1 Monday, 31 January 2005

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 10.01 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, good morning. Mr. Registrar, could you call

7 the case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour. Case Number

9 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

11 Dr. Seselj, good morning to you. I would like to know if you can

12 follow the proceedings in your own language.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, for the moment everything is

14 all right.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

16 Appearances for the Prosecution.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good morning, Your Honour. The Prosecution

18 is represented by trial attorney Daniel Saxon and myself, Hildegard

19 Uertz-Retzlaff, and we are accompanied by Iain Reid, our case manager.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you.

21 For the record, the accused is defending himself. Stand-by

22 counsel, good morning to you.

23 MR. Van der SPOEL: Good morning, Your Honour. Mr. Van der

24 Spoel, stand-by counsel.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. The Trial Chamber or Pre-Trial Chamber

1 is required by Rule 65 bis to hold a Status Conference every 120 days to

2 organise exchanges between the parties with a view to having an

3 expeditious trial; and to review the status of the case; and allow the

4 accused the opportunity to raise issues in relation to the status of his

5 case and also in relation to matters relating to his detention. The last

6 Status Conference was held on the 4th of October, 2004, and therefore

7 this Status Conference is being held within the time limit laid down by

8 the rules.

9 As I did on previous occasions, I just wanted to make it clear to

10 both parties from the very outset of this Status Conference that as

11 Pre-Trial Judge I intend to adhere strictly to the purpose of the Status

12 Conference and I have no intention to allow either of you to go beyond

13 these limits as set out by Rule 65 bis. If you do go beyond the limits,

14 I will decide what will be the necessary steps to take according to

15 circumstances.

16 Let me first start with the first item on the agenda, and namely

17 try and go through the various matters which relate to the present status

18 of the case in this pre-trial stage. Since October 4, 2004, there were

19 various motions that were filed by the accused. Some have been decided

20 and some are still pending. I am going through the amendment -- the

21 motions that are presently pending before this Trial Chamber. The rest

22 has been covered by the usual press conferences and press releases that

23 are made -- issued by this Trial Chamber. I'm referring to the decisions

24 that have been decided already.

25 There is first and foremost -- perhaps the most important motion

1 at the moment, a motion by the Prosecution filed on the 22nd of October,

2 2004. It is a motion for leave to amend the indictment with confidential

3 and ex parte supporting materials -- supporting material. On the 2nd of

4 December, 2004, the Trial Chamber ordered the Prosecutor to show good

5 cause as to why the supporting material was not being provided to the

6 accused. The Prosecution succeeded in showing good cause, and the

7 accused was given two weeks from the 21st of December, 2004, to file a

8 response to the Prosecution's motion for leave to amend the indictment.

9 He did so in part in submission number 65, which was filed on 5 January

10 2005. This motion which requires the intervention of the full Pre-Trial

11 Trial Chamber, not just myself as Pre-Trial Judge, is being given

12 attention to and is in an advanced stage of elaboration. I hope if there

13 is agreement, we should be in the position to hand down the decision

14 pretty soon.

15 Then there is a request by the accused for certification to

16 appeal the Trial Chamber's decision on the Prosecution's motion for

17 protective measures for witnesses during the pre-trial phase. As the

18 accused very aptly numbers his motions or requests, I will refer to this

19 motion or request by its -- the same number given to it by the accused,

20 which is helpful, and this is submission number 70. The Trial Chamber

21 filed its decision on protective measures for witnesses during the

22 pre-trial phase on the 21st of December of 2004. In its submission

23 number 70, the accused requests submission to appeal this decision

24 whereby the Trial Chamber allowed or gave permission to the Prosecution

25 not to disclose the supporting material to the accused for the time

1 being. Again, this is the typical decision that needs to be decided not

2 by me as Pre-Trial Judge sitting alone, but by the entire Pre-Trial

3 Chamber. The matter is before the Pre-Trial Chamber, which has still got

4 to start its deliberation on it. It is hoped that we should be in a

5 position to decide the matter shortly.

6 There is another motion, and this is again one of the most

7 important motions still pending; and it relates to the electronic

8 disclosure of documents to the accused and translation of documents. The

9 origin of this matter goes back to motion 30, which the accused filed

10 with the registry way back in March of last year. In motion 30, the

11 accused requests to be provided with statements of all the witnesses

12 mentioning his name in their statements to the Prosecution or in their

13 testimonies before a Trial Chamber. The Prosecution filed the

14 Prosecution's response to the accused's motion number 30, which is the

15 motion I'm referring to, and motion for order directing the accused to

16 accept disclosure material in electronic format, which is the counterpart

17 motion which the Prosecution filed on the 19th of April, 2004, whereby it

18 agreed to the accused's request on condition that the material requested

19 could be provided to him in electronic format and in some cases in a

20 language other than his own.

21 At or during the 4th October, 2004, Status Conference, that's

22 during the last Status Conference, I noted that electronic disclosure and

23 -- you will speak? Yes --

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The interpretation is not good.

25 What I've just heard now has absolutely no meaning. The interpreter said

1 that the Prosecution agreed to my requests and then puts forward all the

2 opposite arguments, arguments opposite to what I said. So this is

3 nonsensical translation interpretation as far as I'm concerned because

4 the Prosecution didn't agree to a single demand made by me.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj, that is exactly what I said so. The

6 translation was correct. If you want to make comments, you will make

7 comments later on when I give you permission to do so.

8 So during the past -- last Status Conference, I noted that

9 electronic disclosure and translation of documents were two problems that

10 continued to arise and gave -- I gave the accused the opportunity to

11 further these matters in writing. The accused actually did so when he

12 filed his request to disclose material of the Prosecution in written form

13 and in Serbian. This request was filed by him on the 9th of November,

14 2004. On the 29th of November, 2004, the Prosecution responded to his

15 request. By written decision of the 14th December, 2004, the Pre-Trial

16 -- I denied the accused's submission number 60 for leave to reply. So

17 basically what we have now is the original motion, together with what

18 followed suit. But the stage of submissions and arguments has been

19 closed with the -- with my decision of the 14th of December, denying the

20 right of reply and therefore any further discussion on the matter.

21 Again, this is a very serious matter indeed. It has been before

22 this Trial Chamber basically from the very first day of the -- of these

23 proceedings. A question of how the documents, disclosure, needs to be

24 disclosed to the accused, the matter is receiving full attention by the

25 entire Pre-Trial Chamber. We are again in a much advanced -- perhaps

1 this is the motion for which our decision is most advanced at the moment.

