Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16422

 1                           Tuesday, 2 November 2010

 2                           [Administrative Hearing]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 3.04 p.m.

 5                           [The accused entered court]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please

 7     call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours.

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

10     Vojislav Seselj.

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

12             This is Tuesday, and I welcome the representatives of the OTP,

13     Mr. Seselj, and everyone helping us.

14             I would first like to ask Mr. Seselj whether his health is

15     sufficiently good to follow this hearing.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

17                           [French interpretation on English channel]

18             ... makes it possible for me to attend hearings.  It has never

19     happened so far that hearings could not be held because of my health.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you,

21     Mr. Seselj.

22             Before giving you the floor and giving the floor to the

23     Prosecutor, who also needs about 20 minutes, I would like to say the

24     following:

25             First, the Trial Chamber is now seized of a number of motions, of

Page 16423

 1     pending motions.  There are eight of them, and in the days to come, we

 2     will very quickly rule on these.

 3             For your information, let me remind you that the oldest motion

 4     dates back to April 9, 2009.  It is an OTP motion for the admission,

 5     under Rule 92 quater, of a number of documents regarding Milan Babic, and

 6     the Trial Chamber will soon rule on this because deliberations have

 7     already occurred.

 8             Secondly, another Prosecution motion on VS-010, VS-011, VS-017,

 9     VS-026, and VS-032, and VS-034, and this pending motion will also be

10     ruled upon, since the deliberations have already been made.

11             Third motion, dated May 5th, 2010, it's a Prosecution motion for

12     the admission of 15 intercepts.  The Trial Chamber has also deliberated

13     on this and will soon rule on this.

14             We also have two pending motions on the admission of a number of

15     documents, notably interviews or speeches made by the accused.  This is

16     the -- it's a Bar Table motion.  The Judges have also deliberated on

17     this, and a decision will be issued very soon.

18             Then a motion dated June 1st on the admission of 16 documents.

19     There, again, the Judges have deliberated, and a decision is pending.

20             Then another motion on the admission, under 92 ter, of two

21     statements made by the OTP, members of the OTP.  Deliberations have also

22     been made on this matter, and a decision will soon be rendered.

23             Then another motion on documents concerning Witness VS-026.  The

24     Trial Chamber will soon be able to issue its decision.

25             Furthermore, we also have one last OTP motion regarding a request

Page 16424

 1     for disclosure of exchange of mail between myself and the President of

 2     this Tribunal.  The Trial Chamber has deliberated and has decided that

 3     this is not relevant in our case, which is to try Mr. Seselj for facts

 4     which occurred in the 1990s.  We will soon render a decision on grounds

 5     of lack of relevance, and it will be a written decision, of course,

 6     with -- and the motivations will be given in this decision.

 7             So this settles it for the pending motions.

 8             Now, for Mr. Seselj's personal information regarding translation

 9     time and so on, the trial -- I would like to say that today the

10     Trial Chamber has filed a redacted decision on the funding of

11     Mr. Seselj's defence.  Let me just read the disposition, without going

12     into the grounds, because there is 27 paragraphs.  This is what I say:

13             The Trial Chamber, in application of Rule 54 of the Rules and

14     Article 21(B) of the Statutes, orders, proprio motu, the Registrar, as of

15     today, as of November 2nd, and until the end of the trial, to fund

16     50 per cent, 5-0, 50 per cent of the funds allocated, in principle, to a

17     totally indigent accused, to the Defence team for the accused, consisting

18     of three privileged associates, a case manager and an investigator, based

19     on the scheme for persons assisting indigent self-represented accused and

20     on the basis of a determination of the complexity of this case at Level

21     3, unless other information is provided.

22             In this disposition, this is added:  Judge Lattanzi attaches a

23     separate opinion to this decision.  And this has to do with whether this

24     was proprio motu or not.  So Judge Lattanzi will write her own decision,

25     her own submissions on this, which is, of course, marginal compared to

Page 16425

 1     the essential element, which is that the Trial Chamber has decided that

 2     50 per cent of Mr. Seselj's defence will be funded.  The decision will

 3     soon be translated, and you will be able to read it.

 4             Furthermore, Mr. Seselj, lately I've been receiving personal

 5     mail.  I don't know why.  Let me remind you that there are three Judges

 6     on this Bench, so if I get mail, I would like my colleagues to be cc'd,

 7     at least, on it or to also be recipients of this mail.  But I received a

 8     personal letter.  Since this was a personal -- this was personal mail,

 9     I can either talk about it or not.

10             I received a personal -- some personal mail from your associate,

11     Mr. Mirovic, Dejan Mirovic, sending me a document, which was translated,

12     which seems to be addressed to the UN Security Council, unless I'm wrong,

13     and your associate, in this 17-page letter, is mentioning all points that

14     have to do with your trial, the fact that your detention is arbitrary,

15     that your rights are infringed upon, that this is not a public trial.  He

16     mentions also your hunger strike, the 15 months sentence you received for

17     contempt of court, et cetera, et cetera.

18             So this is my question, Mr. Seselj:  I'd like to know whether you

19     were aware that this person, that this associate, has seized the Security

20     Council.  I would like to know also whether it was the Security Council

21     that was seized.  And I would like to know what I'm supposed to do with

22     this letter.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you expect me to respond to this

24     question straight away, I would like to say that I wanted to say

25     something about your decision about financing the Defence, because I

Page 16426

 1     received that decision today, an hour before I left the prison.  Or do

 2     you want me to answer your question related to Dejan Mirovic's letter?

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I would rather have you

 4     answer first, and then we'll come back to the decision on funding.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Dejan Mirovic, my legal adviser,

 6     indeed did send a letter to the Security Council, and he personally

 7     delivered the text of that letter, translated into the English and

 8     Russian languages, to the ambassadors of the permanent members of the

 9     Security Council in Belgrade, and he also sent it in a certain way

10     directly to the Security Council.

11             The essence of this letter has to do with the abuse of law and

12     legal proceedings with regard to witness protection, and primarily

13     inventing a new crime, according to Rule 77; that is to say, disclosing

14     the identity of protected witnesses.  That does not exist in any single

15     normal legal system anywhere in the world.  It cannot be punishable by

16     seven years in prison.  And a person who already stands accused of the

17     most serious war crimes cannot additionally be tried for having disclosed

18     to the public the names of protected witnesses.

19             Somebody has to control The Hague Tribunal institutionally as

20     well.  Truth to tell, this kind of control or check has not been

21     envisaged by its own Rules of Procedure and Evidence, but no court can

22     function without this kind of control.  As lawyers, if we try to look at

23     this, who it is that could exercise this kind of control over The Hague

24     Tribunal, there is a self-evident answer:  It is only the Security

25     Council, which established it in the first place, to leave aside the fact

Page 16427

 1     that there is no one to exercise any kind of control over the Security

 2     Council and to stop it from establishing illegal courts.  But this did

 3     happen, the Security Council did establish an illegal court, and now we

 4     have to see what should be done with this illegal court.  They cannot,

 5     though, invent new crimes.

 6             The question of respect of law in court cannot be established as

 7     an inherent right of a court.  However, if the Statute of The Hague

 8     Tribunal does not envisage how this is going to be resolved, there is an

 9     international legal code.  The highest code, the upper-most code that

10     exists in criminal law to date is the Statute of Rome and the Rules based

11     on that Statute, and also a separate legal document that describes

12     particular crimes.

13             The Rome Rules of Procedure and Evidence does not stipulate at

14     all that there is that kind of a violation or crime such as disclosing

15     the name of a protected witness or identity of a protected witness.  A

16     witness has to testify in public, in court, under his or her full name

17     and surname, and then if the witness is in any kind of jeopardy after

18     having testified, then appropriate authorities should do their best to

19     protect that person, to relocate him, to find for him and his family a

20     new environment where they would live, and so on.

21             That is the essence of Dejan Mirovic's letter, and of course he

22     wrote that letter in agreement with myself.  As a matter of fact, the

23     original idea was my own, and I stand by that letter.

24             Now, after the letter was sent to ambassadors and delivered in

25     person to some of them in Belgrade, Mr. Mirovic decided to inform the

Page 16428

 1     President of The Hague Tribunal about this and the President of the

 2     Trial Chamber involved in this case.  It is a letter that is open to the

 3     public.  It is not marked as confidential in any way.  So the letter was

 4     sent to you, Mr. President, on the assumption that you would familiarise

 5     your colleagues with the content of the letter.  It is not a formal

 6     filing by the Defence, because a formal filing by the Defence can only be

 7     made by myself, personally.  This letter is just a piece of information.

 8     I think it's better for you to have been informed of the fact that we

 9     sent this kind of letter to the Security Council rather than if we hadn't

10     done that.  We expected to inform your colleagues about this, and we

11     expect the President of The Hague Tribunal to familiarise all the Judges

12     of The Hague Tribunal with this letter.  Why not?

13             So this is a matter of principle.  The letter only contains legal

14     argument, legal argument exclusively.  It is -- it has been made public

15     in Serbia.  It has been published in its entirety in the top newspaper,

16     that is to say, the paper "Velika Srbija," "Great Serbia."  There is no

17     reason for you not to familiarise your colleagues with its content.

18             What is described there are just some of the things, imposing a

19     lawyer on the accused and many other things, and this is just an

20     introduction by way of an illustration.  The letter focuses on the

21     invention of a specific crime by the Judges of this Tribunal, something

22     that they certainly had no right to do.  And once the Statute of Rome was

23     passed as the top-ranking legal code, in international terms, to this

24     day, The Hague Tribunal had to adapt all of its own founding documents to

25     that and pretend to be legal and legitimate, at least a bit, in that way,

Page 16429

 1     since it hadn't been founded as a legal and legitimate court in the first

 2     place.  Now, why The Hague Tribunal did not do that, that is something we

 3     are going to discuss in professional international circles, and that is

 4     why we sacrificed a certain amount of money and had the letter -- and had

 5     this letter translated into the English language.  I hope that its

 6     quality suffices for our purposes.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             You explained everything about this letter, and now I would like

 9     to deal with one penultimate subject, which is your health.

10             I also received a confidential letter from your close associate,

11     Mr. Aleksic, but you always said that everything that has to deal with

12     your health is not confidential.  So I can say that your associate told

13     me about your state of health.

