"It would be best if Seselj surrendered"

"We are dealing with Seselj in 2015, instead of dealing with severe economic problems and reforms that we are implementing," observed Ljajic.

No, you 'deal' with Seselj only if you make a deal out of it. Simply send him back to the Hague, and the deal is done. His release was temporary, everyone knew it. And if he doesn't want to go back voluntarily, the Serbian MP can safely guide him to the plane - no big deal. And in this case, it's clear that he won't released temporarily any more in future.

Why making such a fuzz about a single person, the leader of a party that doesn't even passed the threshold in last elections?

Funny isn't it how nobody who approves of the situation even pretends to argue that Seselj is actually guilty of anything. For them it's all politics, the Hague is nothing more than a political institution. And the same people are constantly accusing the Serbs of all kinds of bad deeds. When it comes down to what should be an instance, they are dead silent.

He went voluntarily last time, look where that got him.

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13)His release was temporary, everyone knew it.
----

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 31 March 2015 18:38)No conditions for release were presented to Seselj. Please grace us with an ICTY link to the conditions that you claim "everyone knows".

----

There you go: http://icr.icty.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/French/Order/NotIndexable/IT-03-67/MSC8655R0000441538.pdf

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13)His release was temporary, everyone knew it.
----

No conditions for release were presented to Seselj. Please grace us with an ICTY link to the conditions that you claim "everyone knows".

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13) And in this case, it's clear that he won't released temporarily any more in future.
-----

Not according to the clowns at the ICTY. You should read the 3:2 majority decision of the Appeals chamber which ordered the Trial Chamber to further delay it's deliberations on the verdict and initiate new sets of hearings!
One hearing in accordance with Rule 65(b) will include prosecutor, Seselj, Serbia, and The Netherlands, while the second hearing, also demanded by the AC clowns orders the trial chamber to initiate yet another de novo assessment for future provisional release!

Contrary to your statement, it's clear that the imbeciles of the Appeals Chamber consider additional hearings on a future provisional release more important than allowing the trial chamber to focus on delviering a final verdict that is now more than 1100 days past the end of the trial.


(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13) Why making such a fuzz about a single person,
---

Perhaps the notion that every person should have the same basic rights and when tried are first presumed innocent. Should even a single, presumed innocent, person remain incarcerated for 13 years without a verdict? Is this a fuzz (sic) to you?

He went voluntarily last time, look where that got him.
(john, 31 March 2015 19:24)
==============================
I was just about to write the same thing. Twelve years of prison and not one charge (apart from contempt of court) stuck.
Who is to say he won't spend another twelve years or die before then? How is that justice?
I wonder if a Croatian or an Albanian would be treated the same way.

(Anon, 1 April 2015 10:51) There you go: [link]
---

Merci pour l'information. I read both the French and English versions upon publication.
Note: "ATTENDU qu'en application de l'article 65 (B) du Règlement, la Chambre a recueille du gouvernement de la République de Serbie, qui a donné son accord à ce que l'Accusé soit libéré dans son territoire à condition que celui-ci se soumette aux conditions fixé par la Chambre"

ICTY translated to:
CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 65(B) of the Rules, the Chamber obtained observations from the Government of the Republic of Serbia, which agreed to the Accused being released to its territory on condition that he adheres to the conditions set by the Chamber.

No conditions were presented to the accused and you may read further Judge Niang's dissenting opinion on the same date: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tord/en/141111.pdf

"The Chamber sought the opinion of Serbia. It provided one, specifying that its cooperation was conditional on the Accused confirming that he will adhere to the Chamber's conditions. By choosing not to consult the Accused, the majority remains vague and this may in the future make Serbia's cooperation unfeasible.""

I know these are not words of the NYT or BIRN, and are "only" the words of a Judge from the trial chamber, but they may be important to your evaluation of the facts and claims about "failing media".

Paul

I don't agree - I am interested to hear the final result of the court's deliberations. There is legal process that can be bought to a (possibly) coherent end.

These are intelligent people (certainly intelligent enough to get paid a lot) who will apply their professional logic to the evidence that has been presented and documented. They may well give well considered reasons for the decisions they make. Then we can review and argue about them. If guilty, appeals can be heard.

After all these years, we may as well get the results of all this bother.

