so

12     on.  First of all, how does this prove what the Prosecution claims?

13             What happened at that meeting is that a municipal official from

14     Zvornik, not from the MUP of Serbia, and his name was Marko Pavlovic, not

15     his actual name, praised Seselj's men and Arkan's men for their

16     participation in the combat to liberate Zvornik.  So what is contentious

17     here; that Seselj's men took part in this?  Yes, they did, and everybody

18     praised them.  You saw Colonel Dacic here, brigade commander, who praised

19     the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party as brave, capable, and

20     disciplined men.  Under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Stupar.  They

21     also took part in liberating Kula Grad, which was a strategic location.

22     And there's nothing contentious here.  How does this qualify as a JCE?

23     And everything else that could be of a compromising nature pertains to

24     events later on in May, June, July.  What have I got to do with it?  Did

25     somebody expel Muslims from Kozluk or did they leave on their own because

Page 16392

 1     somebody else pressured them?  It has nothing to do with me, because no

 2     longer there were any volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party there.

 3             As for paramilitary formations that are mentioned and branded at

 4     this meeting, we can see that almost every participant at the meeting

 5     spoke of paramilitary formations.  And then the Prosecution - you can see

 6     this on page 4 - says they particularly emphasised Zuco, who led the

 7     paramilitary formation Yellow Wasps.  And, indeed, his name is mentioned.

 8     And then the Prosecution says that he had been sent by the Serbian

 9     Radical Party from Belgrade to Zvornik.  Now, nobody mentioned this at

10     the meeting, nor did anybody at the meeting make a link between Zuco and

11     the Serbian Radical Party.  This is something that the Prosecution simply

12     invented.

13             Item 8.  On the 8th November of 1992, General Mladic allegedly

14     held a meeting with corps commanders, and then the OTP goes on to say

15     that this was relevant concerning the deployment of volunteers of the

16     Serbian Chetnik Movement in Bosnia and that this corroborates the expert

17     report of Theunens.  Now, where are the volunteers of the Serbian Chetnik

18     Movement and the Serbian Radical Party mentioned here?  I can't see their

19     names mentioned in any of the pages here.  Can you point to it, please,

20     to me?  Nobody mentioned them at the meeting.

21             Now let us hear the Prosecutor.  Maybe he saw something

22     somewhere.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Marcussen.  This is

24     item 8.  I think that there are five left.  It might be better for you to

25     respond once it's all been said, rather than interrupt Mr. Seselj now.

Page 16393

 1     What did you mean to say?

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, I was going to say that it's

 3     turning into a bit of a strange procedure, because the accused appears to

 4     be asking me questions as he's going along.  I am happy to respond later,

 5     but I think there's a general response to all of this that I can give and

 6     maybe we don't have to go through the last five items, but I'm also happy

 7     to wait, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now there's item 9.

10             On the 28th of May, 1993, a meeting was held with the leadership

11     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the OTP

12     say that it follows from this note that Serbia and the FRY continued to

13     support the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and since the JNA had officially

14     withdrawn from BiH.  Well, who else should they support but the Serbs?

15     That's normal.  What have the Prosecutors revealed here?  All Serbs are

16     even now proud, except that handful of traitors, that Serbia supported

17     the Serbs across the Drina.  And so what?  Nothing.  No way -- and then

18     they say that between Seselj and the Serbian political leaders, there is

19     strife and misunderstandings.  And where can that be seen?  Nowhere.

20     Only one of the participants of the meetings is quoted here as saying

21     that an Englishman drew the conclusion somewhere that the goal of the

22     Vance-Owen Plan was to prevent the creation of a Greater Serbia, and

23     nothing else.  And somebody's quoting that, and the OTP is transforming

24     that into a thesis that this clearly shows that the Serbian leadership

25     actively worked on the implementation of the goal of the JCE, whereas

Page 16394

 1     nobody ever stated that here.  Dobrica Cosic, who chaired the meeting, on

 2     page 178 says that the Vance-Owen Plan is the strategy of the West, and

 3     the London Conference has two objectives:  first, prevent the creation of

 4     a Greater Serbia and the unification of the Serb people, and, secondly,

 5     prevent the creation of a Muslim state.  These are the assessments of

 6     Dobrica Cosic about the objectives of the Serb enemies in the West, but

 7     nobody mentions the creation of a Greater Serbia as a Serb objective.

 8     This is construed by the Prosecution, and it does so in an abominable way

 9     which must not be left unsanctioned.  And Dobrica Cosic goes on to say,

10     allegedly, and Mladic made a note of that, allegedly, the following:

11     Seselj can create problems for us.  I don't want to say that he will win

12     over Serbia.  Well, maybe Dobrica Cosic mentioned that I was a problem

13     for them, but what else can be concluded from this statement?  This is

14     the 28th of May, 1993.

15             The Serb Radical Party then firstly opposed the acceptance of the

16     Vance-Owen Plan, and if Cosic put this correctly, probably I was a

17     problem for them.  But Cosic corrects himself somewhat.  He probably

18     didn't think that I would go about conquering Serbia with weapons,

19     although the secret police tried to frame me with things, which can be

20     seen from my criminal file, although it was never my intention to cause

21     bloodshed in Serbia.  And this seems to be relevant for the OTP.  For

22     what, I don't know.  This is idiocy.

23             Then there was a meeting with President Milosevic on the 8th of

24     July, 1993.  The OTP say that this note shows that the Serb authorities

25     continued to support the Serb authorities in BiH, including the MUP.

