Lawyer Warns Seselj Trial May Collapse

A former lawyer in the war crimes trial of Vojislav Seselj has warned that it could be about to fall apart following judges’ decision to suspend proceedings.



Ex-legal officer Alexander Zahar told IWPR that the witness intimidation allegations against Seselj – which prompted judges to put his war crimes trial on hold – were likely to lead to judges imposing counsel on the accused during separate contempt of court proceedings to be heard against him.



If they do so, Zahar said, then there is a strong possibility that the defendant will protest their decision by going on hunger strike – a tactic he has employed in the past which could jeopardise the resumption of war crimes proceedings.



“The big question is whether we'll ever get back to the original [war crimes] trial. Whether that will ever resume,” said Zahar, who worked on the case under Judge Alphons Orie until December 2006.



Judges suspended Seselj’s war crimes trial on February 11 indefinitely at the prosecutors’ request, with only seven hours of their case remaining. The prosecutors alleged that witnesses were being intimidated.



“We believe, Your Honours, that there is clear evidence that the proceedings are being interfered with and the integrity of the proceedings is being compromised,” Prosecutor Daryl Mundis told judges on January 15.



The tribunal itself has acknowledged fears that Seselj may have intimidated witnesses and in September 2008 decided to monitor all his communication from his prison cell in The Hague.



His privileged communication with one member of his legal team was restored by the judges in December.



Last week’s suspension came shortly after judges decided on January 21 to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defendant for allegedly revealing the names of three protected witnesses in a book he published during the trial.



Seselj, together with his legal advisers in Serbia, has denied intimidating witnesses and said he will fight the contempt charges. If convicted, he could face seven years in jail or a 100,000 euro fine or both, in addition to any sentence handed down on the war crimes charges.



The defendant, who remains the leader of the recently divided Serbian Radical Party, SRS, is on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Bosnia between 1991 and 1993.



The charges against him include murder, torture and persecution committed as he allegedly sought to expel non-Serbs and create a so-called Greater Serbia.



Seselj is representing himself during his trial. He does, however, have legal advisers, one of whom, Zoran Krasic, has told IWPR that his client also planned to defend himself in the contempt of court proceedings.



Some observers suggest that judges may impose counsel on the defendant to prevent any possibility of him abusing the privileged communication allowed to him as a self-representing defendant.



But they also acknowledge that Seselj has repeatedly opposed any attempt to assign him a lawyer.



The last time the trial chamber – then composed of different judges – imposed counsel on the defendant, in the autumn of 2006, he went on hunger strike until the appeals chamber overturned the ruling.



In July 2008, prosecutors sought to assign counsel again, prompting Seselj to protest once more.



“My right to defence is inalienable,” he told judges on August 16, 2008. “If that right is taken away from me, there will be no proceedings, or, rather, there will be proceedings, but in absentia, posthumously.”



Some cast doubt over the logic of judges imposing counsel on Seselj if the aim is only to prevent disclosure of confidential material in his case.



Luka Misetic, a tribunal defence counsel, “The fact that he was able to write a book revealing the identities of protected witnesses…it would seem to me he could write a book regardless of whether he is representing himself or not.



“The issue is whether you can use the rights to self-representation as a means of punishing him for conduct that otherwise is not tied to the fact that he is self-represented, which I don’t think would be proper.”



Nonetheless, Zahar said he thinks it’s highly probable that judges will impose a lawyer on Seselj. “It is very likely that in the contempt of court case, judges are going to say that they will not allow him to represent himself in this trial, and put restrictions on his communications,” he said.



Goran Sluiter, a professor of international law at Amsterdam University, said that judges should have taken away Seselj’s right to represent himself long ago, and restricted his communication from the prison to allow the trial to proceed.



Sluiter argued that bringing the contempt of court charges against the accused was unnecessary in the context of far more serious war crimes charges.



Instead of prosecuting him for contempt, judges should just have assigned counsel to the defendant, he said.



“If contempt issues like these arise the most obvious reaction to me would be immediate assignment of counsel and immediate restriction of communication,” said Sluiter.



According to Sluiter, the future of the war crimes trial is now uncertain, and he was “very pessimistic” about how it will turn out.



He blamed tribunal judges for not taking a firmer hand with the accused. “I think [the judges] have been far too lenient in relation to Mr Seselj,” said Sluiter.



However, he said that if Seselj goes on hunger strike this time, the tribunal would not make the concessions it made two years ago when the appeals judges gave him back his right to self-representation.



“I think now if there is any hunger strike or any other form of threat.. from Mr Seselj there will be no response [from judges],” he said.



“If a defendant takes the position to go on hunger strike, then I think that’s the way it is, but the court should not give in to it.”



Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.