2 And we will be coming down with a decision pretty soon.

3 The next motion by the accused was filed on the 9th of November

4 -- that I'm dealing with was filed on the 9th of November, 2004. It is

5 his request to the Trial Chamber to re-examine the decision to assign

6 stand-by counsel, to which the Prosecution responded on the 30th of

7 November, 2004. In addition, I must say that the accused also filed

8 submission number 57, which also dealt with this matter. The filing

9 occurred on the 8th of December, 2004. In addition, he also filed a

10 request to reply to the Prosecution's response. This is submission

11 number 61. This last submission, namely the motion for request to reply

12 to the Prosecution's response, was denied on the 14th of December, 2004.

13 The fifth pending motion is a motion for normalisation of

14 conditions for preparing a defence. This motion was filed on the 9th of

15 November, 2004. And the accused motion was responded to by the

16 Prosecution on the 25th of November, 2004. The accused requested leave

17 to reply and then extension of time to reply to his submission number 55

18 -- 59, which was granted by me by decision on the 6th of December 2004,

19 In that decision I gave the accused one week from that date within which

20 to reply. He found objection as to the date -- or rather, he questioned

21 the date from which the week was to start running, and he filed his

22 submission number 63 requesting certification to appeal the decision by

23 which I had granted him an extension to reply. And subsequently, this

24 submission which is referred to as number 63 was filed on December 30th,

25 2004.

1 Again, this matter is being -- is receiving attention. I have to

2 confer with my other two colleagues whether this is a decision in which

3 they will be involved or whether it is a decision which only I can -- am

4 entitled to decide upon, being a consequence or being a consequence of a

5 previous decision that I had taken as Pre-Trial Judge.

6 The accused also by means of submission number 69 has asked

7 certification to appeal against or from a decision that the Pre-Trial

8 Chamber gave on the accused's request for an advisory opinion of the

9 International Court of Justice on 16th -- this was filed on 16th

10 November, 2004. We decided against, and the accused is seeking

11 certification. On the 13th of January, 2005, the Prosecution responded

12 to his motion for certification. The matter has to be decided by the

13 entire Chamber, Pre-Trial Chamber, and it is being receiving -- it is

14 being received -- it is being given attention and should be decided

15 within a few days.

16 Finally, there is a matter which is, again together with the

17 other two I mentioned earlier, of extreme importance and this relates to

18 the Prosecution's filing of its pre-trial brief on the 14th of December,

19 2004, stating, inter alia, that it would eventually provide a witness and

20 exhibit list. The accused responded to this with his submission number

21 67 on the 15th of December, 2004. And there has been a further response

22 from the Prosecution filed on the 18th of January, 2005.

23 Again, this is a matter that is best left to the entire Pre-Trial

24 Chamber, although not necessarily so. The matter is being received -- is

25 being given attention by the Trial Chamber, but we are still in the very

1 early stages and are also some matters arising from the accused's

2 submission 67 relating to his -- whether he is in a position or not to

3 respond to the pre-trial brief as required by Statute, which is also

4 being given due merit. If it is necessary to go back to the accused on

5 this matter to elucidate further information from him, we will certainly

6 do so.

7 That is the position as regards pending motions. There were

8 other motions that were filed since October and decisions given by this

9 Trial Chamber, Pre-Trial Chamber, between then and now. There were also

10 some motions which were filed directly in -- either before the President

11 or before the Appeals Chamber, some of which have been decided, others

12 are pending. So that is the position as regards the motions.

13 Yes, I -- Madam, do you have any comments on this part of the

14 agenda that I have mentioned?

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour's summary of the pending matters

16 is entirely correct. I just want to mention something in relation to the

17 submission 67 related to the pre-trial brief. The Prosecution meanwhile

18 has actually provided a variety of documents that were addressed in this

19 submission 67 to facilitate the accused's work on the pre-trial brief.

20 We did that, actually. We provided those documents that we identified as

21 potential exhibits and we provided as an exception these documents in

22 hard copy and in both languages that are concerned here. We thought it

23 was only a small amount of materials requested and we could do that in

24 hard copy this time. However, because this is an exception, we continued

25 to provide other materials, in particular Rule 68 materials in electronic

1 form and it was always rejected by Mr. Seselj. And last time --

2 actually, most recently last Friday. This is actually all I need to

3 mention here.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.

5 Dr. Seselj, do you have any comments on this part of the agenda

6 dealing with pending motions, particularly with what Madam Prosecutor has

7 just pointed out?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I stand by my position that

9 all the documents must be given to me in written form, that is to say on

10 paper; that's the first point. The second point is this: The problem

11 that I am facing, one of the basic problems, is that the registry of the

12 Tribunal does not wish to inform me about court practice and proceedings.

13 I have tabled a number of motions so far and requests in which I

14 stipulate documents from the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, which I --

15 and they have given me some which I don't have at my disposal. And one

16 of the largest documents is the judgement from the international court of

17 Rwanda. It is a legal precedent and it is for support of the Prosecution

18 in its trial against me. So I must be informed of the jurisprudence of

19 this Tribunal, the fact that it is very voluminous material and that it

20 takes up a lot of space is not a relevant reason in this case. I must

21 have all the documents, all the jurisprudence, all the legal proceedings,

22 all the motions on both sides, and all the Court decisions.

23 And all that must be in the Serbian language. It is impossible

24 for me to conduct my defence without having a full knowledge of the legal

25 system and jurisprudence of this Tribunal. That is a point that I have

1 been insisted on for the past two years. Nobody seems to take heed of

2 that. They are trying to send me documents like the judgement from the

3 Rwanda Tribunal in English. It has several hundred pages, perhaps 500

4 and I refuse to accept it.

5 I will accept nothing in electronic form whatsoever. I insist

6 that everything be put down on paper because every basic document that

7 courts deal with in the world is in the form of paper. Electronic

8 information is an auxiliary means if it helps somebody; it doesn't help

9 me. I am not able to handle any electronic means; I don't know how to do

10 it and I want everything supplied to me on paper and you must give me the

11 documents on paper. In the past two years you have done about that and

12 you're going to be able change my position on that, not now, not in ten

13 year's time. So why do we have to waste time discussing the same issues

14 when we have a lot of important work to get through? My position is that

15 the Prosecution is not trial ready and are using any pretext to prolong

16 this process. Now we see this problem of my rejection of electronic

17 data, that will be sufficient reason for them to put off the trial for

18 another five years. It is in my best interest to have the trial start as

19 soon as possible. I want to have all the documents straightaway and I

20 never refused any document when supplied to me in the Serbian language

21 and on paper. That is an indisputable fact, I hope. So it is not me who

22 is an impediment to the trial going forward, it is the person who wishes

23 to impose something that I don't have to accept and I don't have to

24 accept anything in electronic form and I am standing by that decision of

25 mine.

