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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
25 Mr. Marcussen, could you please tell me whether the OTP has sent
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
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
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please proceed.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
25 Further on, item 5, morning report of the Nevesinje commander.
1 It is obvious that local Serbian leaders maintain contact with other
2 leaders from the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1 Until the Republic of Serbia
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
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
24 situation in the Neretva Valley
25 mentioned there? This is outside the period covered by the alleged JCE
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next topic, please.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next topic you raised are the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
1 myself. Trial Chamber III
2 Trial Chamber III
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
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.