14             Now, as you know better than anyone, actually - I think I

15     understood that yesterday you had some surgery - after the surgery your

16     wife said that you were concerned about the post-surgery care which was

17     not done at the jail -- not done at the hospital but at the jail, which

18     was insufficient.  And Mr. Mirovic also spoke in the Serbian press in

19     order to give his point of view on this.

20             Let me remind you that the Trial Chamber is fully aware of the

21     problem, to the extent that, in a decision, we ordered for a panel of

22     experts to examine you, and we want this panel of experts to tell us what

23     exactly is your health situation and whether you're fit to stand trial.

24     So we asked for this panel of international experts, and I insist on the

25     word "international," experts, be carried out as expediently as possible.

Page 16430

 1             Now, the fact that you're in the courtroom today proves that

 2     you're doing well.  You had the surgery a few days ago, and you're here

 3     with us.

 4             But I note that your wife seemed extremely worried, as well as

 5     your associates.  Two associates actually intervened.  Mr. Aleksic,

 6     through a letter, a letter which I will forward to the President of the

 7     Tribunal, because in this letter there is the -- there is mention of the

 8     fact that a number of Serbian detainees passed away in jail or right

 9     after being in jail, but -- so I will forward this letter to the

10     President of the Tribunal, because I do not feel competent over this.  My

11     only competence, as well as the competence of my fellow Judges, is to

12     make sure that you are as healthy as possible to defend yourself, and to

13     self-represent yourself, and to fully exercise your rights.

14             As of today, we are awaiting this letter of expertise, this

15     expert medical evaluation.  It's an international panel.  They have to

16     meet, they have to discuss all the documents, and then they also have to

17     examine you, so that will probably take some time.  But we will soon have

18     this expert medical evaluation made by international experts.

19             So that is what I had to say on your health.

20             And now my last subject before giving you the floor:  Scheduling.

21     I'm sure you want to know exactly where we stand now.

22             Now, regarding scheduling issues, as you know, today we're in a

23     standby mode.  On the one hand, we're waiting for the filing of the

24     experts on the Mladic diaries.  We would like to know whether the Mladic

25     diaries were actually written by his own hand or whether anything was

Page 16431

 1     added later on.  And an expert has been appointed, and he will answer all

 2     our questions, but we cannot do anything while we are still awaiting this

 3     expertise.  We cannot go forward regarding Rule 98 bis.

 4             Furthermore, we have one -- we still have one pending witness,

 5     VS-026.  I will not mention his name; he's protected.  But up until now,

 6     he was not available, and an expert had noted and certified that he was

 7     not available, but now, just by miracle, obviously, he's healthy again.

 8     We checked this miracle, because we really asked an expert to look into

 9     this, and we're waiting for the feedback from this expert.  So if the

10     expert says that he is fit to testify, probably through a videolink which

11     will be organised, of course, that's one thing; and if he's not fit to

12     testify, then we will admit his statement under Rule 92 ter [as

13     interpreted].  We'll admit his previous statements as well as the

14     statements he gave to your Defence.

15             Then once this is over, we will move to the Rule 98 bis

16     procedure, and we have a scheduling order for the organisation of this

17     hearing.  This is how things stand now.

18             Correction on page 10, line 11:  It is not "92 ter," but

19     "92 quater."  Nothing escapes the Judges, even a small detail, because

20     there's a big difference between "ter" and "quater."

21             So I think we took stock of the situation, as far as the Bench is

22     concerned, unless my colleagues would like to take the floor.  It seems

23     that this is not the case.

24             So, Mr. Seselj, now you have the floor, and, of course, feel free

25     to address this issue of financing.

Page 16432

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for my -- the condition of my

 2     health, I initially pointed out that it has never jeopardised the trial

 3     so far, and that won't be the case in the future.  As long as I can

 4     breathe, I will be able to actually participate in the trial, and you

 5     don't need any international experts to ascertain that.

 6             However, as you have mentioned, articles in the newspapers and

 7     the statements of my wife, Jadranka Seselj, as well as the letter that

 8     you received from my legal adviser, Boris Aleksic, I must communicate

 9     some things to you.

10             More than ever, I am now convinced that somebody from the outside

11     is manipulating the condition of my health.  Two days ago, Nerma Jelacic,

12     the speaker of the Tribunal, gave a statement for the media, probably at

13     a press conference, that my operation on last Thursday was completed

14     without any complications.  That is nothing but a lie.  Ms. Jelacic lied

15     to the public.

16             During that operation, which lasted three hours, at a certain

17     moment I lost consciousness.  That is a very serious complication for an

18     operation of this kind, because this operation is carried out without

19     full anaesthesia.  It's a heart surgery, but the chest is not opened, but

20     the heart is accessed through the blood vessels from the groins.  The

21     surgeon also informed me later on that I suffered from lack of oxygen and

22     that they had to give me additional oxygen.  That, too, is a serious

23     complication.  But the worst thing is that I never found out whether the

24     operation was successful or not.

25             Why did I have to be operated upon under a false name?  Nobody

Page 16433

 1     informed me of it until I arrived there and until I found myself in bed.

 2     If I had been informed in prison that I would be operated upon under a

 3     false name, I wouldn't have gone there.  But having already been there, I

 4     thought, okay, let's go through it, and later on I'll raise hell about

 5     why this had to be done under a false name.

 6             I am proud of my personal name, and I am proud of being indicted

 7     of war crimes by the ICTY.  I am also proud that I'm being transported

 8     through The Hague with shackles on my hands.  I'm proud of my shackles,

 9     and I won't allow anybody to manipulate me this wait.  Everything I do

10     and everything that happens to me must happen under my full name.

11             And a day after the operation, long ultrasound examinations were

12     carried out, ultrasounds of the heart and the chest.  When I asked about

13     the results, they said, The professor will let you know.  But when will

14     the professor come?  At 10.00.  But the professor never arrived.  I left

15     the hospital.  The report about that operation has still not been

16     forwarded to the Detention Unit clinic, and nothing is known yet.  Maybe

17     it was successful, but then my question is:  Why do I still feel the same

18     symptoms?

19             When I arrived at the Detention Unit, I immediately went to the

20     clinic, where I was received by the chief doctor, Dr. Paulus Falke, with

21     two nurses, and I mentioned all these suspicious circumstances to them.

22     I said what was happening, and I said probably the operation was

23     unsuccessful because they didn't say anything to me, they avoided the

24     answer.  But the surgeon who operated on me said that they couldn't know

25     if they had been successful and that it would be known only in three or

Page 16434

 1     four months.  That was suspicious to me as well.

 2             Dr. Falke said to me to lie down on the bed to have an ECG

 3     performed.  The nurse did the ECG, and she was appalled by the result.

 4     She said, Some electrode must have fallen off.  She checked all the

 5     electrodes, but they were all there.  She did it again, and the results

 6     were again incredibly bad.  Then Dr. Falke said, The ECG device is

 7     broken, but in these eight years, this has never happened before.  And I

 8     wanted to see the result.  You know that long -- long band of paper.  And

 9     what I always want to see is a diagnosis which is printed out by the

10     computer at the end.  And I see five things are irregular.  I don't speak

11     Dutch, so I can't know what it's about, but I did hear that the doctor

12     and the nurse were whispering to each other in Dutch, and I recognised

13     the word "extrasystole."  I know what "asystole" is and a "diastole" from

14     my high school days, so I know what an "extrasystole" is.  So there must

15     be a disturbing factor causing arrhythmia.  And I tell them, The device

16     is not broken, and they said to me, Yes, it is.

17             So Friday, Saturday, Sunday go by, and Monday comes.  I always

18     have the same symptoms, and today I'm taken to the same ECG, the very

19     same one.  And I was fooling around with the nurses all the time and with

20     the assistant doctor, How is it fixed without ever having seen a

21     repairman?  And the ECG now shows bradycardia, that my pulse was around

22     40.

23             A short while ago, when I was brought to the Tribunal, I

24     immediately wanted to see the Tribunal's doctor, to have him take my

25     pulse.  And he said, Now it's 54, which is almost normal, but there's

Page 16435

 1     arrhythmia again.

 2             And this concealing of the real medical finds is not something

 3     that is done to me, exclusively.  It was done to General Vladimir

 4     Lazarevic all the time.  It happened constantly to Jovica Stanisic, and

 5     happened constantly with Nebojsa Pavkovic, and some others.  These three

 6     are in the same block as I, so I have been an eye-witness to the fact

 7     that this has been happening to them constantly.  The doctors are

 8     treating us as if we were even bigger idiots than they are, which I

 9     assure you is not true.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Bench

11     discovered that you had surgery under a false name, but this was perhaps

12     for security reasons.  We don't know why they decided to send you there

13     under a false name.  Perhaps they wanted to protect you from the media or

14     from somebody else.

15             Secondly, we are not medical experts.  This is why we asked for a

16     medical expert.  What is important is that you are alive, and you are

17     living proof of that because you are here today.

18             According to what you say, you still suffer from arrhythmia,

19     which would explain why the nurse and the doctor were surprised by the

20     results.  But as you said yourself, and the surgeons said, that we would

21     see things more clearly in three or four months, so I think the best

22     thing to do is to wait until we get the results from this medical

23     evaluation.  But, of course, you can also ask for the operation report to

24     be sent to you, because when surgery is done, a report is produced, and

25     in this report there should be a reason mentioned for why you lost

Page 16436

 1     consciousness.  There must be a reason for that.  And if it was due to a

 2     lack of oxygen, one should hope that your brain was fully supplied by

 3     blood.  Otherwise, there could be an issue.  So perhaps you can deal with

 4     the doctor and explain to him what you said to us.  We are not medical

 5     experts.

 6             I gave you the floor in order to have a full picture of the

 7     situation, and it seems that you are still encountering some problems.

 8     Given that everything that you said is in a transcript, and the Registry

 9     is following, minute after minute, what you're saying, I'm sure that

10     while I'm speaking some phone calls are being made between the Registry

11     and the doctor in order to check all this.

12             Perhaps we can move to another topic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have to clarify this

14     question pertaining to the letter that you got from my legal adviser,

15     Boris Aleksic.

16             Boris Aleksic sent you a letter in order to inform you about the

17     behaviour of Ken Roberts, Deputy Registrar.

