1 Tuesday, 7 February 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [Administrative Hearing]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [The accused entered court]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is in session.
8 Registrar, please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours.
10 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Vojislav Seselj.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today is the 7th of February, 2012. I would like to greet all
14 the people present in the courtroom, and in particular all the
15 representatives from the Prosecution who are in the courtroom, and you
16 people whom I don't know are here. I would also like to greet
17 Mr. Seselj, who is here with us today. And I would like to greet the
18 Registrar who was already working in the courtroom this morning and who
19 is with us this afternoon. I would also like to greet all the people
20 assisting us in the courtroom today.
21 We are holding this hearing which is a so-called
22 Administrative Hearing. I would like to give the floor in a few moments
23 to Mr. Seselj to address the first item on our agenda, i.e., his state of
25 During our last hearing, which was held at the end of August, the
1 23rd of August to be precise, I had asked Mr. Seselj the question. I
2 asked him if he was well. At that time, I had provided a summary of the
3 expert reports provided by the Trial Chamber. And after having read
4 these experts' reports, I had stated that the experts had recommended
5 that Mr. Seselj go on a diet. After that, we had adjourned the hearing,
6 and Mr. Seselj had told us that he was feeling well but that the food he
7 was being given at the UNDU was not, according to him, quality food.
8 After that, I listened to Mr. Seselj's hearings when he appeared
9 before the other Judges, seized of a case of contempt of court, and the
10 issue of his health was raised by the Judges who had asked him whether he
11 had any particular health problem, to which Mr. Seselj had said that the
12 food was not good quality food. And at the last hearing he wanted to
13 hand over his food platter to Judge Hall to clearly explain to him how
14 bad the food was. Judge Hall had not taken his food tray, and we
15 understand why.
16 The Trial Chamber had no news of Mr. Seselj's health from that
17 date onwards. However, in December at the UN Security Council meeting
18 the representative for Russia mentioned Mr. Seselj's health problems.
19 After the meeting held at the UN Security Council, the President of the
20 Tribunal had been asked to provide a report next time on the medical
21 condition of Mr. Seselj.
22 The Trial Chamber heard, after that, no more news from him. And
23 on a Friday, the 6th of January around 5.00 p.m. I was advised, as well
24 as my colleagues, of the fact that Mr. Seselj had been hospitalised.
25 However, we were provided with no medical information on the
1 state of health of Mr. Seselj. We knew that he had been hospitalised and
2 through the media we heard that he had received a pacemaker and that he
3 was to return to the UNDU, which is in fact what happened.
4 Then, on two occasions, we heard that he was hospitalised for a
5 short period of time after that as a precautionary measure.
6 In the meantime, the Trial Chamber received from
7 Mr. Boris Aleksic, one of Mr. Seselj's associate, a rather alarmist
8 letter. In the minute that followed, I responded instantly to
9 Mr. Boris Aleksic, telling him that we had no information whatsoever on
10 Mr. Seselj's state of health, that we asked the medical officer at the
11 UNDU to give us some idea of what his status was. And I told Mr. Aleksic
12 that I was going to ask my colleagues to assign new experts to look into
13 Mr. Seselj's medical conditions -- condition, and I had recommended we
14 assign a Russian expert to avoid the problem we were confronted with
15 before, i.e., a British cardiologist had been assigned, a cardiologist
16 whom Mr. Seselj refused.
17 We recently heard, and I believe Mr. Seselj is going to fill us
18 in on this, that he had refused to provide the Trial Chamber with any
19 information whatsoever regarding his health and that he had even refused
20 the -- that the information be disclosed to the Russian expert.
21 So as things stand today, you seem well, since you are in court.
22 You have received a pacemaker, but we have otherwise no further
23 information on your state of health as things stand today. If you like,
24 you can tell us what you have to say, but my colleague Judge Lattanzi
25 would like to add something.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like to say that I
2 cannot be in this court because there's cold air blowing on my head, and
3 I cannot afford this. And I cannot afford to fall ill. So I cannot
4 remain in this courtroom. I had asked for something to be done prior to
5 this moment.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Judge Lattanzi will go and sit
8 on the other side. There's an ice-cold blast coming from the ceiling.
9 Mr. Seselj, I have summed up the situation to let you know what
10 information the Trial Chamber has. Today we don't know what you suffer
11 from, and every Sunday I read the press conferences on your web site,
12 press conferences given by your associates, even though they are not
13 doctors. They seemingly have first-hand knowledge of your medical
14 condition. A number of Serb doctors came to visit you in the prison a
15 while ago, I believe, and according to what I've been able to read in the
16 media, i.e., the press conferences, your associates are quite worried
17 about your state of health. And no later than last Sunday your
18 associates were saying that you are the victim of a murder attempt
19 orchestrated by foreign intelligence services. This is what is stated on
20 your web site.
21 Mr. Seselj, what do you have to say to us?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, first of all, I have
23 two points of orders: There is cold air flowing right into my head over
24 here as well, so perhaps it would be a good thing for us to switch sides,
25 the OTP and myself, because they always have the best deal of all.
1 Secondly, according to Rule 65 bis, are you duty-bound to have
2 Status Conferences held within 120 days from the last Status Conference.
3 You're already a month and a half late.
4 The task of these Status Conferences is to organise consultations
5 between the parties in order to ensure expeditious preparations of the
6 proceedings and to see what the condition is, including the mental and
7 physical state of health of the accused.
8 Of course, there is also Rule 127, according to which the
9 Trial Chamber may enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these
10 rules. However, if good cause is shown, by motion.
11 As far as I know, neither the Prosecution nor I made any motions,
12 nor did we ask for any extension of time, so this shows that you, as the
13 Trial Chamber, brutally ignored a very important Rule that has to do with
14 your own duties. You've gone beyond this limit for a month and a half,
15 and many things can happen within a month and a half and can be planned
16 to happen.
17 I know that you, Mr. Antonetti, and your colleagues like it best
18 to mock this diet that I purportedly need. All right. You have the
19 right to do that. I don't mind. You can do it for as long as you want.
20 However, it turned out that I don't need any kind of diet. I came here
21 all trim and slim into the courtroom today without any excess weight
22 because in the Leiden hospital they pumped out an excess of 10 litres of
23 fluid. Over all these years, not a single doctor realised that I had
24 10 extra litres of fluid. And you can go on with these jokes, that I'm
25 fat, and what have you not. Of course, I know how to respond to such
1 playfulness, and I've done that often enough so that you shouldn't
2 consider me to be naive exactly.
3 As for my health, it's been six years now --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as far as
5 Rule 65 bis is concerned, you did state that it is a Status Conference,
6 and this article has to do with Initial Appearance, and we are no longer
7 at this stage of the proceedings. So normally speaking, this cannot be
8 applied. However, the Trial Chamber did ask the question. We met on the
9 24th of August, and on the 23rd of December the Tribunal was closed.
10 Therefore, I thought we would see you at the beginning of January.
11 Unfortunately, you had to go into hospital, so we are seeing each other
12 today, which is the closest date. And before setting this date, we asked
13 the doctor whether you could attend, and he told us you could attend if
14 the hearing did not last too long.
15 So as regards the 120-day deadline, you know that we are always
16 very happy to see you, but over the last few weeks there were no grounds
17 to hold a Status Conference. We ruled on a number of issues, and these
18 Status Conferences have to be useful. This is what I have to say about
19 the 120-day deadline.
20 So, what about your health?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, the last
22 Status Conference was held on the 23rd of August, not on the 24th, as you
24 The next one was supposed to be held on the 21st of December at
25 the latest, not the 24th. A few days before the 21st of December, I
1 telephoned the liaison officers from the service that assists
2 self-represented accused and I asked whether there would be a
3 Status Conference, saying that I had reasons for wanting this
4 Status Conference. A senior legal advisor from your Trial Chamber said
5 that you were not giving any thought to a Status Conference, you as the
6 Trial Chamber. So that is the way things stand.
7 Status Conferences are hardly ever scheduled at the last moment.
8 You know that as the Pre-Trial Judge you've scheduled Status Conferences
9 much more often. They have to be held before a final judgement is
11 This kind of thing may never happen, that the Defence and the
12 Prosecution do not meet with the Trial Chamber in the courtroom for over
13 120 days. When a first-instance judgement is appealed, then even the
14 Appeals Chamber is duty-bound to have Status Conferences held within
15 120 days maximum. So this is not only linked to the pre-trial stage of
16 the proceedings.
