ICTY: Taxpayers to finance Seselj’s defence

The controversial decision, issued July 30, means that the tribunal’s legal aid fund will have to finance Seselj’s defence – even though he chose to represent himself at the trial.

The ruling, which is bound to raise eyebrows among international law experts, means that Seselj and his “expert team” of assistants could be paid more than 380,000 euro for the pre-trial preparation of the case only. Much more could follow once the trial commences.

The order, signed by French judge Jean-Claude Antonetti, overruled the tribunal Registry’s argument that it would be illegal to use public funds to pay out the team gathered around Seselj as the indictee insisted he would conduct his own defence.

Seselj has repeatedly refused to accept court-appointed lawyers and defence counsel – which the tribunal is obliged to provide – claiming that he was capable of mounting his own defence in the case together with the “expert team”.

But the expert team gathered around Seselj is made up of 27 individuals including leading figures of the SRS and its supporters.

Among others the team is made up of senior SRS leadership figures Tomislav Nikolic and Aleksandar Vucic, Mirko Blagojevic, president of the “SRS Dr Vojislav Seselj” party in the Bosnian entity of Republika srpska, Gordana Pop Lazic and Dragan Todorovic, SRS members and Petar Jojic, SRS member and the last minister of justice in the government of Slobodan Milosevic.

The initial shock of hearing the news left some victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina speechless.

Ema Cekic, representative of the missing persons from Vogosca near Sarajevo said that such a decision represents “a catastrophe for the victims”.

Ahmet Grahic, representative of the victims from Zvornik for which Seselj is accused, said that after such decision “nothing could surprise the victims any longer – including if no one else faced justice”.

Seselj, who in February 2003 surrendered to face charges of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war committed in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, has successfully delayed the start of his trial for four years.

In October 2003, Seselj asked the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to finance his defence, claiming he was indigent. However the financial investigator appointed by the Registrar was not allowed to conduct an interview with Seselj’s wife and mother, which he was obliged to do by the ICTY’s rules.

In 2004, 2005 and 2006 Seselj submitted a number of invoices to the Registry to request payment for the pre-trial defence work done, at one point claiming up to 6,395,400 US dollars of reimbursements.

The Registrar refused to pay out the cash arguing that any payment was “conditioned upon his indigence and can only be done through the assignment of counsel”.

In a reply to an appeal against this decision the Registry wrote that “the notion of legal aid in jurisdictions through the world is equated with the assignment of defence counsel to an indigent accused and the coverage of contingent court fees and alike.

“There is no legal aid system known to the Registrar that offers the option to disburse funds directly or indirectly to a self-represented accused.”

The Registry warned that ruling in favour of Seselj would set “a dangerous precedent for this and other international tribunals”.

“It will make it possible for accused persons to circumvent the legal aid system by electing to represent themselves and have people otherwise not eligible for assignment as counsel (e.g. relatives or close associates of the accused) remunerated by the tribunal under the disguise of acting as assistants to a self-represented accused,” the Registry argued.

However, Judge Antonetti ruled after Seselj’s appeal that the Registry must find a way to pay out the legal aid fees due to Seselj¹s defence team.

He instructed the Registry to do so as soon as Seselj has provided full proof that he cannot finance his own defence, and as soon as the accused designates his own representative who fulfils the rules envisaged by the ICTY.