1 However, if you don't supply me with the overall jurisprudence of

2 this Tribunal, all the motions of the Prosecutor in all the trials, all

3 the judgements, all trial decisions and judicial decisions, how am I able

4 to conduct my defence unless I have all this material? It must be placed

5 at my disposal. Because I am told that I should ask for individual

6 documents; that is something I did indeed do. I didn't receive any

7 documents. All I did receive was some documents and the Prosecution says

8 that I will be receiving some of the others in due course, whereas I have

9 received no other documents, only sporadic ones when you yourself

10 intervened personally. So why does the registry need intervention to on

11 the part of the Judge or anybody else to supply me with documents I need?

12 I must be in a position to be kept abreast of the jurisprudence of this

13 Tribunal so I can use it and harness it and gear it in my defence of my

14 own case. How can I go through all the judicial documents used in these

15 proceedings and other proceedings? Where can I look for them? I cannot

16 know in advance which document I will need. And how do I know where I

17 will find something that will help me in my defence? I will have to have

18 all the documents, look through all the documents, and then perhaps come

19 upon something that might be useful to me in defence. I can't know this

20 in advance; who could? Who would be able to know anything like that in

21 advance?

22 So, Judge, as it is your duty to listen to me and to hear what I

23 have to say, there you have it. Now, whether you are going to hear me

24 about the amended indictment or not, I don't know. I can set my

25 arguments now or should I stop there?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I would just make a remark on what you have just

2 said about it, close it, and then give you the floor again to deal with

3 the amendment.

4 I think I ought to make it clear that there are certain documents

5 that the Prosecution is bound by our rules of procedure to hand to you.

6 That is restricted, however, to what is provided for by the rules and

7 does not extend beyond. So -- there may be instances sometimes when you

8 ask for documents from the Prosecution that the Prosecution itself is not

9 strictly bound under the rules to provide to you.

10 Then there are several other instances which have occurred where

11 you asked for several documents from the Trial Chamber. The Trial

12 Chamber is not in a position and should never be or allow itself to be in

13 a position to give you documents. It's the registrar that you have to

14 address and I understand that you have in the past addressed the

15 registrar. You come to the Chamber only when you have difficulties with

16 the registrar, which you have. And then when if it falls within our

17 competence to direct the registrar to hand to you certain documents, we

18 will impose it on the registrar. If it doesn't, then obviously it will

19 still be up to the registrar to decide what do give you and what not to

20 give you. And you can have recourse to us at the end of the day to see

21 whether this in any way prejudices your right to a fair trial. And I can

22 ensure you that when you encounter problems with the registrar we will

23 exercise all the due diligence to make sure that this does not interfere

24 in any way with your rights to a fair trial.

25 On the other hand, I think it is very unfair to say that you have

1 not been given anything or that you have been given very little, because

2 I have been following more or less what has been happening. You have

3 asked the registrar for a large number of documents. I am not saying

4 that you have been given each and every one of these documents; I know

5 that you haven't been given everything, but you have been given a lot.

6 And the registry also has taken it upon itself to have certain or a large

7 number of these documents translated into your own language to make --

8 let me finish, please.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't hear the interpreter's

10 voice at all. I cannot hear the interpreter's voice. I can't hear

11 anything.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: The accused is not receiving interpretation.

13 Can --

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I can hear you. Now I can hear

15 you, but for a moment I couldn't hear the voice at all.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I was just saying that the registry has, at least

17 to my knowledge, taken a lot of interest and a lot of work to have a

18 large number of these documents translated into your own language. I'm

19 not saying that everything has been done. I'm not saying that what has

20 been done is expected to satisfy you; that's up to you. But I will

21 intervene as much as I can to make sure that you receive what you need to

22 enable you to prepare your defence.

23 And incidentally you mentioned this decision generally, a

24 decision by the Rwanda Tribunal that you indicate. I know that you have

25 made a list and in that list there is at least one or two decisions of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the Rwanda Tribunal. I don't know if you are referring to that, those

2 decisions, or if you are referring to a more recent decision or another

3 decision that you need for the adequate preparation of your own defence.

4 If you give me the name, I will refer it to the registrar, either here

5 during the sitting or informally after the Status Conference.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The most important decision of the

7 Rwanda court for me is the one that the Prosecution bases its own request

8 to amend the indictment on. I don't know the exact name of the decision.

9 I have it in my papers. It has to do with the man who was accused of the

10 crime of instigating crimes against humanity. I need the whole

11 judgement, because it is only basis of the content of that decision that

12 I'm going to refute the arguments of the Prosecution. My case has

13 nothing to do with what this man was accused of. This is a person who

14 was broadcasting all over the Rwanda radio, calling for the killing of

15 Tutsis. So I need the judgement in its entirety. I do not need only

16 sections that they think I might be interested in. I need the whole

17 document so that I could refer to historical facts and all the other

18 facts in relation to the proceedings that have been instituted against

19 me.

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I'm being informed by the representative of

22 the registrar that they have not received a request from you for this

23 particular decision of the Rwanda Tribunal. What I suggest you do is

24 this: I understand that you don't -- you're not in a position to provide

25 the name and the date of the decision now. After the Status Conference,

1 if you could file a request, a specific request, to the registrar with a

2 copy to me as the Pre-Trial Judge. I will see into it that the registrar

3 gives it all due attention.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Agius, they tried to give me

5 this decision in the English language. It had almost 500 pages. This

6 was immediately after I received the Prosecution motion to amend the

7 indictment. They tried to give it to me in English because they don't

8 want to translate it. They won't give it to me in Serbian. They are

9 deceiving you right now because they did try to give it to me. There was

10 this official in the prison who brought it to me in the English language,

11 and that's when the Blaskic judgement was also given to me. I asked for

12 that, I asked for that, I asked for a decision from the Deronjic case and

13 also this Rwanda judgement. They brought me the Blaskic judgement later

14 on, they brought me this decision from the Deronjic case, and they also

15 tried to give me the judgement from the Rwanda court in English. What

16 he's saying is not correct.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now I give you the floor to address the

18 matter relating to the Prosecution motion for leave to amend the

19 indictment. We are not going to deal with the merits of the motion

20 itself. Am I making myself clear? It's just comments that you need

21 necessary to make on the fact that there is this motion pending, but not

22 on the merits because that is addressed or will be addressed by you when

23 you file your final response on the motion itself.

24 Yes, Mr. Seselj.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm going to say a few words

1 about the motives of the Prosecution to -- in submitting this motion to

2 amend the indictment. For these past two years, they have not been

3 trial-ready because they do not have proof against me. They do not have

4 evidence to support the old indictment, and in order to gain time they're

5 trying to amend the indictment.