17 And now, as far as my health is concerned. It's been at least
18 six years now that my health has been governed by the American, British,
19 and French intelligence services. Until the year 2000 I did have some
20 medical problems, including the hunger strike. However, in 2007 one of
21 the final medical reports was that I was a relatively healthy person. If
22 we exclude or leave aside my asthma or allergy to pollen, I was quite
23 healthy. However, the American, British, and French intelligence
24 services intensively worked on worsening the state of my health, and I
25 have proof of that. Proof was provided to me by my good WikiLeaks, and I
1 sent that to you along with a motion hoping that you would understand,
2 whereas you brutally rejected this without going into the merit.
3 On the 6th of December, 2006, as reported by the US embassy in
4 Paris, a meeting was held of the representatives of the highest security
5 officials of America and France; the under-secretary of defence of the
6 United States, Edelman; and then DKP was also present, that's probably
7 the security officer of the embassy; and the deputy assistant secretary
8 of defence, Daniel Fata [phoen].
9 So these are key security organs of America.
10 At the Elysee Palace on the 1st of December, that is to say,
11 seven days before my hunger strike was over, they met with the advisor of
12 the French president, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne. This is the
13 president's advisor for security matters. Dominique Bouchet [phoen] was
14 also present, Jacques Chirac's advisor for the Middle East,
15 Admiral Edward Bouilliadet [phoen] - maybe I'm mispronouncing this, I --
16 my French has been rusty as of late - and Lawrence Ily [phoen], advisor
17 for strategic affairs.
18 As reported by the American ambassador at this meeting,
19 Maurice Gourdault-Montagne said that we have to do everything we can to
20 prevent the leader of the Serb Radical Party accused of war crimes,
21 Vojislav Seselj, from winning the elections in Serbia. Well, that's the
22 reason why I was indicted in the first place. That is the reason why you
23 are holding me here unlawfully for all of nine years now and why you are
24 systematically ruining my health.
25 You can discuss among yourselves who played which role here and
1 to what accident, who consciously entered this play of dark forces. I'm
2 not interested in that. I'm not interested in your personnel affairs. I
3 am interested in the core of the problem.
4 After this, there is yet another report of the American
5 ambassador in The Hague who is reporting to Washington, the
6 State Department, as follows. This is the report dated the
7 1st of September -- no, no. Of the 27th of June, 2008.
8 The American ambassador is explaining your strategy,
9 Mr. Antonetti, and he says:
10 "Antonetti's strategy was to win over Seselj, to co-operate by
11 meeting most of his requests, and by flattering him."
12 I do not remember that you flattered me, but you did say words of
13 praise about my intellectual abilities. And it also says here this made
14 it possible for the trial to advance. However, there is always the
15 danger of Seselj not taking part in the proceedings, as happened in the
16 hunger strike of 2006.
17 So the dark forces of evil are at play in a conspiracy against
18 me, and I have tangible material evidence showing that this is truly a
19 conspiracy. This makes these proceedings irregular. This makes these
20 proceedings proceedings that are abused. Of course, Mr. Antonetti, you
21 know that I never trusted you and that I didn't trust your colleagues
22 either. However, I agreed to this game as well, because you thought that
23 if the trial got started, I would be demolished by Prosecution witnesses;
24 whereas, I hoped to demolish these witnesses in the courtroom. Our
25 interests coincided and that's why the trial got going.
1 I never hindered these proceedings. It was always done by the
2 Trial Chamber or the OTP. Every time the proceedings were stayed, it was
3 against my will. I demolished all of the witnesses. And two years are
4 left for the final part of the proceedings, and the question remains
5 whether this is ever going to happen. The first time I noticed that
6 something strange was happening, when my liver was being poisoned just
7 out of the blue. Out of the blue, my liver test results were bad.
8 And I clamber. I like to clamber; that's part of my nature. And
9 in this way I disassociated myself from the assumed source of poisoning.
10 I cannot be sure about that. I kept a sample of my food once; I handed
11 it over to the prison authorities. And then Dr. Falke said that they
12 were not capable of carrying out this analysis; that is to say, they were
13 not interested in this. Recently, this Dr. Falke was laid off from
14 Scheveningen. There is this new doctor that was brought in. He seems to
15 be conscientious, and we'll see how it goes.
16 Once these problems were over with the liver, without taking any
17 kind of medication, my liver recovered within eight months. Then heart
18 problems started. And they were being underestimated. They were saying
19 nothing was really wrong. Once when I fell during my walk, this deputy
20 of Falke, some other doctor, submitted a report to you saying that my
21 health was fine.
22 And we have one problem after another. At Leiden, they examined
23 again the possible causes of disrupted heart function and they
24 established that there was no internal organic cause, that my blood
25 vessels are in excellent condition. I asked some of the doctors at
1 Leiden whether that would mean that there was some external influences on
2 my health state. They said that they had no right to speculate. They
3 can only establish what they can be certain about, and that is to say
4 that there are no internal causes.
5 Now, what about external causes? Could that be persistent stress
6 situations that are being created artificially in abundance over the past
7 two months by the Registry, the DU, and the Trial Chamber that refused to
8 hold a Status Conference; or the US, British, and French secret services
9 have at their disposal some kind of technology, radio waves that can
10 affect heart impulses? Theoretically speaking this is not impossible. I
11 am a layperson when it comes to this kind of technology, but I know that
12 they can achieve that. Maybe somebody else, some new WikiLeaks, will
13 disclose all of this.
14 You have been inundated by false reports, and they are being
15 distributed by the Registry and specifically Nermina Jelacic, the
16 spokesperson of the Tribunal. She keeps saying that Seselj's health is
17 stable, that he is almost completely healthy. However, on the
18 6th of January I nearly died. This is what the doctors at Leiden said
19 and this is what the people from the ambulance said when they come to
20 pick me up. You received also a false report from the UNDU which does
21 not contain all the relevant elements.
22 On the 6th of January, during exercise between 15- and 1600
23 hours, I felt sick and I asked the guards to take me back in the lift.
24 While I was changing, I fell onto the ground, lost consciousness, hit my
25 head against the table, and was covered in blood.
1 After half an hour, I began regaining consciousness, and as the
2 commanding officer says, that at 1630 hours a guard came, not a nurse, as
3 claimed by the commanding officers, and it was he who then called the
4 nurse. She tried to take my blood pressure with my own blood pressure
5 device, but it was impossible because the result couldn't be recorded it
6 was so high.
7 Finally, she decided to call an ambulance; the ambulance came
8 very quickly, according to the commanding officers, at 5.02. As soon as
9 they examined me, they called another ambulance, and the commanding
10 officer says here that the ambulance took me from the DU into the
11 hospital at Leiden at 1820 because the emergency service thought that
12 would be the most appropriate.
13 Now the question is: What happened over the whole hour and 14
14 minutes that -- was intervening period? Since I had to be carried out in
15 a lying position, they couldn't take me down the stairs. They had to
16 call the fire service, and this was not mentioned ever by the commanding
17 officer. The fire service came, they cut the steel bars on one of the
18 first floor windows, and carried me out through the window and eventually
19 to the ambulance, and that is why we had to wait for one hour and
20 14 minutes. So that's the problem with the DU. If, again, somebody has
21 to be transported in the same way, they will again have to call the fire
22 service and break the windows.
23 Two ambulances and a few police patrol cars and four policemen on
24 motor cycles took me speedily to the hospital in Leiden, which probably
25 saved my life. At least temporarily. I was unconscious throughout all
1 this time, and I was only told later what had happened. I came to only
2 at 9.00 in the evening, after they had already achieved what they wanted
3 to achieve. My pulse rate was 240. A normal person cannot achieve that,
4 no matter how hard work you try to perform. 240 is something that
5 exceeds physical capability of a human being, and this is the pulse rate
6 measured by the emergency service. And then Nermina Jelacic says, Well,
7 he is in a stable condition. He is all right.