Page 16395

 1     Until the Republic of Serbia proclaimed a blockade of the RS, they

 2     assisted the Serb structures there.  And why not?  The entire West helped

 3     the Croats and Muslims, and we're supposed to leave our Serb brethren in

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina to their own resources.  And what does this show?  I

 5     don't know.  This is -- this is not convincing.

 6             I must slow down because I mustn't drink any water.  Doctor's

 7     orders.

 8             Item 11.  24 September 1993, a meeting with President Milosevic.

 9     The OTP say that this note shows that the relations between Milosevic and

10     Seselj were severed in the second half of 1993, and Milosevic calls

11     Seselj a traitor.  And how is this relevant to the indictment?  I suppose

12     that you remember that -- what I called Milosevic publicly at the time.

13     Milosevic called me names at these closed meetings, and I only

14     subsequently find out about that, whereas I all the time left no room for

15     doubt because I always attacked him publicly.  And what does the OTP want

16     to corroborate here?  Milosevic's argument that I'm a traitor, uttered on

17     the 24th of September, 1993.  It was then when I publicly revealed the

18     background of the putsch in Banja Luka against the legitimate authorities

19     of the RS, and I did so in the federal assembly, and I identified some

20     participants of that putsch.  After that, there was a fierce clash

21     between the Serb Radical Party and the Socialist Party of Serbia, and it

22     went on for years.  And what's relevant here?  Nothing.

23             Item 12.  21 December 1993, meeting with Colonel Gusic about the

24     situation in the Neretva Valley.  What has this got to do with me?  Who's

25     mentioned there?  This is outside the period covered by the alleged JCE

Page 16396

 1     in which I allegedly took part, because the OTP limited the relevant

 2     period to September 1993.  And there was this clash between the SRS and

 3     the Socialist Party of Serbia which some people qualified as a personal

 4     conflict between Mr. Milosevic and me.  What does that show?  Nothing.

 5             13 October 1994 has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

 6             The meeting with Nedeljko Bubalo, detailed notes about the

 7     situation in Republika Srpska, Milosevic is mentioned somewhere and the

 8     state of Serbia and Montenegro.  The OTP say in this note it is stated

 9     that in the latter half of 1993, Colonel Bolivar Stanisic,

10     [indiscernible], the chief of the administration of the MUP of Serbia,

11     Ljubisa Petkovic, Seselj's former deputy, and Milan Spago.  This is a

12     concrete proof that Seselj, in the latter half of 1993, was still

13     involved in the purchase of weapons through the MUP of Serbia.  This man

14     was at a high position in the Serb Radical Party and the Serb Chetnik

15     Movement and had contacts with the Army of Yugoslavia and the MUP of

16     Serbia.  Seselj had to be informed of these agreements.

17             First of all, there are no traces to show that Ljubisa Petkovic

18     took part in the purchase of weapons, yes, and some supplies or

19     something.  But toward the end of 1993, Ljubisa Petkovic was

20     spectacularly kicked out of the SRS, and then he dealt with some things

21     with which the party had nothing to do.  He was kicked out in late

22     October, if I remember well, and our direct conflict with Milosevic

23     started in September 1993.  And what is this all about?  Nothing.

24             So these are the 13 items that the OTP was able to find in the

25     alleged Mladic diaries and that supposedly incriminate me.  Your Honours,

Page 16397

 1     do you feel humiliated by the OTP in this manner?  Do you think that they

 2     are slighting your intelligence and your professionalism, your expertise?

 3     This is a misuse of the proceedings.  Instead of both the OTP and I

 4     stating our positions under Rule 98 bis, we keep wasting time.

 5             I've been in detention for almost eight years.  I must once again

 6     ask you, because you have refused my submissions once or twice already:

 7     Is this an abuse of the proceedings?  Should this doctrine of abuse of

 8     proceedings be applied?

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I let you elaborate

10     on these 13 points, but I --

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more detail.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, go ahead, and then I'll

13     get back to this.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have in front of me a copy of

15     another rather reputable Croatian weekly called "Nacional."  It's Issue

16     759 of the 1st of July, 2010.  I have again asked the -- asked this to be

17     translated for you.  This is an editorial from Srecko Jurdana about

18     Mladic's diaries, and this is proof to me that the OTP has not disclosed

19     to me anything that could be used as alleviating evidence.  And this says

20     that the Croats had made agreements about the exchange of population,

21     that Croats from Vojvodina should be moved to Croatia, and Serbs from

22     Croatia to Vojvodina, and all that happened in 1993, it seems.  And you

23     know how much evidence I led about the direct involvement of the Catholic

24     Church and this exchange of property and that the Croatian authorities

25     worked on that and that it never happened that a Croat family or any

Page 16398

 1     Croat individual were expelled from Croatia, but this was only about

 2     exchange of property, whereas here we see that this was actually done by

 3     the official Croatian authorities.  But the OTP don't want to give me

 4     these excerpts of the Mladic diaries, but here sometimes I am in the

 5     position to read the Croatian media, much to the sorrow of the OTP.

 6             So my conclusions would be -- or, rather, I reply to the

 7     submission of the OTP, asking the Trial Chamber to refuse the submission,

 8     because there's no reason to admit these fragments or call any improvised

 9     witnesses who don't even know what to testify about.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, today is the 21st

11     of September, 2010.  Pursuant to the rules regarding the Mladic diaries,

12     the dead-line was the 16th of September, 2010.  By then, had you to

13     submit your remarks and observation.  We received nothing in writing from

14     you.