6 At the last Status Conference, I requested that documents be

7 submitted to me on the war crimes of Zoran Djindjic and Vuk Draskovic, or

8 rather the Serb guards, the paramilitary organisation of Vuk Draskovic

9 and the Guard of the Panthers. The paramilitary organization of Zoran

10 Djindjic. It was Ljubisa Savic Mauzer, his vice-president who commanded

11 that unit. The OTP refused to do that and I have the impression that

12 they are trying to plant this on me, these crimes, and that's precisely

13 what they did. For example, in Bijeljina there were never any volunteers

14 of the Serb radical party. We never sent them. It was Djindjic as

15 vice-president who was operating there and Nevestjin [phoen] and Konjic.

16 There were never any volunteers of the Serb radical party. That's where

17 Draskovic's Serbian Guard was operating. That is why I ask that all

18 documents be submitted to me, all of those speaking of the war crimes of

19 Vuk Draskovic no matter how great friends he is with Carla Del Ponte.

20 Also, I want documents about the crimes of Zoran Djindjic.

21 As for the basis that the Prosecution has been trying to refer to

22 in terms of these past ten years, it all has to do with false witnesses

23 and that will come out clear. In the first indictment they use a false

24 witness who is saying that at a rally in Subotica I asked for children

25 from mixed marriages to be killed. There were 5.000 people at that

1 rally. This is so grotesque that even the OTP realises this is

2 untenable. I don't mind; let them amend the indictment and let them

3 include all the crimes that were committed in that war. Let them ascribe

4 all of that to me. I am capable of handling that. But make them give me

5 all the documents before the trial starts. I'm not trying to dodge

6 anything here. You see, the main concept will be based on the fact that

7 the main perpetrator of the crimes that are being ascribed to me is the

8 Roman pope, John Paul II and I am going to base my defence on that. You

9 can do whatever you want in terms of it, but I want all of this to be

10 done before the trial. Amend the indictment; add thousands of pages; add

11 thousands of crimes to the list of crimes that I'm being accused of; but

12 let's see what documents you have, let's see what witnesses you have, and

13 that is what counts now. What are the documents and what is the material

14 I have now? I'm not opposing the indictment at this stage at all. I

15 just insist that all evidence at the pre-trial stage should not be aimed

16 at extending this pre-trial period. Let the trial begin. I've been here

17 for two years now. I was patient, but now I'm losing patience. Let us

18 go to trial. That's the only thing I had to say in response to the

19 request of the Prosecution to amend the indictment. That's what I had to

20 say, Mr. Agius.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I don't suppose you want to reply?

22 It's up to you.

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just a very brief remark. I do

24 not want to enter into any polemics on this point. I just want to

25 mention in relation to the operative indictment, that is the indictment

1 that we have currently, we have provided a pre-trial brief in which we

2 have addressed the evidence that we have in general terms and everybody

3 could see that -- what evidence we have. If you, Your Honour, wants to

4 hear more details why we want to amend the indictment at this point in

5 time --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Not at this point.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- then Mr. Saxon could do that.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Not at this moment.

9 We come to disclosure, disclosure matters, which is the second

10 part of the agenda. As you know and as I have made clear on previous

11 occasions during previous Status Conferences, there is different

12 disclosure that the rules deal with. I will take them one after the

13 other. I will deal first with disclosure under Rule 66(A)(ii).

14 On the 11th February, 2004, the Trial Chamber granted an order of

15 non-disclosure to the public pursuant to Rule 53(A) of some witness

16 statements that fell under Rule 66(A)(ii). For the information of the

17 public in particular, Rule 66(A)(ii) requires that "Within the time limit

18 set forth by the Pre-Trial Judge requires that copies of statements of

19 all witness statements that the Prosecutor intends to call to testify at

20 trial and copies of all written statements taken in accordance with Rule

21 92 and copies of statements of additional Prosecution witnesses shall be

22 made available to the Defence when a decision is made to call those

23 witnesses."

24 As I said, I refer everyone to our decision of the 11th February

25 of 2004 in which we ordered non-disclosure to the public of some witness

1 statements. On the 21st of December, 2004, that's more recently, the

2 Trial Chamber gave its confidential decision on the Prosecution's motion

3 for protective measures of witnesses during the pre-trial phase.

4 According to this decision, which is as I said confidential and contains

5 also an ex parte motion which sets out the reasons for protective

6 measures of potential -- according to this motion, there were the reasons

7 for the sought-after protective measures of the potential witnesses. The

8 protective measures include the delayed disclosure of certain witness

9 identity to the accused until no later than 30 days from the firm trial

10 date.

11 The Trial Chamber requested that the Prosecution file with the

12 Trial Chamber confidentially and ex parte a list detailing the witnesses'

13 names, their corresponding pseudonyms, and the protective measure or

14 measures granted. I would like first of all to inquire from the

15 Prosecution whether you have done so. And if you haven't, to explain why

16 and also when you are expected to comply with this order.

17 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Your Honour --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Saxon.

19 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Your Honour. As of today the

20 Prosecution has not complied with the Trial Chamber's directive to

21 provide the list of names and pseudonym, however we expect to be able to

22 comply with Your Honour's decision by the end of this week when we also

23 intend to file an additional motion requesting some additional protective

24 measures for certain witnesses.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Why haven't you been able to comply?

1 MR. SAXON: Because we wanted to do it all -- for efficiency

2 purposes and for clarity, we simply wanted to do this all in one filing,

3 Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. As regards the rest, do you have any

5 further matters to add in relation to disclosure under Rule 66(A)(ii)?

6 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj, I read what Rule 66(A)(ii) states so

8 you will know what we're talking about. Do you have any comments on this

9 area of disclosure?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am quite aware of what you're

11 talking about. I have studied this Rule, although I still haven't

12 received a clean-up text so that there were amendments to the Rules of

13 Procedure and Evidence from last year that I have not been kept abreast

14 with. But as far as I am concerned, I didn't delve into that question

15 much anyway. You can keep a witness's name protected however much you

16 like. On my part, as far as I'm concerned, no -- there is no danger to

17 any witness or victim who tells the truth. And I need at least two or

18 three weeks before the testimony of a witness at my disposal for me to

19 know who we are dealing with so I can test his credibility and seek to

20 impeach him if I think he is a false witnesses, and I know that most of

21 the witnesses are going to be false witnesses in this trial. But I don't

22 want interfere with you on that score. You are making up the problems

23 yourself. You yourselves will have to assess how much time you need.