8 And then I decided that I will not let anyone review my medical
9 records. Not the Trial Chamber, not the Registry, no one. I've had
10 enough of all these games, and all the masks have been off for quite some
12 Since I refused to do that, nevertheless I'm -- I must say that
13 the treatment I received at Leiden was all right and there was an
14 implantation of an ICD there. It is being -- constantly being said to
15 the public that this is a pacemaker. Mrs. Jelacic says that as well.
16 That's a lie. A pacemaker makes the heart work faster. ICD is a
17 cardio-defibrillator. It's a kind of device that prevents a sudden
18 death. It cannot prevent it all together, but it can be avoided. And
19 its sole function is that in the event of my pulse reaching 200, that it
20 will cause shocks without any anaesthetic, and these shocks are so strong
21 that they can equal the situation in which you are hit by a tram.
22 However, this has not solved the problem. My heart keeps weakening. It
23 cannot be stopped by any medication.
24 I still have arrhythmias and tachycardia, and arrhythmia never
25 went away. When you spoke about the alleged problem of obesity, I had
1 arrhythmia but you ignored that. You had the report of Mr. Avdeev, a
2 physician, about the problems -- the sleeping problems that I had. And
3 then I heard through the media that an order was issued for a Russian
4 physician to come to examine me and I reacted to that. A Russian
5 physician can only come to examine me upon my request. It could be
6 Mr. Avdeev, who is a pulmonologist, or Mr. Argeyev [phoen], which is the
7 name that was on my list of the physicians.
8 But the Registrar refused to do that, and decided to bring some
9 provincial doctor from England just to give me an opportunity to earn
10 some money. Mr. Avdeev is indeed a great expert. And when,
11 Mr. Antonetti, he comes here at your invitation, he can examine you,
12 Mr. Harhoff, or Mrs. Lattanzi. Not me. He can do that only if I call
14 This time I called the Serbian doctors. They're going to draft a
15 written report, but they're not going to hand it over either to you or
16 the ministry in Belgrade, but they will present it to the public at a
17 press conference and post it on my Internet site. Their findings are
18 very serious. Preliminary findings are already very serious. However,
19 I'm not complaining about this. I knew very well what kind of dangers
20 are looming here over me. I know what kind of dragons I'm facing here.
21 But my only recourse is that I use the public and to -- and to unmask
22 everything that is happening.
23 This unmasking, as far as I'm concerned, has been very
24 successful. Nerma Jelacic, the ICTY press officer, after I had been
25 taken back to the hospital on two occasions after the surgery still
1 maintains that I was taken to the hospital because of preventative
2 reasons. What does that mean? I every time got ill, and on each
3 occasion either the guard or the nurse notified the new medical officer,
4 who I deem is still doing his job in a decent way, and he ordered an
5 ambulance to be called in. And on every occasion it was quite obvious
6 that I needed an ambulance.
7 Today I was visited by a lady doctor from Leiden, and she checked
8 how the ICD is functioning. She decided that one of the electrodes which
9 was inserted into the right heart chamber is functioning properly,
10 whereas the one in the other chamber is not functioning at all. In order
11 to avoid another surgery, she suggested that next week I come again to
12 Leiden to be subjected to electric shocks. And this is what happened
13 today between 11.15 and 11.45. The examination, I mean. She brought the
14 necessary devices from Leiden and she examined me in the DU.
15 Now, this is the exclusive news that I can offer you concerning
16 my state of health. My state of health cannot be a secret, but I
17 jealousy guard and cherish my right to prevent any disclosure of medical
18 records unless it is done with my consent.
19 Secondly, I never tried to take advantage in the procedural way
20 from my state of health. I never quoted that as a reason for
21 adjournment. And not a single day in court has been lost due do that.
22 Now, what brought this all about will become clear one day. When this is
23 going to happen and whether we will live to see the day is a big
25 I still have a number of procedural matters to raise today, but
1 this is as far as my health is concerned.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation] ... specifically does not
3 have a pacemaker, but the implantation of an internal cardiac
4 defibrillator was done. The one part of it does not work, and the second
5 electrode is being restored to proper working order. Thank you. We did
6 not know this. We have just been appraised of this. We also learned
7 that Dr. Falke is no longer here. This is news to us. This is something
8 that we were not informed about. This is something that I have just
9 learned from you.
10 We've also learned about the incident on January 6 when you felt
11 poorly. We did not know that you had fallen on the table, hit your head,
12 and -- and had hurt -- injured your head. The fire men had come, had to
13 break down the bars. This is the first time that I've heard this
14 sequence of events.
15 This Chamber is very concerned by your state of health. This is
16 why we had asked for experts to come and examine you. Specifically a
17 Russian medical expert. Am I to understand that today you no longer wish
18 to see any expert except for those you want to appoint?
19 Is that correct?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. Of course. Only I can
21 appoint the experts who are going to examine me. No one else can do
23 If I so decide, Dr. Avdeev can be one of them. He is a highly
24 acclaimed cardiologist in Russia, so I have no suspicions vis-ā-vis him.
25 Also Mr. Avdeev, who is the best pulmonologists in Moscow. However, I am
1 no longer susceptible to your orders that have to do with the state of my
2 health. I have taken away your right to make court orders that have to
3 do with my health. That has to be taken into account. I do not trust
4 you, and I'm not going to allow any further manipulations with the state
5 of my health.
6 As for the Status Conference today, you started that with your
7 advice, that I should go on a diet. Why would I go on a diet, when I
8 have excellent blood vessels? Let us see whose blood vessels are better,
9 mine or yours. All of you members of the Trial Chamber. And now the
10 fact that my brain requires more sugar shows that its function is more
11 intensive, which I could not manage within an emaciated body. However,
12 my blood vessels are in great shape and there's no reason for me to play
13 along with you. And actually you want to mock me in public.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as you know, the
15 Chamber has no intention of mocking you. When we appointed the experts,
16 we gave them the mission of telling us what you were suffering from. And
17 these experts, whom we did not know, with whom we had no contacts, said
18 at the time, before August 23rd, that your problem had to do with your
19 diet. And this was said black on white. And this is what I said on
20 August 23rd. You challenged this conclusion. You may be right. Perhaps
21 the doctors who will come to see you will then concur with you. So be
22 it. If that is so, we will find out through your web sites, as you have
23 said yourself, what these medical findings are. Everybody will go to
24 your web site to find out exactly what you were suffering from.
25 We shall now move on to the procedural issues. These are, for
1 the Chamber, as follows --
2 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, yet again I have to
4 refute what are you saying.
5 It so happens that I have a medical report in front of me dated
6 the 15th of June, 2011. It was signed by Sergey Avdeev, doctor of
7 medical sciences, and Thomas Tjelstan [phoen], lecturer from the
8 University of Lund, Sweden.
9 At the end of the report, they say --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the text,
11 and it is being read out too fast.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber issued a request
13 in October 2010. And then they say, number one, specific ailments of
14 Vojislav Seselj's: obstructive apnea, allergic rhinitis, asthma, seasonal
15 allergy-based rhinitis, fibrillation treated by ablation, hyper-tension,
16 reflux, and adipose.
17 Number two, the health condition of Vojislav Seselj is such that
18 it does not prevent him for taking part in court proceedings.
19 And I never brought that into question.
20 Number three, his pathology indeed requires additional therapy.
21 Primarily during the night, using --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the
23 document. It is being read out too fast.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So if I am to be subjected to this
25 therapy, they think that my health can get better. So these are their
1 medical findings.
2 At one point this Swede, who was actually a dietitian or whatever
3 he may be, mentioned the question of weight. But if you look at the
4 entire report, that is a totally insignificant point. So even that is
5 incorrect. You have an analysis here on all of six pages. All this
6 information is provided in detail. I don't have time to read all of
7 this. But I have read out to you the final findings.
8 Now, what is the problem? After ablation in October 2010, my
9 health was neglected. The Swedish and Russian doctor who examined me
10 talked to me and looked at my medical documents, and nothing else. They
11 could not take me to any particular machine except for an ECG which does
12 exist at the Detention Unit. So what did that mean? Why was the state
13 of my health neglected? Now, that is for Dr. Falke to answer, Dr. Falke
14 who simply disappeared from the Detention Unit towards the end of last
16 Some people say that he gave the wrong kind of therapy to
17 Jovica Stanisic and that therefore Stanisic barely survived. Some people
18 say this; other people say that. But basically we've never received any
19 official information as to why it was that Dr. Falke had left. They did
20 a lot of dirty -- he did a lot of dirty jobs, and why he had to leave
21 precisely at this point in time, that's a very interesting question. We
22 don't know. Because all the convicts in the Detention Unit have a
23 countless number of objections regarding his behaviour, his approach to
24 health problems, medical treatments, and so on.