15             Earlier on today, you spoke, and I let you speak whilst my

16     colleague was rather inclined to interrupting you.  I took into account

17     that we hadn't met for two and a half months and that maybe you had

18     reasons to explain why you were five days too late, since the dead-line

19     was on the 16th of September for the filing of submissions, and you said

20     nothing at all.  So how can you account for this five days' delay?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Firstly, Mr. President, I have a

22     problem with writing.

23             Secondly, you raised the issue of the Mladic diaries, and I used

24     the opportunity.  Perhaps I misused it somewhat.

25             And, thirdly, the Trial Chamber has the right to extend any

Page 16399

 1     dead-line from the Rules of Procedure, so you can either admit or reject

 2     my submission.  It's up to you.  But I have said everything I had to say

 3     with regard to the Mladic diaries, and now you can do what you please.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, yes, Mr. Marcussen, do

 5     you wish to respond to the 13 points?

 6             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I will do so, but I will try to be more general.

 7     I think I can do that, Your Honours.

 8             But I just wanted to observe that the accused started his

 9     submissions at 9.42 and he finished at 10.25, so he spent more than half

10     an hour making oral submissions which really, we submit, he should have

11     just put in writing and we shouldn't have taken time up at an

12     administrative hearing about these issues.

13             What the accused did today was essentially to, first of all, mix

14     up the Prosecution's explanation of the relevance of documents with the

15     actual contents of the tendered excerpts, so that he would read out from

16     the annex to the motion, pointing out that there's no mention in the

17     documents of tendered documents of this, that, and the other.  That's

18     true on some of the occasions, but he is seemingly missing the point that

19     we've explained the relevance and putting the documents we're tendering

20     in context.

21             Secondly, on a number of occasions, actually most of the time,

22     the accused testified about events at the time.  He can't do that.  He

23     also tried to testify about what was known from other cases and things

24     like that.  It's completely irrelevant to the motion.

25             As a more general matter, the accused seemed to be disregarding

Page 16400

 1     that a lot of these documents are tendered because they're relevant to

 2     the existence of the joint criminal enterprise alleged in the indictment,

 3     and we make that quite clear in the motion.  So although he labelled our

 4     submissions as idiotic and things like that, either he has misunderstood

 5     and he should have considered this more thoroughly and made a written

 6     submission or he's really just using the hearing to throw these kind of

 7     insults around in court.

 8             When he did talk about the contents of the tendered exhibits, he

 9     would from time to time clearly misrepresent them.  For example, I would

10     invite Your Honours to look at item 7, which is the excerpt that the

11     accused talked about relating to Zvornik.  And he pointed out how this

12     was irrelevant and things were not contested, and this, that, and the

13     other, but what he actually failed to address is the note about what

14     Branko Grujic said at the meeting that's discussed in that excerpt.  It's

15     highly relevant to the existence of the joint criminal enterprise in this

16     case and directly relevant to crime bases in this case; namely, to Divic

17     and Kozluk and the expulsion of people -- of non-Serbs who remained in

18     those areas after Zvornik had been taken over.  And Brano Grujic says, We

19     have successfully implemented the president's decision to settle Divic

20     and Kozluk.  That is a clear reference to Karadzic ordering the expulsion

21     of non-Serbs from these two areas and resettling Serbs in those areas.

22     If that is not directly relevant to this case, I don't know what is

23     relevant, Your Honours.

24             So that, I think, would conclude my short reply to the rather

25     lengthy response that the accused gave orally today.

Page 16401

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly.  I know it's time for

 2     the break, but I need no more than a minute.

 3             But what do I care what happened later?  Firstly, Branko Grujic

 4     is alive.  You can examine him and not quote, say, superficially

 5     interpret a statement of his.  And then Branko Grujic complains of Zuco

 6     and Captain Dragon, but he never mentions the Serbian Radical Party and

 7     its volunteers.  The problems with Divic, Kozluk, and other places

 8     started in late May and continued through June and July, until the

 9     special unit of the MUP of the RS intervened.  The problems arose a month

10     after the retreat of the volunteers of the SRS from Zvornik.  The

11     volunteers retreated on the 26th, or moved out, together with the JNA

12     units, and the problems started in late May, perhaps on the 26th.  That's

13     the essence.  But the Prosecutor doesn't even know what he has submitted.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes -- well, I thought it was

15     over.

16             Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

17             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I just feel compelled, in light of the accused's

18     submission, to reiterate that even if he were correct, which he's not,

19     that is, that the volunteers did not participate in the events, but even

20     if that was true, the evidence is clearly still relevant to the alleged

21     joint criminal enterprise.  And I'm mentioning this because I want the

22     accused to be under no misapprehension as to what the Prosecution's case

23     is.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we're going to break for

25     20 minutes.  We shall resume around 10 to 11.00, and then we'll have to

Page 16402

 1     stop at 12.00 sharp.

 2             Let us resume in 20 minutes' time.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

 6             Mr. Seselj, you have the floor, because I believe that there were

 7     still a few topics that you wanted to touch upon.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am now afraid that I won't have

 9     the time to cover all of my topics.