24 And not even van der Spoel has received that document and he doesn't need

25 to. He doesn't need to, he doesn't need information about a protected

1 witness before me, because I will never have anything to do with him,

2 never any contact at all. I abhor him from a moral aspect as a man and I

3 don't want to know or hear of him at all.

4 So you must set the deadlines, tell me within which deadlines I

5 am supposed to disclose the identity of the witness [as interpreted] so

6 that I can go ahead and try to impeach him if I consider that he is

7 trying give false testimony. Is it five days? Is it two weeks? Three

8 weeks? But there's no need to spend so much time on that issue. I've

9 given you a year. I don't want to enter into that issue at all. It is

10 up to the Prosecution to table its requests and motions and it is up to

11 the Trial Chamber to respond fully or in part. I don't think we should

12 lose time on that. I don't think that is an essential question to merit

13 so much loss of time and waste of time, and I'm saying all this because I

14 want the trial to start as soon as possible.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: So then there is disclosure under Rule 66(B), and

16 again I read out Rule 66(B) for the benefit of everyone. "The Prosecutor

17 shall on request permit the Defence to inspect any books, documents,

18 photographs, and tangible objects in the Prosecutor's custody or control

19 which are material to the preparation of the defence or are intended for

20 use by the Prosecutor as evidence at trial or were obtained from or

21 belonged to the accused."

22 Now, during the last Status Conference -- sorry. I apologise to

23 you. During the Status Conference of the 14th of June of 2004, pursuant

24 to an ad hoc request made by the accused under Rule 66(B), the Trial

25 Chamber ordered the Prosecution to disclose copies of all Prosecution

1 witnesses that mentioned the accused's name, and that prior to disclosing

2 any witness statement in redacted form to protect the identity of the

3 witness, those be submitted in total to the Trial Chamber for approval of

4 the redactions. As a result, the Prosecution filed a confidential and

5 partly ex parte motion for non-disclosure of names and other identifying

6 information, which it submitted to the Trial Chamber wherein -- in which

7 it submitted to the Trial Chamber 19 statements of witnesses in full and

8 the proposed redactions to them. In addition, on the 13th of August of

9 last year the Prosecution filed the Prosecution's notice of delayed

10 disclosure pursuant to Rule 66(B), in which it notified that it would

11 delay completion of the disclosure of all witness statements that mention

12 the accused until the Trial Chamber issues a decision on the motion."

13 Now, I want to make it clear that we will be issuing a decision

14 on the 27th July, 2004, motion shortly. In view of this, do you wish to

15 add anything with respect to disclosure under Rule 66(B)? And I'm making

16 it clear that this will be the final opportunity that you have in making

17 submissions on this before we proceed with our decision, which is, I must

18 say, in an advanced stage, although that of course leaves open enough and

19 sufficient room for any further and final submissions that you may have.

20 Yes, Mr. Saxon.

21 MR. SAXON: Simply one very brief comment, Your Honour, something

22 that you have probably already taken into consideration that of course

23 the Prosecution's compliance with any decision or order rendered based on

24 the motions of last summer under Rule 66(B) will of course be affected by

25 the Trial Chamber's decision regarding the issues of the propriety of

1 disclosure in electronic form and in a language other than the accused's

2 native language. So we would simply refer the Chamber and the accused to

3 our response submitted on the 23rd of November, 2004, to the accused's

4 request for disclosure of materials in written form and in Serbian,

5 simply because all of those arguments form part of this picture.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

7 Mr. Seselj.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know how many times I have

9 to repeat this. I will never in my life accept any kind of paper which

10 is not in Serbian. All I want is exclusively documents in Serbian,

11 everything: motions, requests, any documents. And that on paper, and

12 videotapes, because that is a form of evidence that I recognise as being

13 a suitable method for court use and court proceedings.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Seselj. As I said, the decision

15 of the Tribunal, you can expect it very shortly, and that will be

16 restricted to on -- to the 27th of July, 2004, motion. Then there is the

17 Rule 65 ter material matters. This is a long provision, but I suppose I

18 can easily without the need of reading the entire provision divide it

19 into two parts. The first part I would refer to the pre-trial brief that

20 was filed by the Prosecution on the 14th of December, 2004, to which we

21 have an initial reply as I explained before by the accused. The matter

22 has been debated here. I can safely state that we are far from having

23 reached a stage when we can start dealing with this pre-trial brief

24 precisely because of some of the submissions that have been made by the

25 accused. So there is no further discussion on that for the time being.

1 Then there is under 65 ter (E)(ii), the Prosecution is expected

2 under this provision to submit a list of the name and pseudonym of each

3 witness, the summary of the facts of -- on which each witness will

4 testify and so on and so forth. I refer to previous Status Conferences

5 where this matter was already brought up. During previous Status

6 Conferences, you had submitted or you had indicated that you would be

7 providing a witness list after protective measures were in place.

8 We have handed down a protective measures decision on the 21st of

9 December, 2004. I am fully aware that you have indicated that you may be

10 forthcoming with further requests for further protective measures with

11 regard to other witnesses and I am also aware that you have filed a

12 motion to amend the indictment, which might have a bearing on the list of

13 witnesses that you intend to produce.

14 However, what is the position now?

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, you have just mentioned the two

16 reasons that -- what we are awaiting at the moment, that's the -- that's

17 your decision on our motion to leave to amend the indictment. And of

18 course it has a bearing because it will be more witnesses than on the

19 witness list. And secondly, as Mr. Saxon already mentioned, this week we

20 will file an additional motion for protective measures. It relates to

21 your order and directives in your decision of the 16th of December. And

22 very few additional witnesses, actually, for which we now will ask also

23 for protective measures.

24 However, I also have to say that our works were delayed for a

25 while because our team had to deal with other cases as well and also one

1 of the crucial team members was sick for a while. Therefore we are, I

2 can say, about a month's delayed, behind our own internal deadlines. But

3 we are able to provide everything, that is the witness list and the

4 exhibit list by February -- sorry, by April, by April, for -- we could

5 provide a provisional witness list, we could provide a provisional

6 witness list without knowing whether our amendment request is granted,

7 but we don't think that is very practical.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I beg to differ completely, Madam. I think it will

9 be extremely helpful, not only for the accused but also for the Trial

10 Chamber to know more or less where it stands in this particular area. So

11 I would like to know how much time you would require to be in a position

12 to file a provisional indication -- provisional witness list, taking into

13 consideration that you already have a decision, quite a comprehensive

14 decision on protective measures. We are talking about the 21st of

15 December. Forget for the time being that you are filing another one.

16 Forget that you have the motion for the indictment pending. Please do

17 come forward with a provisional list because we need to have that in

18 place.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can file a provisional

20 witness list in February.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: In February, that's a whole month.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would say --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mid-February?