18             Ken Roberts, on the 20th of October, addressed Boris Aleksic

19     because in the "Politika" newspaper, Aleksic, as Ken Roberts said,

20     insinuated that my medical treatment in The Hague does not meet even

21     basic prerequisites and that my health was seriously in danger, and also

22     he referred to the opinion of Russian medical specialists, who believe

23     that the doctor in The Hague Tribunal prison had an effect on the death

24     of Slobodan Milosevic and also that there had been manipulations with the

25     late Mr. Milosevic.

Page 16437

 1             And now this Ken Roberts, who thinks he is somebody, some kind of

 2     a relevant factor, said that these are groundless statements and could

 3     diminish the trust of the international public towards the International

 4     Tribunal and its staff.  This International Tribunal never enjoyed any

 5     kind of reputation, so that is totally wrong.  As soon as it was

 6     established, there were objections voiced about the way in which it had

 7     been established, and nothing more than that, especially because such

 8     horrible things happened here that should never be repeated again, if an

 9     international criminal judiciary survives at all after the experiences of

10     the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.  And now

11     this Deputy Registrar is worried because Boris Aleksic perhaps violated

12     the Code of Conduct for Defence Counsel, and he signed the obligation to

13     respect these provisions.

14             And then Ken Roberts says, Please bear in mind that on account of

15     such violations, privileged status could be taken away from you, the one

16     that you enjoy as legal adviser to Mr. Seselj, or proceedings --

17     disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against you.

18             First of all, how can disciplinary proceedings be instituted

19     against a legal adviser?  Who can do that?  Only I can do that.  He is my

20     legal adviser, and nobody else can do that.

21             Whatever Ken Roberts does, or his boss, John Hawking,

22     Boris Aleksic remains my legal adviser.  No one from the outside can

23     dismiss my legal advisers.  However, like until now, they can hinder my

24     communication with my legal advisers and members of my team.  That, they

25     can do.  That is what this Tribunal has been doing for all of eight

Page 16438

 1     years.  First, for seven months, and after that, for another two months,

 2     I could not even telephone my family, let alone receive visitors or

 3     contact members of the team assisting my defence.

 4             In this context, Mr. President, Boris Aleksic wrote to you.  He

 5     informed you about that.  He informed you about what was going on in the

 6     case of the death of Mr. Milosevic, who was killed here.  He was

 7     certainly killed here.  He was killed at least by denying him appropriate

 8     care by a physician, because a few days before his death, in this very

 9     same courtroom he said that he felt as if his head had weighed half a

10     ton, he asked for medical treatment, and the Presiding Judge brutally

11     interrupted him then and even said that he was sick and tired of him.

12     That's what he said, I've had enough of you, I'm sick and tired of you.

13     That is what happened in this courtroom, before the eyes of the public.

14     How can that be concealed?

15             Milan Kovacevic was tormented throughout the night and died

16     before daybreak.  Everybody knew what kind of problems he had with his

17     heart.  Slavko Dokmanovic was ill for months before he committed suicide.

18     He had a psychological condition.  Everybody knew that he had a

19     psychiatric condition, everybody knew that he had a diagnosis, and

20     psychiatrists came and treated him.  Somebody has to be held responsible

21     for his death as well.

22             If interventions could be made -- if interventions had been made

23     by treating his depression, he would not have been -- he would not have

24     committed suicide.

25             Later on, we realised through these proceedings as well that had

Page 16439

 1     Slavko Dokmanovic had nothing to do whatsoever with any crimes in Ovcara,

 2     and that one witness who testified in public here in this courtroom, and

 3     who was a victim, too, actually thought that he had recognised Slavko

 4     Dokmanovic in a uniform of a lieutenant-colonel of the air force, and in

 5     actual fact this was a security officer who was wearing an air force

 6     uniform, and he came from the 1st Military District.  He was in Ovcara,

 7     but he was never held accountable for that crime.  And now it seemed to

 8     the witness that that had been Slavko Dokmanovic.  So those were the

 9     grounds for indicting Slavko Dokmanovic, there you go, and that is the

10     reason why he committed suicide.

11             Then there was the case of Djordje Djukic, who was held here

12     without any proper grounds until it became perfectly clear that he would

13     die.  Then he was released, he went to Belgrade, and he died a month

14     later.

15             As for General Momir Talic, the very same thing happened.

16             Well, look, when Milan Babic hanged himself, I was the first one

17     to present in my motion the fact that he left a farewell letter.  The

18     Tribunal officially stated that there was no farewell letter, and then it

19     turned out, after all, that there was a farewell letter.  What was

20     established was that the width of the bruise around his neck did not

21     correspond to the width of the belt that he allegedly used to hang

22     himself.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor wants to take

24     the floor, Mr. Seselj.

25             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, the Prosecution respectfully submit

Page 16440

 1     that this is not an appropriate use of the time of the Tribunal and an

 2     administrative hearing.  This has nothing to do with any administrative

 3     issues.  The accused has now, for the last five or ten minutes, gone on

 4     and on about conspiracy theories against the Tribunal.  If he has any

 5     administrative points to make from this, he should make it now, and

 6     otherwise should move on to a proper point for this hearing.

 7             Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what do you have to

 9     say to the Prosecutor, who states that you are talking about conspiracy

10     theory here?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not putting forward any sort of

12     theory here.  I am merely stating information that there are various

13     conspiracies here and that they are not happening in my trial only, but

14     that they have been known to happen earlier in other trials, and they are

15     happening in some other trials that are going on parallelly.

16             At the last status conference, I have publicly stated my position

17     on this, because you cannot convict me, because you have no proof for any

18     crime.  Of course, you have to kill me, then.  How do you get out of this

19     case otherwise?  There's no other way.

20             I'm more than ever convinced that my medical condition is being

21     manipulated from outside.  I must die, but the medical documentation has

22     to be clean because there must be no evidence.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please move on.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I have to say, from

25     a personal point of view, but I believe that my colleagues will share my

Page 16441

 1     point of view:  If there was a conspiracy theory in which Judges were

 2     involved, because if I read between the lines, that's what you may imply,

 3     I was wondering whether I would have mentioned the letter from

 4     Mr. Aleksic, I was wondering whether I would have appointed independent

 5     medical experts to find out what is really going on, and I was wondering

 6     whether I would have allowed publicly for you to say this, if I was part

 7     of this conspiracy theory.  If I was, I would have stopped you from

 8     talking, and we would have moved on.  So I do hope that it is very clear

 9     in your mind that the Judges are not targeted by what you're saying about

10     the conspiracy theory, because if that's what you're thinking, then I

11     will stop the trial immediately, because I'm sure that you cannot think

12     for one second that -- I could not take part in a trial where you would

13     be a victim of any conspiracy within which I would be part.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I never said that.

15     I haven't mentioned you or your colleagues, Mr. Harhoff and Ms. Lattanzi,

16     by name as partakers to any conspiracy, but I'm stating to you what is

17     happening at the ICTY and at the Detention Unit.  I'm speaking the

18     language of facts.  I'm not pointing fingers to this or that person as

19     being personally responsible for this or that, because I have no evidence

20     for that.  But my evidence are these material facts that cannot be

21     denied.  I have facts, and the general public can draw their conclusions

22     from that, and so can you.  Is that suspicious to you or not, that's

23     another thing.  To me, it's all suspicious.  When Slobodan Milosevic

24     died, it was suspicious to me.  Even then, I addressed the President of

25     the Tribunal by separate motion.  The motion can be found in the

Page 16442

 1     archives, so that I wouldn't be speaking about this if you hadn't

 2     mentioned the letter by Boris Aleksic, and it was sent to you for your

 3     information only, and not as a motion which you will decide upon.  It's

 4     meant to be a piece of information for you and your colleagues.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 6             Mr. Seselj, I take note of what you said.  And in order to give

 7     you full information, as well as to help Mr. Marcussen, I will send a

 8     memo to the President of the Tribunal regarding the content of the letter

 9     written by Mr. Boris Aleksic, reminding him of the number of deaths that

10     have occurred here, and I will tell him the following, and I will say, I

11     quote:  It will be useful to appoint an independent commission in order

12     to do this groundwork and to shed light on this matter.  This is my

13     position, and this is what I'll say to the President of the Tribunal.  It

14     will then be up to him to do what he deems fit.

15             I have hesitated between two solutions or two options.  Either I

16     could have forwarded the letter directly to the Secretary-General of the

17     United Nations or I could have contacted the President of the Tribunal.

18     I felt it was more fit to contact the President of the Tribunal, and this

19     is exactly what I'm going to do.

20             Could you perhaps move on to another topic, please.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more sentence.

22             This letter mattered to me just because of the letter drafted by

23     Ken Roberts, who threatened my legal adviser and threatened him to cut

24     his privileged communication lines with me.  That's what matters for me.

25             You mentioned here that the Trial Chamber is waiting for an

Page 16443

 1     expert report about the authenticity of the diaries of

 2     General Ratko Mladic.  From the point of view of the interests of my

 3     defence, it doesn't matter at all whether these diaries are authentic or

 4     not.  I said that I doubted the authenticity of these diaries and that I

 5     had reasons for doubting it.  The police searched the house of

 6     General Mladic several times, and how come they have just now found the

 7     diaries, without having found them earlier?  But let's leave that aside.

 8             Even if it should turn out that the diaries are authentic, what

 9     has that got to do with this trial?  You saw what the Prosecution found

10     in these diaries which, according to them, can be used in this trial.

11     Absolutely nothing.  Nothing there incriminates me or makes my position

12     more difficult, anything.  It's totally irrelevant.  But the problem is

13     that we are losing so many months over that.  Instead of July, under

14     Rule 98 bis -- Mr. Marcussen and I have been waiting for being heard

15     under Rule 98 bis still, and who knows how long we're going to wait

16     still, and who knows whether we will ever complete our work under 98 bis:

17     That's what the essence is.

18             The essence is that we are unnecessarily wasting time in this

19     trial over Mladic's alleged diaries, and we wasted time earlier.  Months

20     are passing, years are passing, and the more time elapses with me in

21     detention and the longer this trial lasts, the less regular this trial

22     is.

23             If I had defended myself as a free man for eight years, even so

24     my right to be tried within a reasonable time-frame would have been

25     violated.  Even if I had been a free man all this while, if I had come

Page 16444

 1     from Belgrade for each hearing, even then my right to be tried in a

 2     reasonable time-frame would have been blatantly violated, but

 3     especially -- it's especially so now, because I've been in detention for

 4     eight years.  In America, even those accused of multiple murder have to

 5     be released if a reasonable time-period has elapsed.  There is no lawyer

 6     alive who can responsibly claim that this trial is going on for a

 7     reasonable time, especially given the fact that the Defence case is still

 8     ahead of us, and then there will be appeals, and the trial will overall

 9     probably last for over 20 years.