10             You raised the issue of my health.  You must remember that two

11     and a half years ago, I started having problems with my liver.  My heart

12     rate is quite fast now, so I will have to slow down when speaking.  I had

13     10 to 15 blood tests done, which showed that some five enzymes of liver

14     were outside of normal range.  I raised this issue several times.  There

15     was no medical intervention.  As a result, some doctors tried to explain

16     this by my alleged obesity.  I'm not an obese person, not at all.  And if

17     my cholesterol levels are always normal, if my triglyceride levels are

18     also all right, as well as sugar blood levels, then it's hard to explain

19     this.  But later on I realised what the source of this poisoning is.  I

20     started eating almost exclusively canned food, and my liver recovered

21     itself.  For the past year, I have had no problems, and all my tests were

22     completely normal.  I cannot be more specific when it comes to the source

23     and the perpetrator.  I don't have enough evidence, but I excluded the

24     source that I suspected, I started eating canned food, which is

25     considered to be very unhealthy, and my liver results became normal.

Page 16403

 1             However, in the past year, I started developing heart problems.

 2     I had arrhythmia and unusual heart palpitations, which has deteriorated

 3     over the time.  The doctors changed my medications several times.  I was

 4     very disciplined when it comes to taking medication.  They never once

 5     found any chemicals in my blood that had not been prescribed by them, but

 6     my situation continued deteriorating.

 7             You recently received a false report by an assistant doctor at

 8     the prison who did not even examine me and completely falsely wrote a

 9     report to you.

10             The situation deteriorated to the point where last week I

11     underwent five electrical shocks, and they did not help, other than

12     turning me into a shocking personality.  And I don't know where this will

13     lead to.

14             For the first half of October, a surgical intervention has been

15     planned for me, called ablation.  They need to insert a catheter into an

16     artery in my leg which is supposed to go all the way to the heart, where

17     they are supposed to burn a vessel.  That's what they're saying.  Some

18     other people are saying that what they want to burn is the love in my

19     heart, and if they do that, then only the hatred will remain.  But I have

20     immense hatred towards The Hague Tribunal, all European institutions, and

21     all my enemies and so on.  But let's see how that will transpire.

22             In the meantime, what is particularly indicative under these

23     circumstances?  Via my legal adviser, Boris Aleksic, I managed to get in

24     touch with Dr. Zdravko Mijajlovic, who last year wrote a

25     60-something-page report on the state of my health.  You received it, and

Page 16404

 1     I was quite satisfied with his work because he took it very seriously and

 2     he portrayed it in serious terms.  On this occasion, Dr. Mihajlovic was

 3     unable to provide his opinion because his commander, some Miodrag Jevtic,

 4     who is a general and currently the head of the Military Medical Academy

 5     in Belgrade, forbade him from giving his opinion.  He said that The Hague

 6     Tribunal needs to send the documentation to him as the head of the

 7     institution.  Later on, I learned that this Jevtic is a member of some

 8     American Association of War Surgeons.

 9             So things are completely clear to me now, and I would like to

10     tell you that I am against any documents concerning my health being sent

11     to the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade and that I firmly oppose any

12     doctors from that institution being engaged to examine me.

13             However, what you mentioned here, Mr. President, is something

14     that I find very disturbing, and that is possible adjournment of these

15     proceedings.  I am firmly opposed to this.  First of all, the length of

16     these proceedings have a long time ago exceeded any reasonable

17     expectation, and that was the case several years ago.  A trial has been

18     going on for three years, and the Prosecution is not yet done with their

19     case.  And if we look at it rationally, all of this could have been

20     completed within a year and a half.  Some hindering factors kept coming

21     up in this case.  Sometimes it was this reason, sometimes it was that

22     reason, but all reasons were ridiculous.  None of them warranted the

23     adjournment of trial, and now it has become unbearable.

24             We have to put an end to this trial.  The bosses of The Hague

25     Tribunal realise this; the Americans, the English, CIA, and MI-6.  We in

Page 16405

 1     Serbia call them "mi sest."  And how to put an end to this trial?  That's

 2     the key problem now.  The entire global legal public now realises that

 3     there are no elements for my conviction.  And if that is the case, then

 4     they think the strategy should be to extend the proceedings as long as

 5     possible so that the accused would perhaps die, and if they can assist in

 6     the process, all the better.  How to do that, I don't know.  I just keep

 7     thinking about this, as do my friends.  I can't penetrate other people's

 8     minds.

 9             Last year, I was subjected to some kind of an examination with

10     some machines, where they artificially increased my heart rate.  And

11     after that, my condition deteriorated.  Increased heart rate and

12     arrhythmia together can cause a stroke or some other serious conditions,

13     and we'll see what will happen to me.

14             However, I'm against any further delay in this trial.  I want

15     this to be put on the record.  If I die, I forbid any sort of autopsy

16     performed -- to be performed on me.  Nobody has the right to do that for

17     any reason whatsoever.

18             I dearly miss water now, but I'm banned from drinking water or

19     taking any food for several hours prior to these electrical shocks that

20     I'm subjected to.  This is as much as I want to say concerning my health.

21             Now, when it comes to covering expenses --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we're going to

23     conclude regarding your state of health.  You have given us information

24     that the Judges did not know about, that you're going to undergo a

25     surgical operation here.  So let's wait and see, and let's look at what's

Page 16406

 1     going to happen once you will have had this surgical procedure.

 2             As I have mentioned, the Trial Chamber is waiting for the expert

 3     report, and I'm sure that it will have included new information,

 4     especially the ECTs that you are being given to regulate your heartbeats,

 5     and I'm sure that this report will be exhaustive.  But if the

 6     Trial Chamber has any doubts, as I said, they can also ask a group of

 7     experts for additional expert opinion, and we will do everything that we

 8     can for you to be treated in the best way possible, given your state of

 9     health.