24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mid-February, yes.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And you also had indicated that you would be

1 later on in a position to provide an exhibit list. I do recall that you

2 had stated that you think that this would be more feasible as we approach

3 closer to the trial date itself, but in the meantime I suppose that we

4 shouldn't leave it entirely until then. And any information that you

5 already are sure about, you should let the accused be aware of and also

6 the Trial Chamber because I think we need to know in advance what we are

7 talking about. I mean, the -- irrespective of the fact that there is a

8 motion seeking to amend the indictment, for the time being I think it is

9 imperative for us to do our planning properly to know the extent of this

10 trial.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can also file a provisional

12 exhibit list by mid-February --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Because our exhibit list is quite lengthy

15 and well-advanced. We are awaiting outstanding translations, though, so

16 it will be when we provide the provisional witness list we may be able to

17 also disclose -- because we have to disclose our exhibits to the accused,

18 it may be that we can disclose it only in one language for the time

19 being. So that is the outstanding translation issue. But we are ready

20 and in a position to file our provisional exhibits list by mid-February.

21 We can do it together, witness list and exhibit list.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you.

23 Mr. Seselj, I don't know whether you want to comment on this part

24 that we have just dealt with. Yes, go ahead.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am astonished by the fact that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 one of the arguments of the Prosecution as to why they are late in

2 carrying out some of their obligations, the fact that a member of the

3 Prosecution team was sick. This is unheard of, astonishing, and wrong.

4 What do I care that one of you is sick? One of you may die, but that is

5 your personal affair. This is a private affair, somebody gets sick,

6 somebody dies, whatever. What does that have to do with me? You are an

7 institution, the Prosecution. If one of your people is not there, then

8 the rest of the team continues. I am here on my own. I don't even have

9 a team. They won't let me have a team and I am never late. I think you

10 will agree with me, Mr. Agius, that I never did anything to delay the

11 beginning of this trial. Not a single one of my motions has impeded the

12 trial or extended the beginning of the trial in any way. You never know

13 what may befall you: foul pests, bird flu, all sorts of diseases. So is

14 that going to delay the trial further?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't want to comment on this. But there is a

16 lot of validity in what Mr. Seselj has said. Relatively speaking the

17 Prosecution always and in all cases has much more -- definitely much more

18 resources at its disposal than the Defence usually has, even when it is a

19 accused plus lead counsel, co-counsel, assistant legal officer or

20 assistant counsel and whatever. So in future when one of the team is

21 indisposed, please do not come forward as that as an excuse for delaying

22 disclosure or delaying anything in particular. I'm sure if you address

23 the matter to your superiors, everything will be done to address that

24 problem and try to meet deadlines.

25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, let me just mention this: We

1 did not violate any deadline.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not saying that you did --

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: At all. And if we did have a firm deadline,

4 we would have achieved this and we would have asked for additional staff.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: However, as we did not have a deadline, just

7 an internal deadline for us, there was no need for us to do that.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: We now come to Rule 68 material, which is

9 disclosure of so-called exculpatory and other material. I know that we

10 have addressed this before and that it seems to be an ongoing process,

11 sometimes contested by the accused as being unsatisfactory. And I also

12 know that much of it relates and depends on the questions of electronic

13 disclosure and translation of documents which was addressed earlier and

14 which for the time being remains undecided. Do you wish to add anything

15 to what is already known on Rule 68 material? Yes, Mr. Saxon.

16 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour, not at this time.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to point out once again the

19 question of disclosing exculpatory material. About two months ago the

20 Prosecution submitted a great deal of this material to me, but only

21 source material. Many of these documents are invaluable for my defence,

22 for example, the statement of General Panic, first commander of the 1st

23 Belgrade army district and then chief of staff of the General Staff. And

24 he says that all the volunteers of the Serb radical party were under JNA

25 control. I need the entirety of all these statements, especially the

1 statement of Zivita Panic. Unfortunately he's no longer alive and I need

2 his statement now. Don't let the Prosecution make their own selection

3 for what I may be interested in in one statement or another. I need to

4 look at the entire statement and see what I need. And secondly, why are

5 you avoiding video footage? If you are hearing witnesses anyway, for

6 example the things they wanted to give me in electronic form the other

7 day, they could have given this all to me on video, all these statements.

8 They could be exculpatory for me. This is why they are doing it. They

9 are intentionally doing so in order to make my defence more difficult or

10 to force me to accept electronic material. I know what kind of danger

11 lurks behind that and I know what kind of things can happen in practice.

12 That's why I don't want to accept anything in electronic form. But video

13 material, yes. All these documents you tried to give me in electronic

14 form, give them to me as video recordings. All these were witness

15 statements because I glanced through all this as I refused to accept

16 these floppy disks.

17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

19 MR. SAXON: May the Prosecution respond briefly?

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This is the purpose of the Status Conference,

21 actually, to have you confront one another and if necessary clear the

22 air. If it can be cleared.

23 MR. SAXON: Thank you.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: If it can be cleared.

25 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. As the accused should be

1 aware by now, as he has become familiar with the jurisprudence of this

2 Tribunal, the Trial Chambers of this Tribunal has consistently stated

3 that it is for the Prosecution to make the initial decision as to what

4 material may or may not be exculpatory and therefore subject to

5 disclosure under Rule 68. And if the accused believes that the

6 Prosecution in this case has not fulfilled its Rule 68 obligations, he

7 should present clear evidence demonstrating that. The Prosecution has,

8 illustrated in various disclosure reports that it has filed with the

9 Chamber, has been systematically examining collections and identifying

10 material that may be exculpatory for this accused. Our intentions in

11 giving -- in providing this material in electronic form, Your Honour,

12 contrary to what the accused has just said, has not been to hide anything

13 from this accused. On the contrary, the Prosecution seeks to facilitate

14 the accused's preparation of his defence by providing potentially

15 exculpatory material to him in electronic form.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

17 Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Seselj, or should we leave it

18 at that?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, just I just want to present

20 one fact. I know for certain that all the interviews conducted by the

21 Prosecution were done with video footage, filmed. Perhaps some of the

22 first interviews just had an audio recording, but otherwise everything

23 was on videotape. Why should they not provide me with the complete video

24 footage? That is the key question. Why do they have the video footage

25 and why do they transform it into electronic form and combine it with a

1 lot of other things? I know they are trying to play a trick on me there,

2 instead of providing me with original videotapes. In certain cases I

3 have indeed received videotapes and there is never any problem in me

4 accepting those. Then suddenly they started this electronic form. Well,

5 I'm not going to accept electronic form. Give me the video footage on

6 videotape.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Without prejudice as to whether you should or

8 shouldn't, but is what Mr. Seselj contending here correct?