10             You mentioned Witness 026.  This complicates things further.

11     According to my information, the witness recovered pretty well after the

12     last phase of his treatment.  He is not as robust as I am, but he's fully

13     capable of testifying, especially if he will testify by videolink.  He is

14     a Prosecution witness.  He's important to the Prosecution, to the

15     Trial Chamber, and he's important to me, if nothing else so that he can

16     explain to me here, in this courtroom, how come I blew up the Roman

17     Catholic cathedral in Subotica, which is still standing and has never

18     been blown up by anybody.  It's just that I want to make clear, and then

19     we don't need to speak about anything else.  And how come that such

20     statements went through the hands of the Prosecutors, and who created all

21     that?

22             There is also some dark force here.  The Prosecutor may call this

23     a theory of conspiracy.

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

25             In case of VS-026 testifying, he would testify on what is in the

Page 16445

 1     case.  You could not ask questions as to which conditions were prevailing

 2     when his statement was taken, because this is the sole competency of the

 3     amicus curiae, and, therefore, the Judges are not in a position to touch

 4     upon this issue.  It is solely for the amicus curiae to deal with that.

 5     So if he testifies, he will testify on the merits of the case, the

 6     cathedral, the volunteers, the war, and so on and so forth, but not on

 7     the conditions, because this is not in our realm of competency.

 8             My colleague points out --

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, you cannot prevent me from

10     challenging a witness's credibility.  I can examine that in a positive

11     and negative sense.  I can affirm his testimony, I can examine him that

12     way, and I can examine him in another way, by denying his testimony.

13             I have been studying Anglo-Saxon legal procedure here for eight

14     years.  It never would have crossed my mind, while I was still a free

15     man, and now I've become an expert in this field.

16             As for this Roman Catholic cathedral, that will have to be

17     discussed.  It's part of his previous statement.  It has to be discussed,

18     whether it was blown up or not and what actually happened there.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I suggest we wait until the witness is here to

20     discuss the issue.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.  I understand you, and I

22     fully agree with that, Mr. Harhoff.

23             But I have this other problem now in relation to this witness.  I

24     have the impression, because now I have information - I am no longer

25     forbidden from contacting this witness.  ^ I am informed about where they

Page 16446

 1     are taking him now, to various examinations by specialists to see whether

 2     he is capable of testifying or not.  At the Military Medical Academy,

 3     they refused to examine him because they didn't know who would pay for

 4     that.  Then they took him to the St. Sava Hospital in Belgrade, and that

 5     is a hospital for treating brain and blood vessel ailments.  Of course,

 6     it does have something to do with it vaguely; cardiovascular conditions,

 7     but it does specialise in brain and blood vessel ailments, and you could

 8     always find a doctor there who would sign a statement saying that he

 9     could not testify.

10             There is some dark force in Belgrade that is trying to prevent

11     this witness from testifying, so I'm saying to you that if it so happens

12     that if you get some kind of an opinion from Belgrade, a medical opinion,

13     stating that he cannot testify, that has to be reviewed, because that

14     witness can truly testify.  He really is in a position to do so.  We've

15     already agreed that it can be done by videolink.

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16447

 1   (redacted)

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let's move to

 3     closed session.  I believe that this is why Mr. Marcussen is on his feet.

 4             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Correct, Your Honour, and I believe we would also

 5     need a small redaction.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Closed session, please.  Closed

 7     session, please, Mr. Registrar.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16448











11  Page 16448 redacted. Private session.















Page 16449

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Open session]

Page 16450

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, are you finished or

 3     do you still have points on the agenda?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is the first topic that you

 5     started off with at this administrative hearing today, and that is the

 6     question of financing the Defence.

 7             First of all, in the text of your decision, there is a problem.

 8     There is a reference to this being a confidential document, with

 9     confidential and ex parte annexes of the two parties.  I did not receive

10     any ex parte annexes.  Since it is only the disposition that is given in

11     public, I assume that it is, therefore, public.  You read the

12     disposition, and I'm only going to deal with that.  I don't know why the

13     entire text of the decision has been declared a confidential document

14     when everything there had to be public, but perhaps you have some reason

15     for that.

16             Also, I have not received the separate opinion of Judge Lattanzi,

17     and I'm very sorry about that, because I'm sure that Judge

18     Flavia Lattanzi was far more inclined towards the interest of my Defence

19     than the majority of the Trial Chamber.  But I hope that I will receive

20     this separate opinion and that I'm going to use it to buttress my

21     argument in further proceedings.

22             There is a dilemma here.  When speaking of the amount, as stated

23     here, that is usually allocated to indigent accused persons, what is

24     unclear is whether it is an amount -- it is an amount that is given in

25     every particular case there is no Defence team -- or where there is a

Page 16451

 1     Defence team and where there is a lawyer, and then 50 per cent of that,

 2     or is it 50 per cent of the sum that is received, say, by Mr. Karadzic

 3     and Mr. Tolimir?  That would be senseless.

 4             However, I have to tell you, although I do not intend to appeal

 5     this decision at all, it is inapplicable, as far as my Defence team is

 6     concerned, because it says here that financial assistance, two legal

 7     advisers, to the investigator and case manager, will be paid as of today

 8     in the future.  Without any retroactive payments for the Defence over

 9     these past eight years, my legal advisers will not agree to any kind of

10     payments in the future either.  And then you know full well what kind of

11     effect this will have in terms of presenting the Defence case.  In that

12     situation, we will not be able to present a Defence case.  I am only

13     going to confine myself to an opening statement of the Defence.  That is

14     what I'm entitled to.  The Prosecutor had an opening statement of four

15     hours, and I hope that you are going to give me equal time, because when

16     I used four hours when the Prosecutor spoke, that was a statement by the

17     accused.  Those were -- that was not an opening statement, and that's how

18     we treated it.  But now I'm going to be entitled to opening argument by

19     the Defence, and if there is no retroactive payment given to cover the

20     costs of the Defence, we are going to complete these proceedings very

21     quickly.

22             Of course, Rule 98 bis can allow us to go on and procrastinate

23     for another year, but I would like these proceedings to be brought to an

24     end while I'm still alive.  I know that there are many of those who would

25     not want these proceedings to end while I'm still alive, because that

Page 16452

 1     solution would be far simpler.  However, I want to be fully victorious in

 2     these proceedings, and it's obvious to one and all that I'm only a step

 3     away from that victory.

 4             Judges, even if you want to declare me guilty and condemn me, you

 5     are fully aware of the fact that you have nothing upon which you could

 6     base such a decision and such a verdict, so that's -- and that is what

 7     the international public is aware of too.

 8             That's what I wanted to say to you.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I advise you to read this

10     decision as soon as it is translated.  I hope it will be perfectly

11     translated, because in all the paragraphs before the disposition, we

12     explain how we came to this decision.

13             In the public version, there are a few redacted excerpts which

14     have to do with elements that are not to be made public outside this

15     Trial Chamber, but the reasoning is public.  And you know that French is

16     a very specific language, a very accurate language, just like yours,

17     actually.  Every word has its meaning.  So read it fully.

18             And let me tell you that it took us a very long time to write

19     this decision.  You know, we weighted every word, every comma, and it

20     took us quite some time to render the decision, but it is very

21     comprehensive, everything is included.  But you have to read it after a

22     good night's rest because it is difficult to comment on this off the cuff

23     without having the text.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, recently I received

25     these confidential documents.  I won't go into their contents.  I

Page 16453

 1     received a letter from you, sent to the Prosecutor, or addressed to him.

 2     I received it in French.  I don't speak French, and I received a

 3     translation of that letter.  In other words, I'm not a chicken, I cannot

 4     lay eggs, but I can tell if it's a bad egg or a good one.  This shows

 5     that a large portion of your letter was left out in the translation, it's

 6     missing.  Even the previous sentence is not translated as it should be.

 7     So it's obvious, at first sight, that it's a bad translation.

 8             You may ask the usher to give this to you so you can ascertain

 9     after this hearing that what I'm saying is true.  So possibly you can

10     send this to me once more, because this is important for my

11     documentation.  So you can see what kind of problems I'm facing with

12     translation.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

14             I will check whether my letter was well translated, and if there

15     are parts of it that are missing, it will be -- it will be completed.

16     But I don't know your language, so as of now I cannot say whether this

17     was fully translated or not.  But let me tell you that we will do all the

18     necessary checks.

19             Mr. Marcussen.

20             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             I think, in light of some of the things that have been said

22     today, I can be briefer than I had expected, which is a good thing.

23             I thought, first of all, I should just put on record that I agree

24     with the accused's submissions about the scope of examination of VS-26

25     when it comes to the issue of use of statements and testing the

Page 16454

 1     credibility of witnesses.  The accused has very much expressed a view

 2     which is similar to ours; namely, that these issues of credibility of

 3     witnesses who appear before the Court are key issues that have to be

 4     dealt with in this Chamber and cannot be out-sourced to an amicus curiae.

 5     So there might be -- there might be -- there is going to be an

 6     investigation of members of the Office of the Prosecutor, and that has to

 7     run its course, obviously.  As has been stated several times by the

 8     Prosecutor, the Office of the Prosecutor will co-operate fully with that

 9     investigation.  But the issues that are raised with respect to the

10     credibility of admitted evidence in the case still have to be tested --

11     have to be dealt with in the context of the case, and the credibility

12     issues have to be settled here.

13             So the Prosecution's position is very much similar to that of the

14     accused; namely, that the evidentiary issues that have been raised by the

15     allegations that have been made in court by witnesses must be tested by

16     the Court.  That will apply to VS-26, and that is why the Prosecution

17     have made a request -- requests for leave to amend its witness list and

18     call witnesses who can give evidence about a number of these issues.

19             So I just wanted to put that on record.  I appreciate the remark

20     that has been made, that this is something we will come back to in the

21     context of VS-26, if VS-26 is actually going to come.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, very well.  I

23     take due note of what you said, and I'm very glad to hear that you have

24     the same -- you are of the same opinion as Mr. Seselj on this issue.  And

25     the Trial Chamber will deliberate on this, but I would like you to shed

Page 16455

 1     some light on an issue for me.