25 Just think of the problem that had to do with my tooth. The one
1 that I talked about two years ago. It's still there. It seemed to be a
2 banal problem, but it isn't really. Not at all. Maybe it could
3 incapacitate me for trial for ten or 15 days, but that doesn't really
4 matter. I would not have raised health issues today had you not
6 I have quite a long list of other procedural problems that I
7 would have to raise today --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will address this list. But
9 we did ask the physician if you could testify. His answer was yes. But
10 he recommended that we take a break every hour. Would you like to take a
11 break to have a rest?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. I can work normally.
13 Quite normally.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will continue
15 for half an hour and then we will have a break.
16 Concerning the procedural matters, the problem for the Chamber at
17 this point has to do with the fact that you have made your final
18 submission which is 501 pages in Cyrillic but in UN format it runs to
19 over 600 pages. This in spite of the fact that we had limited the number
20 of pages for the Prosecution. Therefore, via e-mail we informed you that
21 you were authorised to submit 300 pages, plus 100 pages of annexes, that
22 is, 400 pages total. With our resources we reviewed your submission,
23 which is in Cyrillic, all 500 pages of your brief. I noticed that there
24 are no annotations, and many of the pages are actually reproductions of
25 transcripts of other witnesses. So what do you intend to do?
1 Are you going to maintain your 500-page brief or are you going to
2 shorten it, as you have been invited to do?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, my intention is to
4 provoke a decision from you to reject my final brief. You know that I
5 always play with open cards. And, now, why am I doing this? I'll
6 explain it to you.
7 It has to do with the first version of my final brief.
8 Zoran Krasic did most of the work on that, my legal advisor. That
9 version was done by the 1st of September. It was submitted to me by my
10 legal advisors. It was sent through confidential channels. I had
11 intended to work on it to send my remarks to them after that. And then
12 when you said what you said about the volume of the final brief, then I
13 would adjust it to that. However, towards the end of October, the
14 Registrar no longer allowed me any kind of privileged communication with
15 my legal advisors. Basically banning me from working on my final brief.
16 So that's why I decided in January to send that first version and you do
17 whatever you want to do with it.
18 I don't want to work on it any longer. I was prevented, disabled
19 from working on when I wanted to work on it, and I'm not going to do any
20 more work then. And I have a good reason for that.
21 The OTP, on the 4th of November, filed a motion for the parties,
22 that is to say, both them and me, be given more pages for the final
23 brief. 325 pages and so on. So this is the first time that the OTP
24 requested that, and it was the first time in these nine years that the
25 OTP was fair and correct. And it's only natural, if they ask for extra
1 pages for themselves, it's only natural that I should be accorded the
2 same privilege. However, then you, on the 24th of November, issue an
3 order granting the Prosecution 300 pages for their final brief and 100
4 pages of annexes. As for myself, you say that my final brief should not
5 exceed 200 pages and 50 pages of annexes.
6 I could not believe my eyes that I was reading this kind of court
7 order. This went beyond all of my expectations, in relation to you as
8 members of the Trial Chamber. As I've said, the masks have fallen. I
9 know who you are and what your mission is, and I know who I am and what
10 my mission is. For you to make a decision stating that the Prosecutor is
11 entitled to 300 pages and that I'm entitled to 200 pages, I wanted to
12 show you that that will not work. And that's why I sent you 500 pages.
13 Now you do whatever you want it. Read it, throw it into the
14 waste-paper basket, do whatever you will. I'm no longer interested in
15 this final brief.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your description is
17 mathematically requested. The Prosecutor has requested a greater number
18 of pages, and this was granted. But the Chamber responds to the requests
19 from the parties. The Prosecutor asked for something, and it was
20 granted. If you had asked for something, it would have been granted.
21 You did not ask for anything.
22 Furthermore, it was obvious that under the principle of equality
23 of arms it was out of the question in our minds for you to have fewer
24 pages than the Prosecutor would have. It's quite obvious.
25 In addition, Mr. Seselj, may I remind you that when we saw one
1 another on August 23rd you then said that you did not intend to submit
2 any brief whatsoever, so we were completely in the dark. When the
3 Chamber decided to allow the Prosecutor to have more pages in their own
4 brief, it was not something that was done against you. This is something
5 that you should understand. You should know, Mr. Seselj.
6 Of course, you speak for the purpose of telling things to the
7 outside world, and sometimes you say some things that are news to us.
8 But the outside world should also know one thing: In your conspiracy
9 theory of the secret services, we, Judges, simply do not go along with
10 this. We are absolutely not concerned by what you say. We shall rule on
11 your innocence or on your guilt based on evidence, and only based on
12 evidence. I said this right from the outset: Do not attempt to draw us
13 into conspiracy theories and so on. It may be that strange things have
14 occurred. It may be that things have occurred that have created
15 problems. And I discovered things, for instance that the physician of
16 the Detention Unit leave and that we're not apprised of this. This is
17 indeed strange. But this is not the first time that I discover some new
19 So the number of page has nothing to do with a desire to in any
20 way prejudice your interests. As soon as I received the 500-page brief,
21 I started to work on this document to try and understand what its
22 contents are. You said, because you're a very intelligent man, that
23 you're waiting for just one thing, for the Chamber to reject it. And
24 furthermore, as my fellow Judge is saying, you were granted the same
25 number of pages as the Prosecutor because you were told via e-mail that
1 you were entitled to 300 pages as the Prosecutor is, that is, the 300
2 pages plus 100 pages just as the Prosecutor is entitled to.
3 So what topic -- what other topics would you like to address
4 today, Mr. Seselj?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, you know, Mr.
6 Maurice Gourdault-Montagne very well. I even heard that you are friends.
7 Whilst he was an advisor for national security, you, Mr. Antonetti, were
8 a legal advisor to the war criminal Jacques Chirac. I'm just presenting
9 facts, nothing more or less. And these facts give me the right to
10 speculate further on, and they create certain convictions in my mind.
11 However, I'm not publicising all my speculations. I'm merely presenting
13 You may try to convince me about whatever you want, but on the
14 4th of November the OTP requested that the parties to the proceeding be
15 granted the increase of number of pages of final briefs. But you
16 spitefully say, Yes, you are granted this request; and as for the
17 Defence, it will be as was decided for them.
18 This increase to 300 pages is meaningless to me. The whole final
19 brief is meaningless. And I was really in two minds whether to submit
20 any final brief at all. Then Mr. Krasic persuaded me to change my mind,
21 and I'm entitled to change my mind, under the influence of my legal
22 advisor, and I eventually submitted my final brief.
23 Now, let's see which is stronger: my right to submit a final
24 brief, or your right to limit the number of pages. This I find to be the
25 most interesting legal question. And you have to find a way out of it.
1 Whether you're going to violate the legal procedure by preventing me
2 completely from presenting my final brief, or if you are going to accede
3 the number of pages stipulated by your order. It is up to you to solve
4 this problem. I'm not interested in that at all.
5 If I am still alive on the 5th of March, I'm going to trump all
6 the OTP completely with my legal arguments. What you are going to decide
7 subsequently, let other people think about that. You have
8 Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, you have the US, British, and French
9 intelligence services. Now, look, this is a task for you. Try to stop
10 me winning the election. And you're going to accomplish this mission,
11 but you cannot defeat me. None of you can walk out of this situation
12 with their hands clean, that's the substance of it all, because I have
13 such an abundance of arguments that I'm going to use to prevent that.
14 And the arguments became quite numerous especially last year
15 after all the masks fell off. When you debated with me in one of the
16 dissenting opinions, you said that Ljubisa Petkovic was convicted for
17 giving false testimony. Do you remember that dissenting opinion of
18 yours? Nobody has ever been convicted by this Court for giving false
19 testimony. People are convicted here either because they refuse to
20 testify or if they have disclosed confidential material. You, however,
21 tried to belittle Ljubisa Petkovic as one of the people who worked on one
22 of my most important motions. And why shouldn't he do that? He was the
23 only Serb, a real hero, who refused to testify here, such a tiny man.