9 MR. SAXON: Well, when you asked --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words --

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any

12 interpretation at the moment.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I want to know whether he is receiving

14 interpretation now. So please translate what I am saying and if you

15 are --

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I am now but it's very -- the

17 volume is down.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Can the usher please help the -- or the

19 technicians, I don't know. If there is a -- there is a button, Mr.

20 Seselj, which increases the volume.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's fine now, yes.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you. So I will repeat

23 what I was saying. Without prejudice as to whether you should or

24 shouldn't disclose what has been referred to by Mr. Seselj, is what he

25 has suggested correct? In other words, do you have at your disposal

1 video recordings of what you have submitted in electronic format on DVDs

2 in other words, or CDs?

3 MR. SAXON: Only in respect, Your Honour, to certain witness

4 interviews.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And would you have a problem in disclosing those in

6 video format? If it is possible, why create issues unnecessarily?

7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, your question raises several issues and

8 I need to address each one of them. First of all, the Prosecution will

9 and has to date fulfilled or attempted to fulfil to the best of its

10 ability all of its disclosure obligations. For example, under Rule 68 --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, Mr. Saxon. I'm not inquiring into that, I'm

12 not discussing that, and I don't wish you to discuss that. What is an

13 issue is one simple matter that has been raised by the accused. He says

14 that you have attempted to disclose to me in electronic format

15 information which is exculpatory and which you should have in video

16 format. I would have no objection in accepting it in video format. I

17 have objection in accepting it in electronic format.

18 My question to you is the following: Is what he is stating

19 correct? Do you have this material in video format? And if you have

20 this material in video format, could I invite you - you don't need to

21 answer now - but could I invite you and after consultations with your

22 superior, is it necessary to supply the same material in video format

23 which would create less problems to the accused and which will not be

24 taken as constituting -- as not constituting any prejudice at all to your

25 stand that you have fulfilled your obligations under the rules?

1 MR. SAXON: You asked me, Your Honour, whether it is possible.

2 The answer so that question: Yes. Technically, it is possible for the

3 Prosecution to provide materials in video format. Technically it is

4 possible. However, it is extremely time-consuming and inefficient for

5 the Prosecution to disclose material in video format because videos must

6 be copied, Your Honour, in what is referred to as real time, hour per

7 hour, two hours per two hours, tape per tape.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: You do not do that yourself. It is the technical

9 people.

10 MR. SAXON: It is not simply the technical people. It is our

11 trial support staff. It is anybody who is available to assist us with

12 this material, which I may add is a steadily shrinking number of people.

13 Where we have video material which falls under our disclosures, the OTP

14 has moved to a practice now, in every case except this one, Your Honour,

15 where we copy the video -- the entire video or the particular segment of

16 video on to a CD-ROM. It is much cheaper and it is much less

17 time-consuming. And quite frankly, it is easier for everyone to work

18 with, including the accused.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Seselj, do you require them -- if you get this

20 material in video format, do you require it with the hour, minute, and

21 second or it will be enough for you to have the video containing the

22 interviews?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It will be enough for me to have

24 the videotape of the interview itself, the minutes aren't important. It

25 is the contents that are important. And as I said before, I accept all

1 video footage. Now, the technical problems that they're going to have,

2 I'm sorry about that. Perhaps I can be of assistance. Because I have

3 time at my disposal, a lot of time. Perhaps I could help them there.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: You heard what Mr. Seselj said, the technical

5 problem that you refer to does not really arise. It's just copying the

6 footage from one tape to another. Which -- it is time-consuming for the

7 technical people but not for you.

8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, time, as you know, is money. And when

9 staff of the OTP have to spend their time on what is quite frankly now

10 outdated technology, then this entire institution suffers.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Saxon, let's not pretend to be too modern. I

12 would suggest to you before I close this area of the discussion that you

13 seriously take into account my recommendation to you and have -- I don't

14 know what we are talking about, what the volume of these tapes -- I

15 suggest to you that you seriously engage someone from the -- your team or

16 from your section, technical or otherwise, to have this video footage

17 copied and supplied to the accused. It will cost you some money, but it

18 will cost you less arguments and we can move faster I think. Very

19 shortly I will -- that closes the discussion on it. I don't want to shut

20 you down but I think I've said enough. It's a suggestion I'm making to

21 you; refer it to your superiors or discuss it amongst yourselves. Take

22 it or leave it, and obviously if you leave it there may come a time when

23 we will be deciding in a manner which could become -- which could enforce

24 it on you in any case. So let's move ahead.

25 I very shortly will address the accused to address the matters

1 relating to his conditions of detention. But before I do so, I would

2 like to know whether there are any other matters that you would like to

3 raise which perhaps I may not have addressed during this Status

4 Conference. I start with the Prosecution.

5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Nothing arises, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

7 Mr. Seselj.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two status-related issues to

9 raise. I submitted a request over a year ago to the registry of the

10 International Tribunal to finance my defence expenses. I have engaged a

11 large team of legal advisors and investigators. In my assessment they're

12 working very well and you had the opportunity of seeing a great deal of

13 what the results of their work are. $200.000 is what I requested for

14 2003. And for 2004 I paid $790.000, or rather that's what I requested.

15 Of course I cannot pay for all of that myself. I cannot afford to. I

16 have registered all my property. The members of my family will not

17 cooperate with the registry. That has been done. So that's a problem

18 that has to be resolved.

19 The second problem is the problem of registering my legal

20 advisors. The registry has persistently been trying to apply criteria to

21 my legal advisors which apply to engagement of Defence counsel. They are

22 not Defence counsel; they are my legal advisors and they do not have to

23 meet the requirements that Defence counsel to. The Prosecution in

24 support of the registry when hindering my defence says that legal

25 advisors cannot be registered. But of course they can, and of course

1 they should. Their names should be registered to that the International

2 Tribunal could know that these are persons to whom I've submitted

3 confidential materials to, something that is not supposed to be disclosed

4 to the public, but these are people that are not going to disclose this

5 material in public against my will or against the will of the Tribunal.

6 That is one matter. The second matter is I have to have unimpeded

7 communication with these persons by the way of protected telephone lines.

8 There seems to be some kind of a problem.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: There is --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You want me not to speak this loud

11 or what?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Slow down because the interpreters are finding it

13 difficult to catch up with you and as I can understand a little bit of

14 your language, too, sometimes we get blanks. So slow down, please.