 2             I would like you, Mr. Marcussen, to tell us when it's a Chamber

 3     witness, because this is a Chamber witness, a Court witness.  I believe

 4     that in our -- in the practice of this Tribunal - I will not mention any

 5     cases - but I believe that the Trial Chamber, since it's its own witness,

 6     can limit -- very strictly limit the scope of the examination.  And

 7     unless I'm wrong, furthermore -- but, I mean, I've been here for seven

 8     years, so I don't think I'm wrong -- the way a witness is to be examined

 9     is controlled by the Judges at all times.

10             So what do you have to say to this?  If you could shed some light

11     on this issue.

12             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honour, I think there are two -- there are

13     two issues.

14             As to the Judges' powers to regulate the examination of witnesses

15     and the modalities of how witnesses testify before the Chamber, it is

16     obvious that the Trial Chamber retain powers to do so.  But the question

17     that the Prosecution is raising is the fair trial rights of the parties

18     to be able to test fully the evidence before the Tribunal, and that means

19     that the parties must be allowed to present evidence and arguments as to

20     the reliability and credibility of all evidence that's being presented

21     before the Court.

22             We have understood, from things -- a number of remarks that have

23     been made in court and from decisions that have been rendered, that the

24     Trial Chamber will be using the investigation as a means to test the

25     reliability of the -- of statements that have been admitted into evidence

Page 16456

 1     or that have been tendered by the Prosecution.  That is what we say

 2     cannot be done.

 3             The Prosecution's position is that the evidence has to be

 4     presented in court.  The parties have the right to make submissions on

 5     the impact of that evidence, and the testing of the credibility and the

 6     taking of evidence which might be relevant to the assessment of

 7     credibility of evidence in the case cannot be out-sourced to someone

 8     else.  It is the core purpose of the trial to test the evidence in the

 9     case.  It simply cannot be done outside the trial process.  That's the

10     Prosecution's position, and that is why we have requested leave to amend

11     our witness list so that we can call witnesses who can give evidence

12     about a number of the issues that have been raised.  And what is going to

13     happen when VS-26 is going to testify, we don't know.  Maybe it is not

14     going to become an issue.  But if it is, what I'm saying is we fully

15     agree with the accused that he will be entitled and we will be entitled

16     to explore all issues that arise in that context.  If allegations, again,

17     are going to be made about how these statements were obtained, whether

18     they are correct or whether they are not correct.  And it is a normal

19     step in any trial that if issues arise as to whether or not allegations

20     of that nature are true, investigators or other people with knowledge of

21     these facts can be called, and we submit they should be called in this

22     case.  And the fact that there's an investigation, well, that's a

23     separate matter.  It cannot replace the testing of the evidence in this

24     case.

25             That is the core of some of the issues that we have raised --

Page 16457

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... I'm not saying

 3     that the Judges do not have the power to control the examination of

 4     witnesses.  That's obvious.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, the Judges will

 6     deliberate on this, of course, and you have expressed your opinion.  As

 7     of now, I cannot answer.  We first have to deliberate on this.  And when

 8     Witness VS-26 will testify, then the Trial Chamber will say exactly what

 9     it expects.  But we took due note of what you just said.

10             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I was going to make a request that the

11     Trial Chamber's decision regarding the funding of the Defence be made

12     public.  I understand there's a redacted version.  We haven't seen that

13     yet, so maybe there is no issue.  I just wanted to point, today, the

14     Court's attention to the decision of 20th January 2004 in the Krajisnik

15     case, which is a public decision, which sets out its reasoning for why

16     Mr. Krajisnik should pay part of his Defence himself.  And I'm not

17     bringing this up because of the substance of the decision but simply to

18     point out that, in the practice of the Tribunal, these sort of decisions

19     have been public.  We submit that the public should be allowed to

20     understand the reasons of the Chamber, and certainly in light of all the

21     times these issues have come up in the case and have been raised both by

22     the accused and the Judges.  But we will see what the redacted version

23     looks like, and maybe there is no issue.

24             I was going to address also scheduling issues.  I can --

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you will also

Page 16458

 1     have the confidential version, of course.  It's not ex parte, so you will

 2     be entitled to have the full reasoning behind the decision.

 3             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... I'm talking

 4     about the public's access to the Trial Chamber's reasoning.  We have

 5     received the confidential version.  Obviously, we haven't received the

 6     ex parte parts of it, but we are informed of the full reasoning of the

 7     Chamber.  I'm sorry if there was any confusion on that point.

 8             As for scheduling issues, it sounds like a lot of decisions will

 9     be coming shortly.  We tried to count, on the Prosecution side, on the

10     number of pending motions before today, and our understanding -- we came

11     to the number of 14 motions, which I guess then mean there might be 6

12     motions still to be ruled on, but maybe this is something that can be

13     co-ordinated with the Legal Officer if there's an issue there.

14             I'm not going to address scheduling any more, other than just

15     asking clarification on one point.

16             Do I understand correctly that one of the scheduling -- one of

17     the motions that will be ruled on shortly is the Prosecution request for

18     leave to add additional witnesses to its witness list?

19             I see the Judge's nod, so that is the case.  Then I will leave

20     the remaining scheduling issues out.

21             There's two more issues left that we would like to address.  One

22     is some of the issues that arise out of the Trial Chamber's decision

23     regarding the Mladic note-books and some issues that arise out of the

24     medical examination decision.  I will be addressing the first issue, and

25     Ms. Biersay will be addressing the second.

Page 16459

 1             Regarding the Mladic note-books, I'm going to say a little bit

 2     about the material that has been tendered by the Prosecution, make some

 3     remarks about the expert and handling of evidence, and address

 4     disclosure.

 5             In reading the Trial Chamber's decision from the 22nd of October,

 6     it appears that there might be cause --

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection.

 8             I demand that Mr. Marcussen delay these requests or proposals or

 9     suggestions until the next hearing on the administrative issues, because

10     I haven't received the relevant documents yet and I cannot follow.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, it seems that

12     Mr. Seselj has not received all the Trial Chamber's decisions so far, but

13     maybe you can sum up the substance of the decision.  That way, Mr. Seselj

14     will be fully informed.  Or I could do it myself.

15             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Surely, Your Honours.

16             And I want to be clear so the accused appreciates what I'm doing.

17     I'm not making submissions as to the admissibility of the note-books or

18     addressing the merit of the decision, and I'm not -- I'm actually not

19     going to make any requests.  I'm more addressing a number of issues,

20     which might be informative also to the accused once he gets the decision.

21             Basically, the Trial Chamber has ordered two things relevant --

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I've been listening to

23     Mr. Marcussen carefully, and I insist that he put forward his opinion and

24     his information once I get the decision so that I can follow.  There's no

25     point in him going on about this here without me having the faintest idea

Page 16460

 1     what it's about.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 3             Mr. Seselj, as you know, following to what you said to us

 4     regarding the Mladic diaries, the Trial Chamber appointed an expert.  If

 5     I had known that this topic was going to be touched upon, I would have

 6     brought with me the decision, but I'm sure that the Legal Officer has the

 7     decision here.

 8             In our decision, we said that we were asking an expert -- there

 9     we go.  Thank you, Mr. Marcussen, for giving me what the Legal Officer

10     should have given me.

11             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]... see if it's

12     actually the right compilation of materials, because there might be more

13     in the bundle so maybe I can put it up to you at the right page.

14     Actually, my case manager is printing a copy for you now, and I think

15     it's coming to -- to me, sorry.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Seselj, I'm going to

17     read the disposition, bearing in mind that I also have a separate opinion

18     of 28 pages.  And I'm not going to read the 28 pages on the issue.  I'm

19     only going to read out to you the disposition, which sums up the

20     unanimous position of this Trial Chamber, and I should like to point this

21     out.  My separate opinion is a separate opinion which actually goes in

22     the same line as the general opinion, but it's a 28-page opinion, and

23     again I suggest that you read it carefully once it's translated into your

24     language, of course.

25             Since the OTP is very efficient, they are going to provide me

Page 16461

 1     with my decision.  I'm really sorry, I should have brought it with me.

 2     I'm really sorry.  Usually, I bring everything with me.  But I have to

 3     say that I didn't do this because I didn't realise that we would come

 4     back to the Mladic diaries and that we would revisit this issue, and I

 5     made a mistake.  And I would like to apologise to the parties, because we

 6     are wasting time here.

 7             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The Prosecution wasn't able to be as efficient as

 8     we had hoped.  But, fortunately, the Registrar is very efficient, so I

 9     believe he now has the decision.

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

11             So this is what I'm saying in a disposition:

12             "Orders the Prosecution to disclose to the accused a typewritten

13     hard copy in B/C/S of the entire Mladic note-books."

14             So, Mr. Seselj, you should receive a hard copy of the note-books:

15             "Grants the Prosecution's request to add the documents mentioned

16     in the motion to the 65 ter exhibit list.

17             "Grants the Prosecution's request to add Milanovic and Gallagher

18     to the 65 ter witness list.

19             "Grants the Prosecution's request for admission into evidence of

20     the Milanovic statement and the Gallagher, in accordance with Rule 92 bis

21     of the Rules.

22             "Defers the ruling on the request for the admission of extracts

23     from the Mladic note-books.

24             "Orders the Registry to appoint an independent expert, whose task

25     will be to read, in the original version, the extracts of the Mladic

Page 16462

 1     note-books whose admission is sought.

 2             "To determine whether General Mladic is the author by comparing

 3     them to other documents written by General Mladic in the same period

 4     whose source and date are certain, known, and reliable.

 5             "To highlight any amendment, addition, or deletion that might

 6     have occurred to the documents under examination.

 7             "If possible, to determine whether some of the entries were

 8     written at intervals over several years by comparing them with other

 9     documents whose source and date are certain, written by General Mladic at

10     different times, starting with 1991, and;

11             "To inform the Chamber of any other relevant information with

12     regard to the documents under examination.

13             "The appointed expert shall provide the Chamber with an expert

14     report by no later than 15th of December, 2010.

15             "Orders the Prosecution to hand over immediately the original

16     copies of the Mladic note-books, together with any other document that

17     might be necessary for the successful completion of the task upon request

18     from the appointed expert.