10             Now, you wanted to touch -- yes, go on.

11             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I wanted to know

12     whether you have given your written consent for the ECTs that were given

13     to you, as well as for the surgical procedure that you will undergo in

14     October.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.  On Friday, they took me there

16     because they said my condition was urgent, but I didn't object to that.

17     And the fact that I didn't give a written consent doesn't mean that it

18     was done against my will.  Earlier on, I didn't know how they would do

19     this to me.  It's like in the movies when they reanimate a patient.

20     However, everything was done under anaesthesia, so I didn't feel

21     anything, but it was unsuccessful.  They did five electrical shocks,

22     which is the maximum, they couldn't exceed that, but it didn't improve my

23     condition.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next topic, please.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next topic you raised are the

Page 16407

 1     expenses and whether they would be reimbursed.

 2             I received a letter from the Deputy Registrar.  Even though I

 3     earlier on received a solemn decision, a decision in a solemn form, where

 4     they say that they reject my motion to cover expenses, a new letter after

 5     that arrived, where they said they would reconsider, and now Deputy

 6     Registrar Ken Roberts asked me to provide my opinion about the level of

 7     complexity that needs to be given to this case in pre-trial stage.  You

 8     know that all cases here are divided in three categories, based on

 9     complexity.  Level 3 is the most complex case, where the Defence is paid

10     the most.  And the Defence in category 3 cases is paid at the double rate

11     in comparison to level 1 cases.  This, again, is an evidence of terrible

12     arrogance.

13             Some time ago, the Registrar rated my case as level 3 case.

14     Regardless of how successful I am in this case, this is, indeed, a very

15     complex case because here I'm put on trial for crimes that did not exist

16     at the time when they were perpetrated, such as hate speech.  They paid

17     at the rate of level 3 case the first standby counsel,

18     Aleksandar Lazarevic, then the second one, Van Den Spoel, then the third

19     one, David Hooper and his girlfriend, O'Shea.  All of them were paid at

20     the rate of level 3 cases, and now the Deputy Registrar asks me for my

21     opinion as to which category my case should belong to.  And do you know

22     what I replied?  Nothing, because I do not want to respond to such stupid

23     questions.  Lately, I've been responding less and less to various

24     correspondence that arrives to me from various instances.

25             One matter that I need to repeat is this:  I need to receive data

Page 16408

 1     as to how much all these lawyers who were appointed in my case were paid

 2     at the time when they were engaged.  Without that information, I refuse

 3     to have any discussions about how much my people need to be paid.  I also

 4     want to receive information about how -- what were Defence costs in each

 5     case at the Tribunal from the beginning of its existence.  This hasty

 6     decision concerning Mr. Karadzic's Defence and Mr. Tolimir's Defence,

 7     where they pay them pitiful amounts, is something that they cannot apply

 8     in my case.

 9             And the third matter is that they need to pay all the costs

10     concerning travel expenses of my people whenever they come to the

11     Tribunal.  They paid some expenses from 2007, but they need to pay

12     everything.  The budget for the Defence needs to be specified.  We need

13     to compare a Defence budget with the Prosecution budget.  We need to see

14     how many people OTP engaged in my case, what expenses they had in my

15     case, and then, based on that comparison, we need to draw conclusions.

16     Naturally, since I represent myself, then the amount that would normally

17     be paid to lead counsel needs not to be paid to me, but if 40.000 Euros

18     is what Defence costs are in a level 3 case while the trial is on, then

19     perhaps lead counsel is paid $20.000, since I represent myself, and

20     20.000 needs not be paid, but the remaining 20.000 needs to be paid to my

21     associate.  All of them can prove that they were, indeed, busy working on

22     my case.  They can prove that they took statements, they were busy

23     gathering information that I used in my cross-examinations, so everything

24     can be corroborated.  Nobody would be paid without having done the work.

25     So 50 per cent is my work, the fact that I represented myself, but the

Page 16409

 1     remaining 50 per cent needs to be paid out to my Defence associates or

 2     else there will be no Defence case.

 3             Furthermore, I've jotted down a number of issues, too, and I

 4     would like to go through them quickly.

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

 6     about other issues linked to your Defence, as you know, the Chamber will

 7     hand down a decision on this, but as I'm reading everything that you

 8     submit in order for me to know about everything, I was rather surprised,

 9     when reading the submission on a disqualification procedure, I saw that

10     on the list of the members of your team you did strike out Mrs. Raguz.  I

11     was wondering whether there was any reason for that.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, she stopped working

13     on my Defence team in May, and that was her personal decision.  I don't

14     know what her motives were, she never bothered to inform me of them.  She

15     hasn't worked on my Defence team since May, and I haven't had any contact

16     with her since.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I now have no case manager in these

19     proceedings.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was about to ask you this

21     question.  I was wondering whether you had found a replacement, but

22     you're saying that you do not have any case management at the moment.