"We are dealing with Seselj in 2015, instead of dealing with severe economic problems and reforms that we are implementing," observed Ljajic.

No, you 'deal' with Seselj only if you make a deal out of it. Simply send him back to the Hague, and the deal is done. His release was temporary, everyone knew it. And if he doesn't want to go back voluntarily, the Serbian MP can safely guide him to the plane - no big deal. And in this case, it's clear that he won't released temporarily any more in future.

Why making such a fuzz about a single person, the leader of a party that doesn't even passed the threshold in last elections?

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13)His release was temporary, everyone knew it.
----

No conditions for release were presented to Seselj. Please grace us with an ICTY link to the conditions that you claim "everyone knows".

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13) And in this case, it's clear that he won't released temporarily any more in future.
-----

Not according to the clowns at the ICTY. You should read the 3:2 majority decision of the Appeals chamber which ordered the Trial Chamber to further delay it's deliberations on the verdict and initiate new sets of hearings!
One hearing in accordance with Rule 65(b) will include prosecutor, Seselj, Serbia, and The Netherlands, while the second hearing, also demanded by the AC clowns orders the trial chamber to initiate yet another de novo assessment for future provisional release!

Contrary to your statement, it's clear that the imbeciles of the Appeals Chamber consider additional hearings on a future provisional release more important than allowing the trial chamber to focus on delviering a final verdict that is now more than 1100 days past the end of the trial.


(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13) Why making such a fuzz about a single person,
---

Perhaps the notion that every person should have the same basic rights and when tried are first presumed innocent. Should even a single, presumed innocent, person remain incarcerated for 13 years without a verdict? Is this a fuzz (sic) to you?

Funny isn't it how nobody who approves of the situation even pretends to argue that Seselj is actually guilty of anything. For them it's all politics, the Hague is nothing more than a political institution. And the same people are constantly accusing the Serbs of all kinds of bad deeds. When it comes down to what should be an instance, they are dead silent.

He went voluntarily last time, look where that got him.

He went voluntarily last time, look where that got him.
(john, 31 March 2015 19:24)
==============================
I was just about to write the same thing. Twelve years of prison and not one charge (apart from contempt of court) stuck.
Who is to say he won't spend another twelve years or die before then? How is that justice?
I wonder if a Croatian or an Albanian would be treated the same way.

Paul

I don't agree - I am interested to hear the final result of the court's deliberations. There is legal process that can be bought to a (possibly) coherent end.

These are intelligent people (certainly intelligent enough to get paid a lot) who will apply their professional logic to the evidence that has been presented and documented. They may well give well considered reasons for the decisions they make. Then we can review and argue about them. If guilty, appeals can be heard.

After all these years, we may as well get the results of all this bother.

(Comm. Parrisson, 31 March 2015 12:13)His release was temporary, everyone knew it.
----

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 31 March 2015 18:38)No conditions for release were presented to Seselj. Please grace us with an ICTY link to the conditions that you claim "everyone knows".

----

There you go: http://icr.icty.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/French/Order/NotIndexable/IT-03-67/MSC8655R0000441538.pdf

(Anon, 1 April 2015 10:51) There you go: [link]
---

Merci pour l'information. I read both the French and English versions upon publication.
Note: "ATTENDU qu'en application de l'article 65 (B) du Règlement, la Chambre a recueille du gouvernement de la République de Serbie, qui a donné son accord à ce que l'Accusé soit libéré dans son territoire à condition que celui-ci se soumette aux conditions fixé par la Chambre"

ICTY translated to:
CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 65(B) of the Rules, the Chamber obtained observations from the Government of the Republic of Serbia, which agreed to the Accused being released to its territory on condition that he adheres to the conditions set by the Chamber.

No conditions were presented to the accused and you may read further Judge Niang's dissenting opinion on the same date: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tord/en/141111.pdf

"The Chamber sought the opinion of Serbia. It provided one, specifying that its cooperation was conditional on the Accused confirming that he will adhere to the Chamber's conditions. By choosing not to consult the Accused, the majority remains vague and this may in the future make Serbia's cooperation unfeasible.""

I know these are not words of the NYT or BIRN, and are "only" the words of a Judge from the trial chamber, but they may be important to your evaluation of the facts and claims about "failing media".