19             "Presiding Judge Antonetti attaches a separate opinion to this

20     decision."

21             As I said, this separate opinion is 28 pages long, and I'm not

22     going to read it out, even if it was very interesting.

23             Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

24             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Would the Chamber like us to have a break before

25     I start or is it not quite time yet?

Page 16463

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if you are very quick,

 2     perhaps we can conclude without any break.  And, of course, Mr. Seselj

 3     has to have a rest.

 4             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, the Prosecution tendered a rather

 5     limited amount of material when it tendered its evidence relating to the

 6     Mladic note-books.  And reading the Trial Chamber's decision, that it

 7     seems that might have given rise to some confusion and also maybe to an

 8     impression that the Prosecution is withholding relevant evidence from the

 9     Trial Chamber, which certainly is not the case.

10             The Prosecution, in light of the late stage of the proceeding,

11     has made an effort to limit the amount of evidence that we tendered in

12     relation to the Mladic note-books, so we limited ourselves to a few

13     extracts and to the evidence of two witnesses.  This was not done in any

14     way to try to keep anything from the Trial Chamber, but simply to try to

15     be efficient.

16             Now, one of the -- there are two points I would like to just

17     clarify so there is not confusion about the material that has been

18     tendered.

19             One thing is:  In paragraph 33 of the decision, it is stated that

20     the Witness Mihajlovic [sic] did not recognise the handwriting in certain

21     parts of note-book number 18.  That is not the case.  Milovanovic looked

22     at a scanned range of material -- sorry, it should be "Milovanovic," in

23     line 4 of page 42.  That is not the case, Your Honours.

24             The witness Milovanovic looked at a scanned bundle of documents.

25     That document included a note-book and then other material.  And among

Page 16464

 1     that other material were a number of documents which are not part of a

 2     note-book and which clearly have been written by someone else, and it is

 3     not the Prosecution's position that these other materials are part of a

 4     note-book, nor that they bear Mladic's handwriting.

 5             For example, there are letters.  One is a letter that is written

 6     in the Latin script and not in Cyrillic.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Marcussen, I really don't want to interfere

 8     with this, but I think it would be prudent, perhaps, to reserve these

 9     questions until there is the declaration from the expert, because only

10     then we would be able to determine what to make of Milovanovic's

11     decision.  At this point, it's really open, and unless you have any

12     strong needs to invoke this at this moment, I suggest we drop it.  But

13     I'm not sure of the reasons why you are raising it, then.

14             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The reason I'm raising, and that's what I'm

15     getting to now, is that when the expert gets material, he will not get to

16     see -- he or she will not get to see these other things.  This other

17     material is not part of the note-books.  So the point I'm clarifying is

18     that the actual note-books do not contain these other documents which do

19     not bear -- which have someone else's handwriting on them.  So when we

20     provide note-books to the accused -- to the expert, that material isn't

21     going to be there.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, Mr. Marcussen, the decision only suggests

23     that the note-books be submitted to the expert, and nothing else.

24             [Interpretation] "The Chamber orders the Registry to appoint an

25     independent expert, whose task will be to read, in the original version,

Page 16465

 1     the excerpt of the Mladic note-books whose admission is sought."

 2             In other words, no other submission will be made, no other

 3     documents handwritten by Mr. Mladic.  We're only talking about the Mladic

 4     diaries, so I hope that there is no confusion regarding that.

 5             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The disposition, we understand, and we will

 6     submit only the note-books.

 7             There seemed to be a confusion in paragraph 33 of the decision,

 8     though, because there it is stated that there were parts of Note-book 18

 9     which Milovanovic was not able to identify as being written by

10     Mr. Mladic, and that it was someone else's handwriting.  The point I'm

11     making is --

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Again --

13             MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues]...

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I have to intervene.

15             What is being debated here are things that I am not versed with

16     at all.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I think it has been

18     said already by yourself --

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be all right if the

20     Prosecutor interrupts me all the time and I cannot interrupt him?  He

21     interrupts me all the time, and whenever Mr. Marcussen is on his feet,

22     you give him the floor.  And now he's complaining because I am

23     interrupting him.  I am not providing counter-arguments.  I'm not

24     interrupting him that way.  I'm just raising an objection.  I'm saying

25     that he is speaking about things that I don't know of at all, and could

Page 16466

 1     all of this be halted until I've been given a copy of your decision?

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you mentioned

 3     paragraph 33 of a document which the accused does not have, so there is

 4     an issue here.  Judge Harhoff said that it was premature and that we

 5     should wait until the expert opinion has come back to us in order to

 6     state your position.

 7             And I believe that Judge Lattanzi also wants to take the floor.

 8             But before I give her the floor, you are mentioning that in

 9     paragraph 33 we are talking about pages that would not have been

10     handwritten by Mr. Mladic, but you can also send to the expert what you

11     want to send to him as part of the decision from this Chamber.  So you

12     are raising an issue which I believe is non-existent.  And if the expert

13     has any problem with that, perhaps this person would be able to contact

14     you, because you have stated in the disposition that the expert could be

15     in the position to also make comments on other things.  So they can also

16     provide the Chamber with any other information that would be useful to be

17     examined.

18             So what you're raising, if the expert feels that there is an

19     issue, they will say something.

20             I give the floor to Judge Lattanzi.

21             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I would like to

22     have some clarification on one point.

23             I would like to know:  What is the purpose of your submission

24     here?  Do you want the Trial Chamber to give some clarification on the

25     decision or do you want the Trial Chamber to reconsider its decision?  I

Page 16467

 1     don't quite understand the purpose of why you have taken the floor right

 2     now.

 3             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The Prosecution does not want there to be any

 4     misapprehension as to what material we understand is covered by the

 5     decision, and we would wish to clarify what appeared to be perhaps a

 6     misunderstanding, which might have been caused by the Prosecution, but a

 7     misunderstanding as to what material Mr. -- General Milovanovic has

 8     looked at, what is part of the note-books and what is not.

 9             If the Chamber thinks that there is a note-book which we will be

10     providing to the expert, and that note-book contains seven pages which

11     have been written, according to the witness, by someone else, then that

12     is not the case.  I hope that's clear.

13             What I -- there are a number of other issues.  Maybe the best is,

14     and also in light of what the accused has said, is we will be addressing

15     these issues in writing so there is no misapprehension of what the

16     process is going to be.

17             I would like to point out at this stage that we would also be

18     addressing some practical issues about how this evidence has to be

19     handled.

20             The Mladic note-books are -- it's admitted evidence in other

21     cases.  It's potentially evidence in the case against Mladic, should he

22     get arrested.  A number of technical precautions have been taken to

23     preserve the evidence, and the Prosecution will corroborate with the

24     appointed handwriting expert, but there will be technical issues that

25     have been to addressed.  It is not just a question of the Office of the

Page 16468

 1     Prosecutor taking these originals out of its evidence collection and hand

 2     it to an expert, who can go out somewhere, do his or her analysis of the

 3     evidence, and come back with an opinion.  There would also be issues

 4     about potentially finding a sample that can be used for comparison.  We

 5     will address these things in a written filing, but I want to reassure the

 6     Chamber that we do this not in the spirit of hampering what the Chamber

 7     has ordered, but there are some real, practical evidentiary precautions

 8     that have to be taken, and I'm sure the Trial Chamber fully appreciate

 9     that as well as the Prosecution does, and there are issues -- well, let

10     me not get into that now, but there are a number of real, practical

11     issues that we would have to deal with very carefully in light of the

12     nature of this evidence.

13             And what we would be suggesting is once the expert is assigned,

14     that the Prosecution be provided the CV of the expert and is given an

15     outline of what the expert would like to do with this material so we can

16     work with the expert to find a way in which the examination of this

17     sensitive material can be done in a way which does not prejudice its

18     evidentiary status in other cases.

19             So I just seize this occasion to bring it up.  We will, as I say,

20     address you in writing on this, but there are some issues that we will

21     have to address.  And --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I fully

23     understood what you just said, and I fully understand that you are not

24     planning to hand over the original documents and then there is a burglary

25     at the expert's premises and everything disappears.  I fully understood

Page 16469

 1     you.  You do not have to even go as far as primary school to understand

 2     that.  And I'm sure that with the expert that will have been appointed,

 3     you will make sure that the evidence is preserved with the help of the

 4     Office of the Prosecutor.  But you're fully aware that an expert can only

 5     work on original documents.  Therefore, at some stage he will have to --

 6     he or she will need to have a look at the original documents.  Perhaps

 7     this can be looked at within the premises of the Tribunal, but this is

 8     something that you can look into with him or her.

 9             We are talking about highly technical issues here, and, in fact,

10     I suggest that you read the 58 pages that I have written in another case,

11     and the 28 pages that I have written for this case, in order to

12     understand what is an expert opinion.  But I'm sure that your fears will

13     be alleviated.

14             Mr. Marcussen, we are beyond the time that was allocated to us

15     for the first session, so don't you think that we should have a break in

16     order to resume later on?  I believe that Mr. Seselj wants to take the

17     floor.

18             So we're going to have a 20-minute break.

19                           --- Recess taken at 4.50 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 5.11 p.m.

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

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16470

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8             Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.

 9             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, we will make efforts to assist you

10     in determining what material is actually on the internet and get back to

11     you.  We should not, maybe, take up time here now with that.

12             Your Honours, I just have one brief more piece of information,

13     maybe, and then I'll hand over to Ms. Biersay.

14             The Prosecution was ordered to disclose to the accused the

15     transcripts of the Mladic note-books.  I don't know whether the accused

16     has received that material yet, but we -- it has been sent off from us.

17     So he would get it today, if he hasn't received it.  But I want to

18     clarify that the Prosecution has transcribed only the note-books that

19     were seized this year.  So the five note-books that were seized last

20     year, there is no transcription of those.  We have not prepared that,

21     and, therefore, that material has not been disclosed.

22             Sorry, I'm getting it wrong.  It was two years ago, not last

23     year.

24             But my point basically is that we have disclosed what we have

25     transcribed, that has been given to the accused, but it does not cover

Page 16471

 1     the five first note-books because we have not prepared transcriptions for

 2     that.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Marcussen, have you submitted the parts that

 4     you seek tendered into evidence?

 5             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Already when we tendered the excerpts that we

 6     wanted to propose as evidence in the case, that was provided back then in

 7     hard copy to the accused already, so we're talking -- right.  And none of

 8     the excerpts we have tendered come from the first seizure.  The excerpts

 9     that we have selected are only from the new seizure of material.