23             Very well.  Please proceed.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will probably soon appoint a case

25     manager from this contempt proceedings, Nemanja Sarovic, and I appoint

Page 16410

 1     him my case manager in my main proceedings.  But I have a problem with

 2     the Registry, because when I wanted the case manager from the contempt

 3     case to visit me, the Registry forbade such contacts.  And Nemanja

 4     Sarovic, who was my legal adviser in that case, refused to come, and I

 5     only met my legal adviser in the main proceedings, Boris Aleksic and

 6     Zoran Krasic.  The issue remains of Zoran Krasic, my legal adviser, and

 7     another person because he cannot take part in closed sessions, and I will

 8     never come to terms with that.  Zoran Krasic must be on equal footing

 9     with everybody else, and the first among equals, and he must be allowed

10     the possibility of privileged contact with me.  Anyway, he's been privy

11     to all the secrets in the framework of these proceedings, and now there

12     is nothing secret from him.  Everything has been disclosed to him.  I

13     will probably make Zoran Krasic, Boro Sacic, and Dejan Mirovic my legal

14     advisers, and Nemanja Sarovic my case manager, and I will inform you

15     accordingly in a few days, once I have consulted them.

16             Shall I continue with the other matters?

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to comment on the

19     confidential submission, dated 20 July, of the OTP, asking for a

20     subsequent amendment of its witness list.  I'm not going to mention the

21     content of that submission or any names contained therein, but here the

22     OTP request that OTP personnel be examined, and they request, as I say,

23     clarification from the Trial Chamber, the clarification of its positions

24     from a previous ruling.

25             I am opposed to this because I consider there is no reason for

Page 16411

 1     the OTP to call their own personnel here to have them corroborate the

 2     alleged truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses that were called

 3     by the OTP.  The OTP can do so in the contempt proceedings, and this

 4     probably will have to be done because there is much evidence.

 5             There is a public document of the 11th of August which is

 6     forwarded to me on the 18th, another request of the OTP to reconsider the

 7     decision on the admittance of Milan Bobic's statement based on

 8     Rule 92 quater.  I oppose that because Milan Bobic committed suicide

 9     because he was brought to a desperate -- put in a desperate situation by

10     the OTP and the Tribunal and not because his statements given to the OTP

11     were truthful.  He killed himself while giving evidence.  On one day, he

12     finished giving evidence, he was supposed to come on the following day,

13     but he hung himself during that night.  And there are statements from his

14     wife that his family had been harassed although they had been promised to

15     be taken abroad to a safe place.

16             On 8 September, which means within the dead-line, I replied to

17     the OTP's submission on the 26th of March, 2010.  It is another request

18     to hear witnesses in closed session.  The OTP puts forward hollow

19     political rhetoric to support their submission.  If you look at this

20     evidence, you can see that in many cases these are newspaper articles

21     written on various occasions, there's some experts from my books,

22     interviews I gave, and so on.  Although this has been done in some cases

23     here, I cannot allow to have documents tendered in this way.  The

24     principle of verbal proceedings must not be violated.  Documents must be

25     presented here by name.  The Prosecution leads evidence, and I then

Page 16412

 1     oppose it.  If they do so a million times then a million times the title

 2     of the document must be mentioned, but not like this.  This is possible

 3     in a civil proceedings and in common law, but in criminal proceedings,

 4     documents cannot be tendered this way anywhere in the civilised world,

 5     all the more so since there is a huge quantity of them.

 6             The OTP have also objected to the acceptance of the rulings of

 7     national courts, but I opposed that because the Trial Chamber has the

 8     right to consult other court decisions, too, and not only in the

 9     framework of this Tribunal but also before other courts, and there's

10     always the possibility to object.

11             The OTP, in another document of theirs, requested that their own

12     personnel be examined.  Since this is confidential in nature, I am not

13     going to read out the title of that document, but it was disclosed to me

14     on 8 July 2010, and naturally I opposed the motion; a confidential

15     document, dated 28 June, where some exhibits should be tendered

16     subsequently with regard to Witness 26.  But, Your Honours, you probably

17     know that I filed another criminal report with the President of this

18     Tribunal with regard to Witness 026, and I have also enclosed one of his

19     statements, translated into English.  What does that show?  Witness 026

20     is in poor health, but not so poor as to prevent him from testifying.  He

21     was able to testify.  The problem with him was that surgical

22     interventions failed, and very recently he had another surgical

23     intervention.  The Trial Chamber decided not to call him, and only then

24     did we get his new statements, and we enclosed these new statements in

25     the framework of the contempt proceedings.  And we submitted this to you

Page 16413

 1     for your information, showing that you were able to hear that witness.

 2     And this witness informed us that he even requested you in writing to

 3     examine him.

 4             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I have a question to

 5     put to you.

 6             So are you in contact with this witness?  And if so, do you feel

 7     that after this other event, he will be in a position to testify?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, and that's what he said.  I

 9     wasn't in direct contact with him, personally, but my legal advisers

10     were.  They talked to him long, and the result of that is his new

11     statement.  He even insists on testifying.  He mentioned giving false

12     evidence in an earlier trial.  I don't want to go into details because

13     otherwise the Prosecutor will leap up.  I suppose you know which

14     proceedings I'm referring to.

15             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are touching a point and

17     the case of Witness VS-026.  I would like to remind you that the

18     Trial Chamber has decided to call him as a witness of the Court.

19             Secondly, it turned out that there were some medical issues, and

20     the Trial Chamber appointed a medical expert who concluded with no doubt

21     that the state of health was not good enough for this witness to testify.

22             Secondly, as you said, we have received a letter coming from him,

23     stating that he wanted to testify, so we were wondering whether, by some

24     miracle, he's now in rude health, perhaps.  Doctors sometimes do

25     miracles.  But we have not received any new document that would state

Page 16414

 1     that this witness is in a position to testify.