24 There were some others as well, but after they had been
25 threatened with contempt of court they changed their minds. And we had
1 such a case in the recent past. And that's why Ljubisa Petkovic deserves
2 to be respected by the whole of Serbia. We had here presidents,
3 ministers, police and army commanders, and many other people, and most of
4 them have been threatened with the contempt of court proceedings if they
5 refuse to co-operate with the OTP. He was the only person who had enough
6 backbone to defy that, and after 2005 it turns out that the OTP cannot
7 indict any more people. Maybe that contributed to his being courageous.
8 But the fact that he worked on my brief is something that is undermining
9 the credulity of the brief itself.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. What other subject
11 would you like to address?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. On the 28th of October, the
13 Registry banned my privileged communication with my advisors. I sent a
14 motion, a preliminary motion, to you to caution you that this might
15 happen, but you quite simply discarded my motion. The Registry delivered
16 a decision. I complained against this decision with the President. And
17 I'm sorry that Mr. President -- Mr. Robinson is no longer the president,
18 because he adhered to the principles in a more consistent manner.
19 Then there was the extension granted on the 22nd of December,
20 then on the 20th of January, and some ten days ago the Registrar himself
21 cancelled this decision. Why? Nothing changed in the meantime. I did
22 not remove any contents from my web site. The Registrar decided to
23 prohibit privileged communications only on the basis of a suspicion that
24 I am taking advantage of principled communication with my advisors in
25 order to manage my Internet site. He doesn't have a shred of evidence
1 for that. All he has is suspicion, and he's acting on that suspicion.
2 And you are ignoring all of this.
3 In the final stages of the trial when I am trying to compile a
4 final brief, are you banning me from communication with my advisors. And
5 whatever communication I have, I'm sure that it's being listened in,
6 which will give enough information to the OTP. But no one can find out
7 what I'm going to put in my final brief, not even my legal advisors.
8 They can only advise me. They cannot impose any opinions on me, and they
9 cannot control what I'm going to put in my final brief.
10 Furthermore, the DU administration prevented me from filing
11 motions that I have written for nine years. Whenever I write my motions
12 by hand, it was enough for me to hand it to a guard and ask him to make a
13 photocopy. I would then send the original to the Tribunal and keep the
14 copy. If I was filing copies with the Trial Chamber and the President,
15 sometimes a few days later, or a month later, I would receive a
16 translation into English of my motion, and the copy in Serbian. But if I
17 send it to the Registry, I never get anything back.
18 Now, around the new year, for example, on the 3rd of January, I
19 wrote a submission on one page to the President of the ICTY complaining
20 about the treatment by the Registry who prohibited visits from my
21 friends. I asked the guard to make a photocopy of this submission, but
22 the clerk said that it is now impossible, that I must submit a separate
23 request for a photocopy to be made. So in order to have a photocopy of
24 one page, I have to write a separate one-page request to have it
1 And this is particularly the case with us who are
2 self-representing accused. On the 19th of January, I tried to send
3 another submission on three pages, and the same situation repeated
4 itself. I am prevented from filing submissions. I can only submit
5 motions that are written by my legal advisors who send them to me by fax
6 and then I sign them.
7 I arranged for a visit by my three personal friends to take place
8 in early January, and I received the schedule for this visit. However,
9 after that I received a letter from the Registry saying that a long time
10 ago I was allowed to be visited by two registered members of the radical
11 party. I never said that these people were coming to visit me as members
12 of the radical party but, rather, as my personal friends. For nine years
13 now I couldn't receive visits from my personal friends because the
14 Registry simply says, He is the president of the radical party, he is an
15 MP, and he cannot receive any visits of that nature.
16 But I must tell you that all my friends are members of the
17 radical party. I have no friends outside the radical party. Others
18 receive visits from commanders, from their subordinates, from this kind
19 of people and that, but I cannot even have visits by my family. Isn't
20 that torture and maltreatment? Isn't that creating stressful situations
21 for me?
22 Now, furthermore, the main problem that I wanted to discuss today
23 is the problem of the amicus curiae report --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, before we talk
25 about the report of the amicus curiae, to round off on the question of
1 your communication with your associates, we did indeed learn that the
2 Registrar had listened in to your communications with your associates,
3 and I didn't know why. And of late I discovered that the telephone
4 tapping was due to the fact that on your web site the Registrar alleged
5 that protected witnesses' names were being disclosed. And pursuant to
6 our Rules of Detention, the Registrar decided to tap your telephone
7 because your conversations were perhaps one of the means you used to
8 intimidate witnesses.
9 On 12th of October, 2011, you were advised of this through an
10 official letter. At the time, the Registrar had not informed us about
11 the contents of this letter, which we have been apprised of since. We
12 know that this can affect your Defence case, of course; but, other hand,
13 we knew that since you were being wire-tapped, this does not prevent you
14 from contacting your associates to prepare your briefs and so on.
15 However, the Trial Chamber did impart its position to the
16 Registrar, and that is why a few days ago you may phone your associates
17 without your conversations being listened in. And before the month of
18 March, you will have ample opportunity to talk to your close relatives
19 about your Defence case. This is not something that happened out of the
20 blue. The Trial Chamber did state its position, and the Registrar
21 decided to amend his decision. This is what I wanted to talk to you
23 I believe you wanted to address the report prepared by the amicus
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm not going to mention
1 anything that is confidential in order to be able to remain in public
3 I was provided with a redacted version of this report. I never
4 received the report in its entirety. There is no signature of the amicus
5 curiae here. Why is the amicus's name kept secret? The only thing I
6 know of this person is that he or she is American. Who is threatening
7 him, jeopardizing him in any way? Why is his name being kept secret?
8 You are just trying to prevent me from investigating who this actually is
9 and looking at his CV and finding material that would not look good.
10 Look at this report. Look at all the pages that are redacted.
11 Sometimes an entire page is redacted, blackened. And this is what you
12 submitted to me as a report. And now I'm supposed to state my views on
13 this? What kind of business is this? Look at this. Entire pages have
14 been blackened out. Look at this. This is something that is giving
15 The Hague Tribunal a very bad name to a maximum degree. You criticised
16 the report, Mr. Antonetti, but nevertheless you voted in favour of it.
17 That is something I cannot understand. There is no need for me to voice
18 my own criticism regarding this report when I have your very own critical
19 remarks. After all the critical remarks you had when you thoroughly
20 discredited the entire report, you nevertheless voted in favour of the
21 report. You accepted it. No such thing ever happened to me in my life.
22 If I have a serious critical objection to any kind of material, I
23 would not vote in favour of it even if it were a question of life and
24 death. How that kind of things happens, I really don't know. However,
25 what remains is the fact that this is evidence. So many pages of
1 blackened text. This shows that this is some kind of a dirty job. The
2 amicus was not supposed to look at facts and the legal grounds for
3 establishing contempt of court by Carla Del Ponte and her collaborators.
4 Actually, his task was to hush things up, all of it together. That is
5 the only essence of this entire matter.
6 When I brought criminal charges against 40 witnesses for
7 providing false testimony, then you turned against me with the weirdest
8 arguments possible.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, to respond on a
10 personal note, since you addressed me, you may not have read my opinion
11 properly. In that case, I must specify the following.
12 When the Trial Chamber appointed an amicus curiae, it was to ask
13 him if there were any reasons to believe that pressures had been exerted
14 by the OTP on the witnesses. That was the assignment of the amicus
15 curiae. The amicus curiae did his job and answered by saying no. Since
16 the Trial Chamber had put the question to him, the Trial Chamber was
17 bound by his response. He said no, so that means no to me. However, I
18 felt that I may have reached the same conclusion as the amicus curiae,
19 but if that had been the case, a number of formalities should have been
20 fulfilled. So there is no contradiction here. The amicus curiae was
21 subjected to a number of questions, and he said no, no pressure was
22 exerted. And it is on those grounds that the Trial Chamber ruled on this
23 matter and rejected your application.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In addition, this is not
1 something that had come to my mind, but my fellow Judge has just reminded
2 me of this. We did not admit the amicus curiae report as a piece of
3 evidence. We asked the amicus curiae whether there was any reason to
4 believe, and he said no. So this has not been retained as evidence.
