[3] The acquittal was appealed by prosecutors from the MICT, a United Nations Security Council agency which functions as oversight program of, and successor entity to, the ICTY.

On 11 April 2018, the Appeals Chamber partially reversed the first-instance verdict, finding Šešelj guilty of crimes against humanity for his role in instigating the deportation of Croats from Hrtkovci.

After being a tutor for freshmen, Šešelj became a course demonstrator, holding two sets of tutorials per week, helping professors with student oral exams as well as with conference papers.

[9] After learning that the 'Political Parties and Organisations' course was taught by professor Atif Purivatra, a friend and political companion of Muhić, Šešelj withdrew his application, fearing a rejection that would reflect badly on future vocational efforts.

[citation needed] In the early 1980s, Šešelj began to associate more with individuals from dissident intellectual circles in Belgrade, some of whom had Serbian nationalist political leanings.

He repeatedly held Muslim professors at the faculty of political sciences responsible for his situation, openly criticising his former friend Atif Purivatra, as well as Hasan Sušić, and Omer Ibrahimagić, for having harmed his career and denouncing them as Pan-Islamists.

He openly supported another prominent intellectual, Nenad Kecmanović, who was himself embroiled in a controversy that drew criticism from some sections of the communist nomenklatura in Bosnia due to his writings in NIN magazine.

Šešelj dissected Miljuš's master's degree thesis and accused him of plagiarising more than 40 pages in it from the published works by Marx and Edvard Kardelj.

Other faculty members and intellectuals to offer their support to Šešelj included Boro Gojković, Džemal Sokolović, Hidajet Repovac, Momir Zeković and Ina Ovadija-Musafija.

[18] In Doboj, Šešelj was taken off the train, transferred into a police Mercedes, and transported to Belgrade where he was questioned for 27 hours before being released and informed that he would be contacted again.

"[19] On 20 April 1984, he was arrested at a private apartment in Belgrade among the group of 28 individuals during the lecture given by Milovan Đilas as part of Free University, a semi-clandestine organisation that gathered intellectuals critical of the communist regime.

In mid-May 1984, Stane Dolanc, the Slovene representative in Yugoslav Presidency and longtime state security chief, gave an interview to TV Belgrade regarding Šešelj's unpublished manuscript, Odgovori na anketu-intervju: Šta da se radi?

[21] He was released in March 1986 – two months early due to continuous pressure, protests and petitions by intellectuals throughout Yugoslavia and abroad, many of whom would later become his political opponents.

[27] Together with Vuk Drašković and Mirko Jović, Šešelj founded the anti-communist Chetnik party[28] Serbian National Renewal (SNO) in late 1989.

"[31] In late 1991, during the Battle of Vukovar, Šešelj went to Borovo Selo to meet with a Serbian Orthodox Church bishop and publicly described Croats as a genocidal and perverted people.

[32] The paramilitary group White Eagles active at the time in the Yugoslav Wars was reportedly associated with him, being referred to as Šešeljevci ("Šešelj's men").

[41] In July 1997, Šešelj made a guest appearance on BKTV's Tête-à-tête talk duel programme with lawyer Nikola Barović as the other duelist.

The duel quickly degenerated into an exchange of verbal antagonism and ad hominem attacks that culminated in Barović throwing water from a glass in Šešelj's face.

The letter was read in front of cameras by Šešelj and contained insults and expletives aimed at the top ICTY officials and judges.

[51] In custody, he wrote Kriminalac i ratni zločinac Havijer Solana (Felon and War Criminal Javier Solana), a criticism of the NATO Secretary General (and the current High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union) who led the 1999 war in Kosovo.

[52] On 2 December 2006, around 40,000 people marched in the Serbian capital of Belgrade in support of Šešelj during his 28-day hunger strike in The Hague after the ICTY denied him the right to choose his own defence counsel.

He claimed the court had presented numerous false witnesses to avoid having to acquit him and said it should pay him damages for "all the suffering and six years spent in detention".

A contempt of court case against Šešelj was opened for having revealed, in a book he had written, the identities of three witnesses whose names had been ordered suppressed by the tribunal, and for which he was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by the ICTY.

On 17 March 2010, the weekly ICTY press briefing announced that "The trial of Vojislav Šešelj has been adjourned until further notice, pending checks on the health status of the remaining four Chamber witnesses".

[61] Prosecutors demanded a 28-year sentence against Šešelj for allegedly recruiting paramilitary groups and inciting them to commit atrocities during the Balkan wars of the early 1990s.

In closing remarks at his war crimes trial on 14 March 2012, Šešelj said the Yugoslav tribunal empowered by the U.N. Security Council is actually a creation of Western intelligence agencies and it doesn't have jurisdiction in his case.

[62] In his submission to the court, Šešelj had argued that his right to be tried in a reasonable amount of time has been violated, and called the situation "incomprehensible, scandalous and inappropriate".

However, the bench ruled that "there is no predetermined threshold with regard to the time period beyond which a trial may be considered unfair on account of undue delay" and declared that Šešelj "failed to provide concrete proof of abuse of process".

[70] The previous acquittal was later appealed by prosecutors from the MICT, a United Nations Security Council agency which functions as oversight program of, and successor entity to, the ICTY.

This was denied due to an absence of evidence in his request that the previous appeal judgement contained errors or that his procedural rights had been violated.