Seselj Declares He Will Never Abandon Goal to Create Greater Serbia

In a carefully controlled status conference in the case of Prosecutor vs. Vojislav Seselj, Judge Carmel Agius was determined to limit the parties to relevant issues concerning progress of pretrial matters and the Accused's health and conditions of confinement. His concern was to prevent Seselj, who is defending himself, from attempting to hijack the proceedings to serve his political agenda. During the hearing, the Judge's concern to limit submissions broadened to include protecting Seselj from himself.

Responding to the Prosecutor's suggestion that there appear to be areas on which the parties agree (and, therefore, the Prosecution would not have to present evidence), the Accused vehemently protested: 'The Serbian Radical Party (which he founded) and I will never abandon the objective to create a Greater Serbia. . . .' Judge Agius quickly interrupted, cautioning Seselj that he should consult with counsel before responding: 'I don't want you to jump into statements that can be used against you later.' Seselj has been charged with participation in a joint criminal enterprise to forcibly remove non-Serbs from substantial areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as Vojvodina in Serbia. These areas largely coincide with what Seselj refers to as 'Greater Serbia.' His statement in court could be considered an admission.

The Judge took care to explain several legal points to Seselj, recognizing that he is not a lawyer. (Though he studied law at university, he has not practiced the profession.) Seselj protested that the Registrar has prohibited him from contacting his legal advisors, though the Accused refuses to grant them power of attorney so they may be properly registered with the Court. Moreover, as Judge Agius reminded him, the Trial Chamber has no authority over the Registrar's actions.

Seselj also demanded that all materials provided to him be in 'the Serbian language' (except in this proceeding, referred to in the ICTY as 'BCS' for 'Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian') and on paper, not electronically. He maintains he cannot understand English and neither has a computer nor knows how to use one. The Prosecutor, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, offered to play a video of an interview Seselj gave in English where he apparently has no difficulty understanding the language and responding in it. She also noted that someone can assist him in using a computer. The Court declined viewing the video at this time.

The Accused has also requested the Prosecutor to provide him with copies of all statements or testimonies in other proceedings where his name is mentioned. Noting they have identified about 1000 such documents, the Prosecutor informed the Court that the OTP (Office of the Prosecutor) believes the Accused is entitled to them, subject to redactions to protect certain witnesses. The issue is whether they must be provided to Seselj in English and on paper.

While Judge Agius reserved a decision on these issues, he noted that an accused should always be in a position to follow the proceedings, including those in document form. The rules provide that disclosure of witness statements and other material on which the prosecution intends to rely at trial in support of the charges must be provided to the Accused in a language he understands. However, the ICTY rule requiring the prosecution to provide an accused with all potentially exculpatory material (i.e. material tending to disprove the charges) does not require that it be in a language the Accused can understand. The Court noted the discrepancy, but deemed it premature to make any decision.

The Accused has also requested from the Registrar copies in Serbian of all ICTY judgements and decisions. Since he is representing himself, he maintains that he must be familiar with all ICTY jurisprudence. While this is not strictly a matter for the pretrial judge, Judge Agius noted that the Registrar has provided some of the requested material and is working to translate more. Only if the Accused feels aggrieved by an action of the Registrar may he seek review in a proper motion, the Judge said.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff advised the Court that the Prosecution plans to call 63 lives witnesses and 40 additional '92 bis' witnesses to establish the crime base. ICTY Rule 92bis provides a mechanism for submitting evidence in writing where it merely supports live evidence already given or concerns background or historical matters. Since Seselj is charged with crimes that occurred as part of a joint criminal enterprise in which he allegedly participated, the prosecution will focus live evidence on his participation, while establishing the crimes via written statements. Seselj declared he would oppose all evidence not presented in court where he can cross examine the witnesses. The Judge said any ruling on the matter was premature.

The Prosecutor also raised the issue of its intent to appeal the Trial Chamber's recent decision eliminating crimes in Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia from the indictment. Facing a dilemma of which of two procedures to follow in bringing the appeal, the OTP filed a motion asking Judge Agius to reserve the method that requires initial certification from the Trial Chamber, while it pursues direct appeal. If the Appeals Chamber refuses to hear the Prosecution's appeal for the reason that it should have obtained Trial Chamber certification, the Prosecution would have lost the opportunity to request Trial Chamber certification due to expiration of the time limit for filing. Judge Agius orally denied the Prosecution's request. [For further discussion, see CIJ Report, 'Will Seselj Face Charges for Vojvodina Ethnic Cleansing? ICTY Rules Provide Dilemma for Prosecution,' June 15, 2004]

Finally, the Court turned to the Accused to inquire about his mental and physical condition, directing him to be brief and not to make a political issue out of it 'because I will stop you.' Denying that he's ever made a political speech in court, Seselj launched into a harangue against Carla Del Ponte, the ICTY Public Information Office and the independent SENSE News Agency (incorrectly claiming it was part of the ICTY). Since he claimed these sources had all mentioned his name in a negative context or, in the case of SENSE, grossly misrepresented his last status conference, he demanded that he be given the same right to address the public once a month. Though Judge Agius stopped him, the Accused complained that he was being denied the right to continue with his professional life. Pretrial detention, he said, should be solely for the purpose of preventing escape, the destruction of evidence or harassment of witnesses. He is being denied both his professional and private life, he maintained, objecting to the monitoring of his conversations.

Interrupting the Accused once again, Judge Agius reminded him that he has a remedy if he objects to the Registrar's orders -- by appealing to the President of the Tribunal. It is not within the jurisdiction of the trial chamber. Moreover, the Judge said, 'You are no longer in the position you were before you surrendered. You are a detainee.'

Making one last try, Seselj told the Judge his health is very poor because he has had no contact with his family for six months since the warden of the Detention Unit requires him to make telephone calls in his office, a restriction the Accused finds 'humiliating.' Emphasizing that no disciplinary action has ever been brought against him, Seselj repeated his plea for the Judge to make it possible for him to have a press conference in the Detention Unit within the next 10 days (when the Serbian presidential election occurs) so that he might support Tomislav Nikolic, Radical Party candidate for President of Serbia. 'It has nothing to do with the trial,' Seselj concluded. 'Nor me,' responded the Judge and adjourned the proceeding.