5 Admittedly, some of the pages have been redacted; that is true. But for
6 the purpose of protecting witnesses or for the purpose of protecting
7 people who benefit from some immunity, I must say that the portions that
8 have been redacted do not prejudice you in any way. These are things we
9 have spent a lot of time on. And most of the report is a report that has
10 been published and is public. This is what I wanted to say to you.
11 You have five minutes before the break.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, the problem is that
13 I believe that all of these portions that have been blackened out would
14 work in my favour. That's what I thought from day one. I don't think
15 that it was done except to harm me.
16 Mr. Antonetti, now that you decided to react to such things, I
17 have something else to add.
18 This has to do with a decision regarding the notification you
19 received from the OTP stating that Zoran Drazilovic was in The Hague and
20 Witness 026 and that they were testifying in contempt of court
21 proceedings and it was possible to call them to testify in the main
22 trial, because before they were in accessible because of illness, as had
23 been stated.
24 The Trial Chamber rejected that. It is a confidential decision,
25 I'm not going to say anything specific about it, but I just want to say
1 something about you personally regarding your own dissent, things that
2 you say about me and me alone.
3 You say, on page 9 of your separate opinion --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the text.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These two witnesses. First of all,
6 you say that both of them are gravely ill. These two witnesses
7 nevertheless came at the request of the Accused Seselj who only took into
8 account his own personal interest. And that is underlined, personal
9 interest. Disregarding, as it seems to me, the health of these
10 witnesses, although procedurally he had resources available that made it
11 possible to get statements from these witnesses on the basis of
12 Rule 92 quater. So it was unnecessary to bring them in and put their
13 health at risk in this way.
14 In this way, you are actually brutally assaulting my own
15 character, my sense of morality. You believe that in my personal
16 interest I'm prepared to sacrifice others. However, what I challenged
17 were your medical experts from The Hague who said that the witnesses were
18 unable to travel. Whereas the witnesses came to The Hague very nicely by
19 plane. One of them came with his wife. They had a good time in
20 The Hague. They went out in the evening. There are quite a few things
21 to be seen here. And one of them insisted that they should great me
22 properly and we embraced in the middle of the courtroom and they went
23 back to Belgrade without any problems whosoever.
24 Why did I call them? Because I knew from their personal doctors
25 that they could come without any risk involving their health, whereas
1 your experts from The Hague said that they could not travel because it
2 wasn't in the interests of The Hague Tribunal for them to travel.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Witness 26 - I
4 shall not mention his name - was supposed to come and testify. You're
5 quite right on that score. The Trial Chamber wanted this witness to
6 come. I wanted him to come. We had ordered an expertise, and the expert
7 said no, he could not come, because he was ill.
8 So this person was not called to testify.
9 We then discover in other proceedings that this person did come.
10 Things went well. All the better for him. So either the expert who told
11 us he couldn't come made a mistake, or his state of health is not stable
12 and he came to testify as a Defence witness.
13 Mr. Marcussen, I have not quoted any names. I just said
14 Witness 26.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: But, Your Honour, I'm on my feet for another
16 reason and for clarification.
17 We have been having this Administrative Hearing and the accused
18 has been speaking for the best part of the one and a half hour that have
19 been going. The Prosecution have some issues it would like to address,
20 and I'm seeking clarification of whether or not, when you indicated there
21 would be a break, whether it's an end of the administrative hearing or
22 whether or not we will go beyond the scheduled hours.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall have a break and
24 resume after the break.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to use these two minutes
1 to clarify this matter.
2 Mr. Antonetti --
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do you know what the problem is
5 here? The health of these two witnesses was the same at the moment when
6 your expert said that they were unable to travel and when they travelled.
7 There were no changes. The problem lies in the fact that the Registrar
8 appointed the doctor who would present this opinion to the effect that
9 they could not travel, and that they could not even testify via
10 videolink. If you remember, I agreed that 026 could testify at least by
11 videolink. And then this expert of yours appointed by the Registrar said
12 no, not even videolink, and then I bring him to The Hague itself, and he
13 testifies quite normally.
14 I don't think that his health is any worse than mine. He does
15 have serious health problems, no doubt about that. But he is a mobile
16 person and lives a relatively normally life. Why would he not testify?
17 What was the problem? The problem was that this witness publicly
18 admitted that under pressure exerted by the OTP he provided false
19 testimony in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic and that is what shook this
20 Tribunal. And that is why the Registrar found this medical expert who
21 said that the witness could not come and testify at all. Not even via
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's have a 20-minute break
24 and resume at 20 minutes past 4.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We shall resume.
3 The interpreters have said that whilst it was planned that we
4 were going to work until 4.00 p.m., they will continue to work for
5 another 30 minutes, so I would like to urge Mr. Seselj to be as brief as
6 possible. And I hope that on the Prosecution side there won't be too
7 many questions.
8 Mr. Seselj, we have 30 minutes all together. I hope this is
9 clear. So please get to the heart of the matter.
10 And the Prosecution will have to respond to the question of the
11 600 pages to say whether or not they agree to authorise this or not. And
12 then the Chamber shall rule.
13 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a few more objections that I
15 wanted to raise. They will be shorter.
16 You remember that the Registry initiated disciplinary proceedings
17 against Boris Aleksic, a legal advisor of mine, before the bar. I have
18 to inform you that the Registry lost in these proceedings and
19 Boris Aleksic has been totally acquitted.
20 So it was pointless to mess things up in this way. Actually,
21 this was done only to prevent him from helping me, because he had to deal
22 with his own business. And, again, nothing doing.
23 Can the Registrar go on doing whatever he wants to, without being
24 held accountable? The Registry seems to be a stronger institution here
25 than any Trial Chamber. Does that work in France as well? Can the
1 Registrar be above the Trial Chamber? Or in Italy, or in Denmark? I'm
2 sure that that could not happen. I'm sure that nowhere in the world the
3 Registry has such powers. Here it seems that the Registrar's will cannot
4 be touched, and I don't know how long that will go on.
5 There were many decisions of yours that were made last year that
6 I consider to be unreasonable, and I'm going to prove that. And you
7 accepted everything that the Prosecution asked for, that is to say, to
8 have certain exhibits admitted, those that had you refused to admit in
9 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and then you accepted almost all of it in 2011.
10 For me, that is yet further proof of the fiasco that the OTP suffered as
11 the trial itself and that now you are trying to make do with what you've
12 got. Even, for example, that Milan Babic promoted someone to some
13 particular office, and for you that is relevant evidence in my case.
14 That is it quite unbelievable. And I had to present that as an objection
15 of my own. I want it to be reflected in the transcript for the sake of
16 the public.
17 Mr. Antonetti, just a couple of more things that I raised
18 concerning your attitude towards me.
19 You, as a legal counsel of Jacques Chirac, a war criminal, during
20 the time when Serbia was bombed, in addition to my comment about people
21 being sacrificed for somebody's personal interest, you say that you
22 observe that the accused as a law professor, even though he has some
23 means at his disposal, could have submitted reports of international
24 experts who came here at his own expense. First of all, where I would
25 get those funds? Are you actually advising me to go and beg elsewhere?
1 Because my political party has a number of supporters, are you saying
2 that I should try to raise funds among them in order to fund this? I
3 don't want to do that. I don't need any international experts.
4 The doctors of these two witnesses told me and them that they
5 were able to travel without any significant risk. They travelled, and
6 there was no risk involved. And you seem to be so willing to take it out
7 on me, and you go on to say I interpret the arrival of these two
8 witnesses to be a media trick of the accused, because according to him as
9 well as according to the OTP they had already given a number of
10 interviews and appeared on television. Therefore, why would we again
11 broadcast them on TV since this had already been done?
12 Now, see how many hatred there is in this single sentence. I'm
13 very pleased that you wrote down this sentence. I'm happy because of the
14 Serbian public that used to like you a lot. A journalist used to say --
15 Mr. Antonetti, let me just complete my sentence, please, if you
16 have enough patience. If not, I don't have to say a single word more.