10             I just wanted to clarify that so it's clear what has been

11     disclosed to the accused.  Of course, all the material is available on

12     the EDS, the Electronic Disclosure Suite, on all that.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That is to say, for the photocopies of the

14     entire --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone for the Judge.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry.

17             Can we just clarify that photocopies of the entire set of

18     note-books is available on the EDS?  Is that correct?

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Correct, Your Honour, scanned -- scanned versions

20     of it, yes.

21             I'll hand over to Ms. Biersay if there's nothing else on this.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, good afternoon.

23     We haven't heard you for a while, and it's a great pleasure for me to

24     give you the floor once again.

25             MS. BIERSAY:  May I please request that we go into private

Page 16472

 1     session to discuss a short matter pertaining to VS-026.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could we move to

 3     private session, please.

 4                           [Private session]

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16473











11  Pages 16473-16477 redacted. Private session.















Page 16478

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.

16             MS. BIERSAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17             As Mr. Marcussen indicated, I am going to very, very briefly

18     address the issue of the medical assessments that have been ordered

19     proprio motu by the Trial Chamber, and specifically the Prosecution

20     respectfully requests that, as has been done in other cases, that it be

21     given the material underlying the Trial Chamber's orders about those

22     medical assessments, and that is so that the Prosecution can fully

23     exercise its rights to be informed and to be heard regarding these

24     issues.

25             Now, I am quite sure that the Trial Chamber is aware of another

Page 16479

 1     case before the Tribunal, in the Stanisic/Simatovic case, and in that

 2     case the health of one of the accused was a central issue, specifically

 3     as it pertained to the accused's ability to stand trial and also the

 4     scheduling and modalities of that trial.  In that case, it was the

 5     accused who made a motion that resulted in the litigation of

 6     health-related issues, and in that case the relevant medical reports and

 7     assessments given to the Trial Chamber were also disclosed to the

 8     Prosecution.  In that case, no decision on modality or fitness to stand

 9     trial, or even provisional release, none of those decisions were taken

10     without the Trial Chamber first hearing from the Prosecution and the

11     Defence.  When reports in that case were submitted by the reporting

12     medical officer on issues of modalities of the trial and fitness for

13     trial, the Prosecution and the Defence were always afforded the

14     opportunity to propose questions to put to the medical officer.

15             Also, in that case, the Defence, the Prosecution and the

16     Trial Chamber each had their experts contributing to the process of

17     assessing that accused's health condition.  This is a little bit

18     different from where we stand today in this case, where I do not believe

19     that Mr. Seselj has made a motion to the Trial Chamber for any kind of

20     medical assessment and the decision was taken proprio motu by the

21     Trial Chamber.

22             Specifically, the Trial Chamber's orders, and I'm referring to

23     primarily the one issued on October 19th, 2010, but there was also

24     another that I won't go into -- that that order was based on information

25     that the Prosecution has never received.  And, finally, the Prosecution

Page 16480

 1     was given notice of the issue discussed in that order only after the

 2     order was issued.

 3             So for these reasons, we are asking that we be given the material

 4     that, I believe, until now has been dealt with in an ex parte fashion;

 5     namely, the reports on Mr. Seselj's health that have been given to the

 6     Trial Chamber.

 7             And I believe the Presiding Judge indicated that the purpose of

 8     the assessment was to make sure that Mr. Seselj, of course, remained

 9     healthy and that he remains able -- fit -- and that he remains fit for

10     trial, and that he is able to represent himself, and these are all

11     pertinent issues to both parties in the case.

12             So for these reasons, we believe that it would be appropriate to

13     disclose the underlying material on which the Trial Chamber relied to

14     render its previous decisions so that we can meaningfully and fully

15     exercise our right to be heard.

16             Fairness would also require that both the Prosecution and the

17     accused be given the opportunity to participate in a transparent process

18     of selecting the members of the medical expert panel.  Now, we're quite

19     open to the modalities of how the parties can participate in the

20     selection of the panel, but we are requesting that there be some

21     participation by the parties in this process.

22             And with that, I will end my comments.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay -- just a minute,

24     Mr. Seselj.  I'll give you the floor in a minute.

25             Ms. Biersay, when you're taking the floor, I'm always listening

Page 16481

 1     to you with great attention because what you're saying is always

 2     extremely interesting.

 3             I fully understood that the Prosecution wanted to be made aware

 4     of all the documents, all the underlying documents, and I'm 100 per cent

 5     in agreement with you.  However, there is a small item that could lead to

 6     many discussions, but we're not going to open this today, this discussion

 7     today.

 8             You say that the Prosecution and the accused would like to

 9     participate in the appointment of the expert panel.  It's quite

10     attractive as an idea, you know.  However, according to the Rules and the

11     directives, as of today the Trial Chamber is entitled to decide that an

12     expertise is required, that an expert evaluation is required, and the

13     expert or the experts are to be appointed by the Registrar, who can

14     consult the Chamber if it wishes to.

15             Now, the Rules could have provided for what you want.  You know,

16     when there is to be an expert opinion, the parties can suggest their own

17     experts to the Trial Chamber.  It could have -- it could happen.  Why

18     not?  But it's not stated in the Rules.

19             Furthermore, you know that we are in a mixed system, with a

20     combination of common law and civil law.  I'm sure you know that in civil

21     law countries, the three countries of the three Judges on this Bench,

22     it's up to the Judges to appoint experts.  The parties must remain

23     silent.  If they are not happy with the situation, they can request a

24     counter-expertise to challenge the conclusions drawn by the first expert.

25     This is a possibility.  But in the first place, it's up to the Judges to

Page 16482

 1     control the selection of the expert.

 2             So it's quite -- what you're saying is very interesting, but it

 3     should be in the Rules, and unfortunately, it is not stated in the Rules.

 4             Furthermore, thinking about Mr. Milosevic, I don't remember that

 5     at the time, the Prosecution asked for a Prosecution expert to be

 6     appointed to check on Mr. Milosevic's health.  I don't think so.  And I

 7     don't think that Mr. Milosevic also would have appointed his own expert,

 8     either.  I believe it was the Trial Chamber which appointed the experts.

 9     I may be wrong, but I'm saying this off the cuff.

10             But I took due note of what you said, but we have rendered our

11     decision, and I believe that the Registrar is looking for these three

12     experts at the moment.

13             MS. BIERSAY:  I appreciate your comments, Your Honour.  And

14     certainly to the extent that the parties or a party is allowed to

15     participate in the assessment of experts, that, in fact, it would not

16     just be one party participating in that process.  And to the extent that

17     it's being a list, or I'm not sure exactly what it would be, is being

18     reviewed by a party, it should be reviewed by both parties.  I say that

19     just to make sure that we have that on the record.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

21             Mr. Marcussen.

22             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I apologise.  We had promised to finish.

23             I have now received a redacted version of the financing decision

24     that we discussed earlier, and I've looked at the redactions that have

25     been made.  And in light of those redactions, I would like to maintain

Page 16483

 1     the Prosecution's motion that the full decision be made public, or at

 2     least that paragraph 21 be made public in its entirety.

 3             Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We take due note of

 5     what you said, and when we rule on this --

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something?

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I fully agree that all documents

 9     pertaining to my health be placed at the disposal of the Prosecution, or,

10     rather, that they be photocopied and submitted to the Prosecution so that

11     they could have full insight.  I have no reason to keep secret any

12     information about the state of my health, none whatsoever.  I also have

13     no reason to exaggerate the problems that I am facing.  I would not have

14     raised that issue had it not been raised by the Trial Chamber.

15             I forbade the Secretariat or the Registry to provide information

16     about my health to the National Council for Co-operation with The Hague

17     Tribunal in Belgrade.  This is an organ of that regime there, and I

18     particularly forbade them from providing information to the Military

19     Medical Academy, because I already spoke at the last status conference

20     about the inhumane and unprofessional behaviour of Major Mirko Jevtic,

21     head of the Medical Military Academy.  In the meantime, the Ministry of

22     Defence intervened -- interfered, and there was this doctor who presented

23     an opinion on my report last year of over 60 pages, and they did not let

24     him give information to my associates.  Of course, I also condemned that

25     doctor who asked the commander to give him permission to behave

Page 16484

 1     ethically.  But that is the problem with physicians who have officers'

 2     insignia.  There will either be a doctor or an officer, and what prevails

 3     in their case is the consciousness of an officer, and that is limited.

 4             I never want to deal with doctors like that anymore.  I also, in

 5     particular, do not want to have any dealings with the National

 6     Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal, especially now that they have

 7     engaged head-hunters to search for the glorious Serb general

 8     Ratko Mladic, and they promised a prize of 10 million euro.  Of course,

 9     they will never find him, but what they did is immoral.

10             What I would like the transcript to reflect is that I want the

11     cardiovascular clinic in Moscow, Bakulyev, to be provided with my full

12     medical documentation.  It is my understanding that they're going to

13     address the Registry during the next few days.  I am saying that now, and

14     this is recorded in the official transcript.  I agree that my entire

15     medical file be provided to them.

16             I'm just asking for one thing in the future; that all reports

17     about the state of my health first come into my own hands, or

18     simultaneously in my own hands, the hands of the Trial Chamber, the

19     prison warden, and so on.  What happened before was that all others would

20     get this before myself.  Of course, I signed consent for my medical

21     information to be provided to others, but I have not been given full

22     information about medical matters.

23             So the Prosecution can be made fully aware of all of this, and in

24     this particular case, the Prosecution will not face any attempt on my

25     part to stall these proceedings, or stop them altogether, or delay them,

Page 16485

 1     on account of my health.  No one can conduct these proceedings without

 2     me.  Don't think that under the pretext of my health conditions, someone

 3     will impose counsel on me.  I will stop taking all medication, I will

 4     stop eating, and then you can try vampires, ghosts, whoever, but you're

 5     not going to try me any longer.  You are not going to try me with any

 6     kind of scum sitting in this courtroom pretending to be my lawyer.  If

 7     you did not manage to do that during the Prosecution case, you will

 8     succeed even less during the Defence case.

