In the document, the judge notes that the accused refused to communicate with one of the experts, cardiologist, whose nationality, in the judge’s view, creates a “problem”.
The judge recalls that he was “almost certain that the accused would challenge the British cardiologist given what he had previously held against members of NATO who bombed the Serbia”.
He further opined that it would have been wiser if the Registry had appointed a cardiologist of Russian nationality since the objective for the Chamber was to have a complete view of the health of the accused, especially his heart problems.
Antonetti has stressed that the judges of the Tribunal shall avoid any risk in this matter especially in light of the Slobodan Milosevic’s case.
The judge states that there is risk that the accused might die suddenly. A post mortem might then reveal that the heart and arteries of the accused were in ‘critical condition’, and this could have been prevented,
He noted that he “felt obliged” to make opinion in this case public since, if the case “ends in tragedy”, all those involved may be individually responsible for the outcome.
The judge concluded that the Registrar shall appoint a cardiologist of a nationality other than American or British. The most productive way, in his view, would be to ask the accused to choose an expert from the Registrar’s list.
Šešelj, Observations du Président de la Chambre, le Juge Jean Claude Antonetti, Relatives aux Écritures du Greffe Prises en Application de l’Article 33 B) du Règlement Concernant la Désignation d’Experts, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 28 March 2011.It is noteworthy that earlier, in other case where judge Antonetti is also presiding (Prlić et al.), one of the Defence counsel applied to the President of the Tribunal to intervene because, in his opinion, the Trial Chamber is incapable to manage the case.
In particular, the counsel referred to the “unusually large number of dissenting opinions that Presiding Judge Antonetti has rendered in this case (i.e. at least 50)” and opined that this “is indicative of an intractable division on the Bench bordering on antipathy and suggestive of the possibility that the Trial Chamber is incapable of acting in the collegial manner that proper deliberation requires.”
Prlić et al., Jadranko Prlić’s Request for the President to Convene an Independent Panel of Judges or to Consult with the Bureau to Determine Whether this Trial Chamber Can Properly Function in Deliberating and Rendering a Fair Judgement, Case No. IT-04-74-T, Counsel for Jadranko Prlić, 14 December 2010.