17 A journalist in Serbia said that had you appeared as a candidate
18 in Serbian election you would have certainly received enough votes after
19 your dissenting opinion under 98 bis. And now, after this behaviour of
20 yours, not only would you not get enough votes, you would not enjoy the
21 respect in the Serbian public. The idea that your friend
22 Maurice Gourdault-Montagne had, as well as his British and American
23 associates, is simply not going to be achieved. It will not be attained.
24 And even after my death here I will continue fighting you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're referring to a specific
1 opinion. Could you please quote the sentence that you're reproaching me
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is your concurring [as
4 interpreted] opinion dated the 4th of August, 2011. Separate opinion.
5 So that is your last sentence on page 10, the opinion of
6 4th of August, 2011. Your last sentence:
7 I interpret the arrival of these two witnesses as a media trick,
8 a media ruse of the accused because according to him and according to the
9 OTP these witnesses had already given a number of statements and appeared
10 on television. Therefore, why would we again broadcast them on TV since
11 this had already been done?
12 You're simply starting a political discussion here. This is the
13 last sentence in your separate opinion.
14 Ms. Lattanzi, from whom I expected at the least, opposed this,
15 and she wanted these two witnesses to come. And I really did not expect
16 this from her, given her consistent hostile attitude throughout the
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
19 continues] ... opinion because I do not recall this episode.
20 Mr. Marcussen, you wanted the floor. You have the floor.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Maybe I should first start with introducing three members of the
23 Prosecution team that Your Honours have not yet been introduced to. It
24 is Rachel Hochhauser, Ms. Vega Iodice, and Mr. Arthur Traldi.
25 Your Honours, other thing I just wanted to put on record in
1 relation to some of the many things the accused have said, he said he is
2 not aware of who the amicus is and therefore he has been prejudiced. I
3 wanted to just put on record now that it has been raised that he has
4 actually been informed of the name of the person. It's in the
5 confidential decision, but it is dated the 2nd of December, 2010. So he
6 has had an opportunity to investigate, if he wanted to do that.
7 The only other point I think I will raise in the light of and the
8 interest of time is the issue of --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to add something.
10 We made investigations. We even made that name public.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ... that was
12 actually my recollection, but we couldn't find it.
13 Lastly, Your Honour, the question that you put to the
14 Prosecution, namely, on our position of the accused's oversized brief.
15 We oppose the brief. Your Honours have issued an order about the filing
16 of the brief, and that order should be upheld. And also in light of your
17 review, what you have said about your review of the brief and that there
18 are no references in the brief. It is also important to uphold the
19 standard for legal filings here, and nobody can work with a brief which
20 have no references.
21 So the brief is defect in a number of ways.
22 There are no reasons for Your Honours -- well, sorry. First of
23 all, the accused have actually not requested reconsideration of
24 Your Honours' decision and have admitted that he filed the brief as an
25 act of provocation. Your Honours should not proprio motu reconsider your
2 The practice direction on the filing of final trial briefs is
3 clearly indicating that final trial briefs are not to exceed 200 pages.
4 If the accused with his associates have produced in September a 500-page
5 brief, they clearly knew that this brief would be oversized, and they did
6 not make a request at any point in time to exceed the page limit.
7 The accused have been able to communicate with his counsel or his
8 legal advisors with a view to finalize his brief. His communications
9 have been monitored, but as the President pointed out, that has not
10 prevented him from actually discussing his brief. The Prosecution
11 sternly deny the speculation of the accused that the Prosecution is
12 getting any information from anybody in the Tribunal about what the
13 accused's -- about what the accused's monitored communications are about.
14 So the accused can freely discuss any matters he wants with his
15 associates, without the Prosecution receiving any information.
16 We submit that there must be a quality of arms and that the
17 accused should not be allowed to file a brief which is double the size of
18 the Prosecution's brief and is seriously defect in its form, which make
19 it very, very difficult for everybody to respond to the brief or even
20 understand the brief when there are no citations. There have been
21 previous filings of this nature by the accused: His Rule 91, one motion,
22 was a 230-page motion. It was seriously oversized and it had, in the
23 same way as this brief that has been filed, absolutely no references. It
24 is improper, and the Trial Chamber should not accept this sort of a
1 Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wish to draw Mr. Marcussen's
3 attention and Mr. Seselj's attention to the fact that on March 5th, in
4 one month's time, there will be the closing arguments. When closing
5 arguments are made, the accused allows this to take place without
6 interrupting. And when the accused makes his arguments, then the
7 Prosecution allows him to go forth with his pleadings. But in their
8 closing arguments or in their pleadings no names of protected witnesses
9 must be disclosed. Were that to be the case, we would be compelled to
10 redact the arguments.
11 So either in the closing arguments or the pleadings, if any
12 witnesses have to be cited, they will be cited by number, and no
13 identifying factors can be given. These are well-understood rules in the
14 courtroom. The pleadings have to be listened to in complete silence, and
15 closing arguments as well, it being understood that in a criminal trial
16 the accused always speaks last.
17 If I have understood Mr. Marcussen correctly, you are against
18 allowing for any extension of the number of pages to be granted to
19 Mr. Seselj.
20 I shall consult my colleagues.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will hand
23 down a written decision very shortly on this matter.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: Just one brief remark, Your Honours, just to be
1 The Prosecution is objecting also on the basis that the -- the
2 brief is defect in form in that it has no proper citations. From what I
3 understand, Your Honours have reviewed it, and that's my understanding
4 from what you have said about the brief. It's a serious defect in the
5 brief, apart from the fact that it is seriously oversized. And there's
6 no equality of arms when the accused gets so many pages compared to the
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, in the few minutes that we
9 have left, would you like to take the floor again, Mr. Seselj?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 Well, actually, I'm not interested in any of -- in anything that
12 Mr. Marcussen said. He mentioned that sometime in December 2010 the name
13 of amicus curiae was disclosed. Now, where do we have that shown here in
14 this document? And why is this document so crossed out? Why say this at
15 all? Why would I have to remember what was said in December of 2010? I
16 need to have the first and the last name on the paper. And every expert
17 witness that we had here had a CV of that expert witness. Remember that
18 Slovene who here analysed Mladic's diaries, and all other experts. So
19 why would this expert be an exception?
20 Secondly, I would like to take advantage of the time remaining to
21 me to speak about the behaviour of Mr. Antonetti.
22 In 2011, Mr. Antonetti, you were truly active. You wrote a lot.
23 And you produced a lot of separate and concurring opinions. That is to
24 say, that it wasn't enough what the entire Trial Chamber said against me;
25 you had to add to it. So I will now cite, from a public opinion, your
1 separate concurring opinion about the joint decision on oral motions of
2 the accused concerning his defence case.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
4 continues] ... beforehand what you were about to say, that all of this
5 should not be part of an Administrative Hearing. I know beforehand what
6 you're going to say.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, I --
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] This is an administrative issue.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well the accused said he was going to use the
10 remaining time that was available to him to continue to make various
11 allegations. As far as I'm aware, the Chamber have not given him any
12 time available. This is an Administrative Hearing where he should be
13 addressing specific administrative issues, and not be continuing to have
14 a polemic debate with the President about his separate opinions.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you know me, I
16 could have cut you short.
17 So, please, finish off by presenting an individual opinion.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All of these administrative issues
19 following which I can submit a request to disqualify one of the Judges.
20 Most likely I will not make such a submission, because I believe that
21 none of the Judges in this Tribunal are better than you. And I don't
22 have a great opinion of you either. So I will not ask for any of you to
23 be disqualified, but I could do that.
24 In your separate opinion of 9 June 2011, following the decision
25 to reject all of my motions for Defence case on page 9, you say:
1 "As for the gathering in Zvornik in May of 1992 and in Hrtkovci,
2 the accused admitted taking parts in those rallies, but he denies
3 uttering the words that the Prosecution accuses him of doing."
4 Here you prejudge the judgement that could be handed down. I
5 never admitted participating in the rally in Zvornik in 1992. I have
6 proven to you here that that rally took place in 1990. However, you
7 accept everything.
8 In March of 1992 there was no rally held there. And after all of
9 that evidence produced, you writing something of this arbitrary a nature.
10 This is why I had to raise this as an administrative issue.
11 Now, another separate opinion of yours and another public
12 document concerning my motion to suspend proceedings.
