Seselj responds to Hague Tribunal

BELGRADE -- Vojislav Seselj "did not violate the Hague Trial Chamber's order on his provisional release," it is stated in his response to the tribunal's Appeals Chamber.

Seselj responds to Hague Tribunal

BELGRADE -- Vojislav Seselj "did not violate the Hague Trial Chamber's order on his provisional release," it is stated in his response to the tribunal's Appeals Chamber.

Close the entire text of the article here

Seselj's response, handed out to the media on Wednesday by his Serb Radical Party (SRS), will be given to the tribunal's representatives in Belgrade on Thursday. Seselj will also hold a news conference in the afternoon of the same day.

The submission, drafted by the members of the expert team for the defense Seselj - Vjerica Rade, Nemanja Sarovic, Zoran Krasic and Milan Terzic - states that Seselj in no way violated the Trial Chamber's order on provisional release.

"It is also evident from the submission of Prosecutor Serge Brammertz, who has offered no argument to support his desire for Vojislav Seselj to be returned indefinitely the custody of the ICTY (Hague Tribunal)," said the brief of Seselj's expert team.

The document noted that the Trial Chamber's November 6, 2014 order enabled Seselj's provisional release and return to Serbia, without Seselj requesting it and without any conditions set before him.

Because of this, the brief states, Seselj could not violate any conditions, considering it is "not possible to violate non-existent conditions."

It is further indicated that international law provides for abolishing of detention when there is no danger that the criminal offense will be repeated, and when there is no danger of flight.

In the case of Seselj, it is argued, the offense for which he is accused cannot be repeated, and considering that he has no passport, he also cannot flee Serbia.

It is further stated that Seselj did not influence any of the witnesses "with a single word or gesture," as this was impossible because the last witness in his trial was heard on July 7, 2010, while the presentation of the closing arguments ended on March 20, 2012.

A first instance verdict has been awaited since, his legal team observed.

If there had been any influence, the prosecution would have to name the witness and the manner in which they had been influenced, it was stated.