 2             And you have added some additional information, saying that he

 3     has underwent some -- he has undergone some medical intervention, so I

 4     did not know about that, and I'm waiting for documents.  But as far as

 5     I'm concerned, I do not want to take any risks with any witness, and this

 6     would be a major risk.  If medical experts say he's not fit to testify,

 7     as far as I'm concerned, it means this witness is not fit to testify.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, yesterday, after

 9     office hours, I was visited by Dr. Paulus Falke, the prison doctor, who

10     insisted that I refrain from coming to court today, and yet I came.  So

11     doctors can try to be more cautious than strictly necessary, but this

12     witness could have testified via videolink.  There have been cases when

13     witnesses were examined via videolink because they said that they were --

14     they had a fear of flying, and yet they had flown to Australia or

15     whatever.  And here this is about man in poor health who was able to

16     testify.  He could have testified via videolink, and I wouldn't have

17     opposed that, although I did earlier because I considered that to be

18     misuse.  However, in a case where it's -- it must be done due to

19     objective circumstances, I would never have opposed it.  A doctor could

20     have sat next to him all the time and interrupted his evidence if his

21     condition deteriorated.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Two things, Mr. Seselj.

23             First, you are now telling us that the prison doctor told you

24     yesterday that you were not to appear in court today.  And I can see, and

25     I want that to be on record, that is the first news for me.  I didn't

Page 16415

 1     know about it.  The doctor could very well have sent us an e-mail saying,

 2     Beware, be careful.  We have received nothing at all.  I'm somewhat

 3     surprised.

 4             This being said, regarding videolinks, we put the question to the

 5     expert at the time, and he had all the necessary information at his

 6     disposal.  We provided him with it, and his conclusion was not ambiguous

 7     at all.  So unless there was a miracle --

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know who that expert

 9     is.  I don't know who he is.  Last night, the doctor suggested to me that

10     I shouldn't come today, considering the courtroom to be a source of

11     stress, and I explained to him for 15 to 20 minutes that I feel best

12     right here in the courtroom.  Yes, sometimes Mrs. Lattanzi shouts at me,

13     but that is no stress to me.  There are other sources of stress; the

14     circumstances in detention, the long duration of the proceedings, and who

15     knows whatnot.  If there are no organic reasons for disturbed heart

16     activity, such as cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, or what have you,

17     then have you to look for something beyond, perhaps electric impulses in

18     the heart, but I've never been subjected to complete diagnostics.  But I

19     wouldn't give up my place in this courtroom for anything in the world.

20     And, indeed, this courtroom has never been a source of stress to me.  I

21     may seem nervous or irritated to you at times, but that's my natural

22     behaviour.  I must stand up more fiercely for my rights sometimes.

23     Sometimes I have to restrain an unarticulated lawyer who escorts his

24     client here, a witness, and behaves inappropriately, but certainly the

25     courtroom, itself, is not a reason.  I can identify some reasons, but not

Page 16416

 1     all, and that's why I insisted on coming today.  And Dr. Falke yielded,

 2     having heard my arguments.  You can ask him, and I suppose he will

 3     confirm what I've just said.

 4             And I have two or three more points, not much left.  Actually,

 5     there's just one more matter for me to raise.

 6             Judges, on 14 September I received a letter from Mr. Marcussen,

 7     the representative of the OTP, and he says that thus he discloses to me

 8     the statements of five witnesses in accordance with the ruling of the

 9     Trial Chamber of 15 July 2006.  Since your name is mentioned in these

10     statements, the Trial Chamber, in its ruling, pursuant to another

11     submission of the OTP, to the effect of the non-disclosure of the names

12     and other information that can lead to the identification of the

13     witnesses of 27 August 2010, allowed the OTP to publish the redacted

14     personal information of the witnesses.  I can show you how much has been

15     redacted.  And what am I to do with this?  Look at this [indicates].  Who

16     can use this?  This is why I have decided to give this back to the

17     Prosecution today, here in the courtroom.  If someone would -- if some

18     court usher would be so kind to take it over and pass it on to

19     Mr. Marcussen, and have Mr. Marcussen use it.  I don't want to use it.

20             I think I have told you everything that I have prepared for

21     today.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23             Mr. Marcussen, does the OTP want to raise issues, as the accused

24     did?  You have the floor, you may proceed.

25             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Just a few matters.

Page 16417

 1             Maybe to begin with on the last point, the statements that were

 2     disclosed to the accused in redacted form were disclosed in that form

 3     pursuant to an order by the Trial Chamber.  If the accused don't want to

 4     have them, maybe I should receive them back, if the usher would assist,

 5     so we don't have them lying around in the courtroom when we leave.

 6     I think the accused is not interested in the statements because they are

 7     actually utterly irrelevant to the case, although they do mention his

 8     name.  But we'll have them back.  This has absolutely no bearing on the

 9     case.  And I have now received them back, just so the record is clear on

10     that.

11             On the point of VS-026, the accused will be receiving, I guess

12     soon, a translation of the motion, but it would seem that there might be

13     agreement between the accused and us as to what might be possible to do

14     with this witness.  So I just want to inform the accused of that.  He may

15     want to look out for this, and he may want to respond to the motion in

16     writing so we can get a decision quickly on that.