 9             Since you've extended this hearing, and since you've given the

10     Prosecution the opportunity to say things that were completely out of

11     order and that did not have to be discussed at all today, I needed to add

12     this.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber

14     notes that you see no problem to have all your medical documents

15     disclosed to the Prosecution.  Tomorrow, we'll take a look and see what

16     has not been disclosed yet.  Normally, we communicate -- we disclose

17     everything, so I can't see what hasn't been disclosed yet.  But we'll

18     look into this to make sure that the Prosecution has absolutely

19     everything.  As far as I'm concerned, you know that I'm in favour of

20     transparency, and I don't see why we would hide anything.

21             However, as far as Witness VS-026, I have something to add, so I

22     would ask Mr. Registrar to please move back into closed session for a

23     minute.

24                           [Private session]

25   (redacted)

Page 16486











11  Pages 16486-16487 redacted. Private session.















Page 16488

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we're back in open

22     session.  Do you have anything to add?

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

24             I always feel best in this courtroom, and in this courtroom I

25     certainly -- I don't run the risk of sustaining a heart attack.  But if I

Page 16489

 1     wait for several months for the following hearing, then there is such a

 2     danger.  Why do we wait so long?  And I believe that we will lose time

 3     with this witness until May.  You will see.  And how long is this -- will

 4     this be going on?

 5             I appeal to you to hurry up and finish this trial while I'm still

 6     alive.  I suppose that it would be awkward for you, if you couldn't

 7     complete this trial, irrespective of the intentions within this Tribunal

 8     and outside and who knows which dark forces.  I hope that it's in your

 9     personal interests to bring this trial to a regular end.  But then,

10     again, maybe not.  How should I know?

11             Here's what I wanted to say:  I hear for the first time today

12     that five alleged diaries of General Ratko Mladic were found two years

13     ago, and the remainder this year, so the first thing I would like to know

14     is whether they were found in the same house belonging to General Mladic.

15     If, two years ago, five diaries were found and the remainder of

16     20-odd - who knows how many there were - where were these diaries two

17     years ago?  Is there an explanation for that?  If these five volumes were

18     found two years ago, why hasn't the OTP had this retyped for us to be

19     able to use it more easily?  And why haven't they been translated into

20     English, if you needed it?  Why wait?  It seems completely illogical to

21     me that five of Mladic's diaries were found two years ago, and the

22     remaining this year, and it would seem in the same place.  How come?  Is

23     there some sort of manipulation there?  Of course, the regime is involved

24     in this.

25             Now, the question is:  Who wrote those Mladic's diaries, and to

Page 16490

 1     what end, and how much time was required for an officer to be found who

 2     is capable of imitating Mladic's handwriting?  There will be many

 3     questions that will be raised there.

 4             And I have two brief matters to put forward.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead for the two

 6     brief matters.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the 14th of October this year,

 8     2010, I received a confidential letter from you, an internal memorandum.

 9     Your confidential letter is dated 13 October 2009, so I received it after

10     exactly one year, translated into Serbian.  And the internal memorandum,

11     from which we see that officials acted in line with your letter, is dated

12     13 November 2009.  I received that on 14 October this year as well.  It's

13     a total of five pages, five pages of material which is extremely

14     important to me, because it shows beyond any doubt that Witness 008

15     provided false testimony.  And I received this one year later, because

16     probably the Registry was unable to have it translated sooner.

17             You know when I got angry when you refused to admit this set of

18     documents that referred to the Sarajevo theatre of war, and that's when I

19     stopped tendering any documents.  I never had anything translated,

20     either.  I completely unburdened the Translation Service.  But they could

21     have translated this much earlier, since it is so important to me, and

22     not have me receive it one year later.  I could have used it several

23     times in this trial.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I do not remember

25     this internal memo dated 13th of October, 2009, dating back to over a

Page 16491

 1     year.  But according to what you say, it took over a year for the

 2     translation.  I don't understand.  The Legal Officer will check tomorrow

 3     with the Translation Service.

 4             What is the last point that you wanted to raise, please?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in that letter, you raised a

 6     few questions in relation to that witness, and then the officials of the

 7     Tribunal went to the witness to put these questions to them directly.

 8     From the answers, one can see that the testimony was quite false.

 9     Perhaps I have reminded you by saying this now.

10             I also want to say something that at first I thought I would not

11     bring up, in the belief that this status conference would last only for

12     an hour and a half, which is customary.  However, since it's taken a bit

13     longer, I've changed my mind, and I decided to voice my protest over the

14     decision that you have passed to admit into evidence, without hearing

15     this person again, the statement that this witness gave to the OTP after

16     he had been examined in this courtroom, because the Prosecution was not

17     happy with the effects of the questioning of that witness.

18             I had very little time with this witness; only about half an

19     hour.  I disqualified him completely, but very swiftly, and then the

20     Prosecution felt the need to talk to him afterwards again so that the

21     witness could deny some of the things that were quite clear here in the

22     courtroom.  And then the Prosecution addressed you with this motion to

23     admit into evidence this subsequent statement.

24             May I remind you that I sent you a statement of a man that this

25     witness had falsely referred to with relation -- with regard to certain

Page 16492

 1     matters.  That did not go into evidence.  It was verified.  As for the

 2     statement that the Prosecution provided to you, we're supposed to take

 3     their word for it that that is authentic.  You neglected what I had

 4     offered to you, and you admitted into evidence this statement that the

 5     Prosecution did.

 6             Theoretically, there's another thing that's possible.  Eighty

 7     witnesses were heard in this courtroom.  The OTP suffered a fiasco in

 8     each and every one of these cases.

 9             MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues]... Dr. Seselj.  I'm

10     just trying to ascertain whether or not you're talking about two

11     different witnesses or one.

12             The letter, I believe, addressed VS-008, but I believe he's now

13     talking about 1033.  So I'm not sure if we're talking about the same

14     witness.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, you understood it

16     properly, Ms. Biersay.

17             MS. BIERSAY:  We have not tendered any subsequent statements from

18     VS-008, so that's the source of my confusion.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's no reason for you to be

20     confused.  It's this other witness that I'm talking about.  We've

21     finished dealing with the 008 a long time ago.

22             I am presenting all of this very nicely, but perhaps you have not

23     been following me in a focused manner.  Perhaps you have a bit of a lack

24     of oxygen too.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I was also

Page 16493

 1     wondering what other witness you were mentioning.  But if I understand

 2     correctly, it's Witness 1033.  We all agree; right?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that's his code, the one

 4     who came from that faraway country to testify here, if you remember.  I

 5     cannot mention his name, and there is no reason for me to do so.

 6             In the beginning of the trial, we had this problem when the OTP

 7     asked for Judge Harhoff to be recused.  I hope that you will now

 8     understand who I am referring to.  So we had this mess with the OTP at

 9     the very beginning of these proceedings with regard to this matter, and

10     ultimately it proved to be totally unnecessary.

11             Now, theoretically, it is possible, because the Prosecution

12     suffered a fiasco with regard to each and every one of these 80

13     witnesses, that they could talk to all of them yet again, take new

14     statements from them in which they would deny everything that they said

15     during cross-examination, that they will ask you to subsequently to

16     subsequently admit this into evidence, according to this very same

17     principle on the basis of which you admitted this one statement into

18     evidence.

19             That is the protest that I wanted to voice to the Trial Chamber.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  This is all in the

21     transcript.

22             But I, unfortunately, do not have before me the decision

23     admitting the statement made by -- to the Prosecutor after the hearing.

24     Whatever the case may be, the probative value of a statement under oath

25     is always more important than a statement made without any oath.  This is

Page 16494

 1     a rule.  Therefore, when we will have our deliberations, when we weigh

 2     all the various aspects, we will look into this.

 3             So I don't remember exactly why we admitted this statement that

 4     was made after the testimony.  There is probably a reason for that, but I

 5     don't have it at hand.  Whatever the case may be, as I was saying,

 6     anything said under oath will be more important, unless we are talking

 7     about a false testimony.  So I cannot imagine that, under oath, someone

 8     would say something, and after they would say to the Prosecutor the

 9     opposite, which would then expose them to a prosecution because of a

10     false testimony, so this is something that would be very strange to

11     conceive.

12             I do not have those statements before me here.  I do not remember

13     exactly why we admitted this subsequent statement.  But during the

14     deliberation, we will give different weight as to what has been made

15     under oath and what has been made without an oath.  But I will look at

16     what you say, because your case has been going on for several years and a

17     lot of motions, a lot of decisions, have been issued, and we can

18     potentially lose track.  And sometimes the parties are here to refresh

19     our memory when those memories need to be refreshed.

20             So there we go.

21             I believe, Mr. Seselj, that you had concluded.  Apparently not.

22     Go on.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, let me just add one thing,

24     Mr. President.

25             In these proceedings, indeed, there were many witnesses who

Page 16495

 1     undeniably perjured themselves, and no contempt proceedings were

 2     initiated.  One even brought a lawyer here when the OTP established that

 3     part of the testimony provided was false, and then that lawyer was

 4     supposed to defend that witness from my possible examination going in

 5     that direction.  Just remember that.  And remember those two other

 6     witnesses, 008 and another one, that the OTP gave up on themselves

 7     because they realised the testimony provided had been unreliable.  Then

 8     remember the witness who moved the rally of the Serb Radical Party in

 9     Mali Zvornik two years ahead and misrepresented the speeches made at that

10     rally, and all of these speeches were published in "Velika Srbija."

11     Remember all the things that happened here; the man who wanted to kill

12     his wife with an axe, and the one who wanted to throw a hand-grenade on

13     the mosque in Belgrade.  All sorts of people appeared here, and then this

14     one who ran across fields in order to participate in the execution of

15     detainees in Ovcara, and then he was a protected witness in Belgrade, and

16     he sent other people to prison.  We've had all sorts of things here,

17     haven't we?

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I remember everything, because

19     you know that I devote my entire life to reading all those documents.

20     And as you said, I wish, like everybody else, for this trial to be

21     brought to an end as soon as possible, but we need all the procedural

22     matters to be concluded.  And before the 98 bis order hearing, you know

23     that depends on what happens with Witness VS-026, as well as the Mladic

24     diaries, but you said this was a secondary matter.

25             Now, I would like to know whether the Prosecution wishes to say

Page 16496

 1     anything more.

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:  No, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 4             Thank you very much to everyone, and this trial stands adjourned.

 5                           --- Whereupon the Administrative Hearing

 6                           concluded at 6.11 p.m.