15 Speak more slowly, in other words.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the kind of problem I had

19 only recently. You see, I carry out intensive preparations for pre-trial

20 motions and also I'm preparing my defence to start the trial. I intend

21 to present my defence immediately after the opening statement of the

22 Prosecution. And within the presentation of my defence I planned to show

23 here a video film of three hours. It contains a variety of material that

24 we filmed at various fronts, in various situations during the war, and

25 this documents the basic principles of my defence. I have a legal

1 advisor who is a true expert in such matters. This is Aleksandar Vucic

2 and I asked for him to visit me so that he could tell me where this

3 matter is and so that I could instruct him how to edit all this video

4 footage because this is an abundance of material and we have to put --

5 reduce this to three hours only. However, the registry has banned me

6 from seeing Aleksandar Vucic. They won't let him visit me. I don't know

7 how to do this on my own. I don't have the right conditions for this in

8 prison. I cannot entrust this to anyone else. I trust him and therefore

9 I would entrust him with this. And therefore I'm sure that the

10 Prosecution would love to have all this material in their hands, but I'm

11 not to give this to the Prosecution before I disclose it here

12 exclusively. And then the Prosecution will familiarise itself with this

13 film. Of course, once this film is shown to the courtroom, I'm going to

14 give them this footage just before I show the footage.

15 However, before that I have to be given the right to receive

16 visits from my legal advisors so I can instruct them what they're

17 supposed to do, how they're supposed to do.

18 And I must have the right to talk to my legal advisors over the

19 telephone without anybody else listening in. However, so far I have been

20 able to talk to them only over phones that are officially being listened

21 to, as we have been informed. And sometimes when we speak on the

22 telephone we can hear another person from prison, another indictee,

23 another accused person speak to members of his family because obviously

24 something goes wrong. I listened to a conversation between Mr. Milosevic

25 and a person close to him recently and it happened by sheer accident. I

1 went into the telephone booth and I took the receiver and I heard him

2 talking to a particular person on a particular day. And it went on for a

3 long time. That is why I insist that I can communicate with my legal

4 advisors, that they can visit me regularly, so I can instruct them how

5 they are supposed to work. I should be able to communicate with them on

6 a confidential basis too, without anybody listening in so the

7 Prosecution, among others, would not be aware of my next move so that

8 they could not match it with moves of their own.

9 Those are the issues I had to raise, Mr. Agius. Those are the

10 status-related issues.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Seselj. The Pre-Trial Judge orders

12 that this section of the proceedings of the transcript be communicated to

13 the registrar with reference only and in particular to matters related to

14 legal representation of the accused and the relative financing. The

15 registrar is being requested to file with the Trial Chamber within a week

16 from today an update on any negotiations or discussions that have been

17 going on between it -- between the registry or between the appropriate

18 section in the registry dealing with legal representation and financing

19 of same and the accused.

20 With regard obviously to matters relating to whether your

21 conversations should be tapped or not, Mr. Seselj, I'm afraid I cannot go

22 into the matter myself, since that is something that is decided

23 exclusively by the commandant in your unit. I know what your feelings

24 can be on this matter, particularly as it, according to you, sometimes

25 rightly so may pertain to your discussions with persons you consider to

1 be your legal advisors and confidentiality that relates to these matters.

2 This is something which is of course of concern, not only to you but also

3 to us. But rules are what they are and it is not within the jurisdiction

4 of the Pre-Trial Chamber to tell the commander when not to monitor

5 telephone conversations. Much depends obviously on the solution that can

6 or should be found to the question of representation. And that in turn

7 depends on the fact that you have decided to defend yourself. I mean, I

8 would suggest that you continue discussing this with the registrar.

9 Unfortunately the Trial Chamber itself cannot appoint counsel; it's the

10 registrar that does that. And the registrar is also bound by the rules.

11 But I'm referring this section of this part of the transcript to the

12 registrar. I will have an update, and that will put me in a better

13 position to know what's going on or what has gone on particularly between

14 the registrar and yourself in matters relating to representation.

15 I now call upon you to address matters relating to your state of

16 detention. I want particularly to know whether you are being treated

17 well over there or whether you have any complaints. At the same time, I

18 need to draw your attention to the fact that there are rules governing

19 the detention of persons awaiting trial which also allow room or space

20 for complaints to be made directly to the authorities in the Detention

21 Unit. However, if you have anything you would like to state here in the

22 Status Conference, please do so. You are also asked if you have matters

23 relating to -- no translation again.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. -- no, no, yes. That's fine.

25 I thought you had finished what you were saying and I started to respond.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Finally any matter you would like to address

2 relating to your health, if you have any. And in that area, on that

3 score, if you need to discuss anything relating to health in closed

4 session or in private session, please tell me straight away and we will

5 go into private session when discussing that. Go ahead, Mr. Seselj.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nothing for private session, Mr.

7 Agius. But I must highlight two problems regarding the general

8 conditions of detention. I'm sure you know that in detention we have all

9 together Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians, and that there were never any

10 problems along those lines. There is sometimes other types of problems,

11 but never this type in view of that make-up. But all of us together are

12 facing a situation today where the Dutch are stealing from us, where --

13 from the canteen where we have -- are able to buy things and prices are

14 five or six times higher than in ordinary shops. I have complained about

15 this to the registry and have not received a response. That is what I

16 wanted to bring up at this status conference, the high prices.

17 Now, as a man who is a religiously tolerant, and that has been

18 proved; I respect everybody's religious sentiments, I also have to draw

19 your attention to one more matter, in view of the fact that Muslims in

20 detention don't seem to have dared to publicise this issue and I have to

21 state it here in public because somebody who respects everyone else's

22 religious feelings, for the Ramadan Bajram festivity which took place in

23 November, the Muslim detainees had a roasted lamb brought in whereas they

24 were supplied with a roasted pig. That was a great scandal in the

25 Detention Unit. I assume that is all within the Dutch campaign launched

1 against foreigners and people of different religions. This was such a

2 terrible event that I think it is a sufficient reason that this Detention

3 Unit in Holland be moved to a more religiously tolerant country.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: As of your health, do you have any complaints to

5 raise, other than the colour of my gown?

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, none. No health problems.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Registrar, again I would request that this part

8 of the transcript be communicated to the commandant of the Detention

9 Unit. And again, within a week I request him to file any comments he

10 might have on these -- remarks he might have on these matters.

11 I don't think there is anything else to deal with, which

12 basically means that we can safely bring this Status Conference to an end

13 here. The next Status Conference will be summoned within the 120-day

14 limit established by the rules or earlier if there is a specific need for

15 it. I thank you all.

16 --- Whereupon the Status Conference

17 adjourned at 11.34 a.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25