17             And then, really, the last point I had was just a matter of

18     clarification of something that was said at page 8 at the beginning of

19     the hearing.  I wanted to seek clarification of what procedure the

20     Presiding Judge may feel compelled to seek to recuse himself from.  It

21     isn't clear.  Maybe we're not reading the transcript rightly, but it

22     isn't entirely clear to the Prosecution whether or not the issue arises

23     with respect to this trial or whether it is with respect to the potential

24     contempt proceedings, that there is a problem of recusal.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to intervene before you

Page 16418

 1     respond, Mr. President, just as the Prosecutor frequently interrupted me.

 2             I understood this immediately.  You announced your possible

 3     disqualification in the contempt case against the Prosecution and their

 4     investigators, if amicus curiae should conclude that these proceedings

 5     need to be instigated.  I understood it immediately, and the Prosecutor

 6     didn't, based on which you can draw conclusions about our different

 7     intellectual levels.

 8             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Seselj, refrain

 9     from saying such things.  There may be a problem with the interpretation,

10     because there are -- we're talking about two different languages, but

11     you're not allowed to express such kinds of observations.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was clear.  If I had sought

13     to be disqualified for this case, I would not have the pleasure of

14     sitting here today and of seeing you, because I would no longer sit in

15     whatever the position of the Tribunal's President may be.  A Judge who

16     seeks to be disqualified has no leeway.  However, Mr. Seselj understood

17     that and it is on record.  I sought to be disqualified for the contempt

18     proceedings, and I said why.  I stated that I was waiting for the

19     amicus curiae's report in case there were elements that could justify an

20     indictment to be issued.  Then I might send a letter to the President to

21     seek to be disqualified in the contempt proceedings.

22             But let's be clear, Mr. Marcussen.  As was stated by the accused,

23     there's a bad spirit that looms over this case, that drags it on.  You

24     can see the results of that; a provisional detention, in custody for

25     eight years, an ever-degrading state of health on the part of the

Page 16419

 1     accused.  There may come a time when I decide to no longer be part of

 2     this type of proceedings, because as is the case for the Statute, I have

 3     a moral obligation, and you, too, have a moral obligation.  The trial

 4     proceedings have to be expeditious.  That is a rule/constraint/edict by

 5     the Statute.  There is no reason whatsoever to delay the course of

 6     justice.  But if there is this evil spirit or jinx that looms over this,

 7     one has to ask the question.  But I stay on course.  And I'm waiting for

 8     this amicus curiae's report, but he has to be appointed in the first

 9     place.  We've been waiting for several months, and still there is

10     nothing.  It may be hard to believe for people who are outside this

11     institution, but that's the situation as it is.  Of course, it's

12     difficult to find an amicus curiae whose profile would be competence in

13     investigation, in international criminal law, in prosecution, in rights

14     of representation, but there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of

15     thousands, of lawyers and jurists in the world, so there may be one in a

16     million.  I may think of a judge who is now unemployed, Judge Garzon, for

17     instance.  Why not?  Because on top of that, the amicus curiae must be

18     fully available.  This is not just a cheap investigation that has to be

19     carried out.  You must be available 100 per cent.  So that some who may

20     have been approached have said, No, because I've got something else to

21     do, I've got another commitment.  It's a very complex matter, indeed, but

22     among the thousands of outstanding lawyers in the world, it may be

23     possible to find a good one.

24             And, frankly, Mr. Marcussen, in the beginning, when the complaint

25     was filed, what I personally wanted to do, I wanted to investigate it

Page 16420

 1     myself.  Trial Chamber III decided otherwise, and I complied with

 2     Trial Chamber III's decision.  But I think that if I'd done the job, if I

 3     had investigated what had to be investigated, it would have been done a

 4     long time ago.  So there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

 5             In a nutshell, the current contempt proceedings, and my possible

 6     disqualification only has to do with the contempt proceedings.  I had,

 7     anyway, sought disqualification for all other contempt proceedings filed

 8     by the Prosecution against the accused, and I had said why.  So I hope

 9     you understood this time.

10             MR. MARCUSSEN:  If I may seek clarification of one thing again.

11             I think in light of what was said, I need to ask the Court

12     whether it is of the view that the Prosecution has been delaying the

13     proceedings in this case.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is not what I said.  All I

15     said is that Mr. Seselj has been here for several years.  Everyone can

16     draw the conclusions that they wish to draw.

17             Do you have any other topics that you would like to touch upon,

18     Mr. Marcussen?

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  No, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

21             Mr. Seselj, it is nearly 12.00, and I know that you have to go.

22     It is very difficult for me to tell you when we're going to meet again.

23     The Trial Chamber will have to hand down several decisions, including one

24     regarding the Mladic diaries, as well as a ruling regarding the Bar Table

25     motion to admit some evidence.  The Trial Chamber will also have to rule

Page 16421

 1     on the testimony of VS-026.  But once all this has happened, we could

 2     have a 98 bis hearing.  I'm still optimistic.

 3             I hope that everyone will be aware of the problems that will

 4     arise as time goes by and that could only get greater as time goes by.

 5     We will unblock the situation by handing down a decision regarding

 6     financing your Defence, and I think that there are some positive

 7     prospects, including the letter that has just come from the Registrar.

 8     We will have to look at this letter in the light of the ruling that we

 9     will hand down.  So the situation may be serious, but it is not totally

10     desperate, and perhaps in some time we may be able to start some 98 bis

11     hearings.  And the Trial Chamber is doing its utmost, and you can be

12     convinced of that.

13             So you will be informed of the next hearing according to the

14     rulings that will be handed down.  And on behalf of my colleagues, I wish

15     you better health.

16                           --- The Administrative Hearing concluded

17                           at 11.48 a.m.