13 You say here that I'm partially responsible for the fact that the
14 proceedings have been going on for eight years. It was eight years at
15 the time, and now it's exactly nine years. On the 24th of February, it
16 will be nine years. And you wonder why that is the case, and then you go
17 on to say:
18 "The accused is a law professor, an eminent politician in his own
19 country, and since his arrival in The Hague he had a number of years to
20 prepare himself for this trial. Naturally he did prepare himself, but I
21 have to state that he wasted his time by continuing to be actively
22 involved in politics in his country and also by writing more than
23 100 books that have thousands and thousands of pages."
24 This is what is bothering you and Maurice Gourdault-Montagne.
25 You do not deny the fact that I have prepared myself. And I will
1 compliment myself by saying that I have prepared myself much better than
2 the Prosecution has prepared itself. I overran their witnesses, false
3 witnesses, and a false indictment. However, you are bothered by the fact
4 that I have wasted time by being involved actively in politics, because
5 despite the -- everything that the foreign secret services have done
6 against the Serbian Radical Party - and I gave you the name of one of the
7 agents taking part in a conspiracy against Vucic and some others, and his
8 name is in the transcript, I'm sure you remember this - so despite that
9 fact, what bothers you is that I have managed to preserve the Serbian
10 Radical Party even after being imprisoned for nine years, and all of this
11 was calculated to have that party turn and merge with another political
12 party. We did have some traitors in our party, but we eliminated them.
13 And you will see just how strong the Serbian Radical Party is.
14 As for more than 100 books, well, who could write more than 100
15 books in this period of time, all these thousands of pages? What I did
16 write and what I did publish were the books of documents, Hague
17 documents, and my entire political dossier. And everything that has been
18 published will be there for the history to judge it. I gave ideas, and
19 my associates implemented them. And what did I waste there? Nothing.
20 You go on to say:
21 "In my opinion, all this time devoted to these activities, had
22 that time been devoted to the trial, it is certain that the trial would
23 have been over by now."
24 Now, how could you writing something like this? What else was I
25 supposed to devote to the trial and failed to do so? What additional
1 time? I have engaged myself without limitations in this trial. I was
2 always present in the courtroom, and we did not waste a single day
3 because of me. Not a single day. So how was I supposed to speed up
4 these proceedings other than accepting these false-imposed lawyers who
5 were supposed to defend me, which was your idea?
6 You also disagree with my statement that I do not have the funds
7 for my Defence, and you say given that I had an important political party
8 in my country, I must have associates and assistants who could volunteer
9 to help me, which can be clearly seen from the video on his web site.
10 Everybody can see that he has support and that there's a good will,
11 especially in Russia, of people willing to help him.
12 So what does this mean? Instead of the Tribunal who, according
13 to the Statute, has to provide funds for my Defence in accordance with
14 equality of arms, you want me to beg around in Serbia and in Russia to
15 raise funds for my Defence, and you want my associates to go on
16 indefinitely assisting me financially. Why? They have done that. They
17 have assisted me pro bono. And I will owe money to them for the rest of
18 my leave. Unless the UN reimburses me. But why would they work
19 pro bono? Why would they work pro bono and not these new people that
20 appear today on behalf of the Prosecution? Why don't you ask them
21 whether any of them want to work pro bono. None of them will. So you
22 want my associates to work pro bono and only them. At the same time, all
23 the rest can have high salaries.
24 Then you go on to say --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you are going to review all
1 the pages I have written, we will be here for a long time. Because I
2 have written hundreds of pages.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] One more paragraph, that's what I'd
4 like, and not more than that.
5 I have no problem with staying all night. I was never in a
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please finish your paragraph.
8 We have five minutes left.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ...
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
11 continues] ...
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, I'm on my feet since there are only
13 five minutes left. And it's not the Prosecution's habit to interrupt the
14 accused unless the Trial Chamber think he should be stopped, but in light
15 of the time, I -- the Prosecution duly note the Trial Chamber's
16 directions that there should be no interruptions during the closing
17 arguments of either party.
18 In light of the concerns raised by the Chamber, which I think
19 should be quite a concern, namely, the question of citation of identity
20 of protected witnesses, I would like to make a motion for an order
21 directed to the accused in particular, or it can be to the parties, but
22 making clear that if there any references during the closing argument to
23 a protected witness, the remainder of the argument will continue in
24 private session. And the reason I say that is, the closing argument is
25 being broadcast and it is likely that there will be people in the public
1 gallery. So if there is not a willingness on the accused to respect the
2 protection of witnesses, we submit that there must be effective measures
4 It is entirely up to the accused to decide how he make his
5 closing arguments and what he says, but if he's not prepared to respect
6 confidential information, then we respectfully submit that we would have
7 to continue in private session and it is the accused's choice whether or
8 not he wants open -- a public hearing or a closed hearing. And we
9 respectfully request an order to that effect so that is clear from the
11 Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what Mr. Marcussen
13 has just said is extremely important. When you will be presenting your
14 closing arguments, you are free to speak and, of course, you should not
15 abuse this and disclose a name of a protected witness. As Mr. Marcussen
16 has just said, some people will be in the public gallery, and we can, of
17 course, redact those names, but the people that are attending the hearing
18 can hear those names. I assume you do have no intention of revealing the
19 names of protected witnesses, and I will be very sorry about that, but we
20 will then have to move into private session.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Antonetti, Mr. Antonetti, when
22 was it that I gave the name of a protected witness away in court? Never.
23 On the basis of this assumption made by the Prosecutor, you are issuing
24 this warning to me. The warning makes sense only if it is addressed to
25 both parties. You cannot prejudge which party would be willing to do
1 that. You're not interested in what I broadcast on my web site. You are
2 excluded from these proceedings because you wanted it that way. And you
3 don't have any proof here that I did that. So on the basis of these
4 perfidious things that were said, you cannot draw any conclusions.
5 Also, once I mentioned the name of a witness, Colonel Vojnovic.
6 The Prosecutor intervened. And all of that was afterwards dealt with in
7 closed session, although it was not my recollection that the witness had
8 been protected. Several months later what happened was that the
9 Prosecutor mentioned the name of that witness. Or was it the
10 Trial Chamber? It was the Trial Chamber. And then I intervened. I said
11 you were mentioning the name of a protected witness and then you
12 established that this witness had not been protected.
13 Do you remember that situation?
14 Colonel Vojnovic testified in public. And I took your word for
15 it that he had testified in closed session. I cannot remember all of
16 that, and I cannot remember the list of all protected witnesses.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
18 continues] ... I note that you're telling us that you will not disclose
19 the names of protected witnesses. That's all we are asking for. No
20 more, no less. That should suffice.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I haven't done that until now,
22 why would I start doing it now? It suits me the most to have these
23 proceedings conducted in public, including the closing arguments.
24 Are you going to allow me to deal with this last paragraph as
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to finish. And my
2 colleagues have just told me that we need to stop now.
3 Have you two minutes to finish.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just another argument of yours:
5 Refusing my request for financing the Defence.
6 On page 8, you say:
7 "I think that this is a false problem, because the accused on
8 many occasions had an opportunity during the cross-examination of
9 Prosecution witnesses to demonstrate his encyclopedic knowledge of events
10 and facts and without anyone's assistance or any prepared notes to
11 express his views on a given topic and in a very precise way at that.
12 This leads me to say that the accused making excuses by referring to
13 obstacles on the path of his Defence presents objections that are not
15 Well, here you go. I can say that Mr. Marcussen has encyclopedic
16 knowledge, so you're going to chuckle, at least to yourself, and I can
17 say that he can run his own case without any kind of assistance, without
18 any kind of notes. At least 20 people sat on the Prosecution side in
19 this courtroom, and you commented on the fact that I was all alone for
20 the Defence. Once or twice my advisors were there for two or three hours
21 or so, and you find that to be normal. And you also find it normal that
22 due to my encyclopedic knowledge I do not have to have my Defence
23 financed and that therefore it is a false problem.
24 I really had to say this as well, Mr. Antonetti, because it has
25 to do with you personally and your personal attitude towards me and this
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
3 It is now time to adjourn. We shall meet again on the
4 5th of March.
5 Thank you.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.58 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day
8 of March, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.