ICTY Weekly Press Briefing - 23rd Aug 2006

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing

Date: 23.08.2006

Time: 10:20

Registry and Chambers:

As last week, I shall open this short briefing with the announcement that yet another Rule 11bis hearing has been scheduled to take place on Friday 15 September. At this hearing, the referral bench will consider the Prosecution’s request for the case against Vladimir Kovacevic to be referred.

As you may remember from last week’s briefing, another Rule 11bis hearing will take place on the same day, in the case against Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic. This hearing will start at 2:15 in courtroom 2, followed by the hearing in the Kovacevic case.

Once these referral matters have been dealt with, the referral Bench will be left with only two 11bis requests, concerning two accused: Dragan Zelenovic and Milorad Trbic.

To date, the cases against nine accused have been referred to local courts, and eight accused have been physically transferred; the ninth accused, Pasko Ljubicic, is awaiting transfer. In addition, the decision by the Referral Bench to refer the case against Savo Todovic and Mitar Rasevic has been appealed.

WITH REGARD TO THE COURT SCHEDULE:

In addition to the on-going trials, a couple of other important hearings will take place in the days ahead!

- Next Tuesday morning, the appeal hearing in the Galic case will open at 9am.

- On the same day, but in the afternoon, Trial Chamber I will hear the closing arguments in the

Krajisnik case. These are scheduled for three days.

- Next Wednesday morning at 9:00 in courtroom I, the Trial Chamber will render its judgement in the Josip Jovic contempt case. Jovic has waived his right to be present during the hearing.

IN TERMS OF COURT FILINGS, and in addition to the decision to impose Defence Counsel on Vojislav Seselj (re. the press release issued on Monday night), I would like to single out the following for you:

In the Jovic case, Trial Chamber III yesterday granted a prosecution motion seeking to remove an exhibit, initially made public, of two lists of witnesses in the Blaskic case identifying protected witnesses whose names should have been kept confidential.

In the Krajisnik case:

- Trial Chamber I, last week, issued the written reasoning for its oral decision of 14 July denying the accused’s request to call additional witnesses;

- and Vice President Kevin Parker, on 16 August, appointed a three-Judge Panel to consider a defence motion asking for Judge Meron to be replaced on the Appeals Bench.

The Krajisnik Defence seeks the removal of Judge Meron from the Appeals Bench assigned to hear its appeal against the Trial Chamber's decision of 16 June, dismissing a defence motion for a ruling that Ad-Litem Judge Canivell is unable to continue hearing the case (claiming that his mandate had been improperly extended). The defence motion is based on the fact that Judge Meron, in his capacity as the then President of the ICTY, was involved in the discussion about the extension of Judge Canivell's term of office, and therefore could not impartially hear an appeal on this very issue.

Judge Parker's order explains why he was seized of the matter by President Pocar, who is also Presiding Judge of the Appeals Chamber.

Office of the Prosecutor:

Anton Nikiforov, Advisor to the Prosecutor and acting Spokesperson of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), made no statement.

Questions:

Asked whether the stand-by counsel for Seselj, Mr. van der Spoel, could also be considered as assigned counsel now that the trial chamber had decided that Seselj would be assigned a defence counsel, Chartier responded in the positive. He added that van der Spoel was one of the lawyers being considered by the Registry. Asked whether any defence lawyer could refuse the assignment, Chartier answered yes. He added that once a decision on assigned counsel had been made, it would be made public.

Chartier also commented on a media report which stated that Seselj’s right to self-defence had been revoked, stating that this was inaccurate. The Trial Chamber’s decision of last Monday reiterated that an accused had a right to self-representation but also stressed that this right was a qualified right, not an absolute one. Seselj’s filings and behaviour in court over the past two or three years was such that it formed a clear indication that he would be an obstruction to his own defence. Therefore, for the sake of the accused and for the sake of clarity of the proceedings, it had been decided to impose on him a defence counsel. Chartier added that this decision could of course be appealed.

In response to a comment that this situation was similar to the decision on assigned counsel and subsequent appeal in the Milosevic case, Chartier cautioned against making such a comparison. Procedurally there were similarities, but the Trial Chamber’s decision for imposing defence counsel on Milosevic was made because of the accused ill-health and had nothing to do with his behaviour in court as was the case with Seselj. Chartier refered journalists to paragraphs 79, 80 and to the disposition in the Seselj decision for more clarity.

Chartier also made it clear that Seselj still retained the right the take part in the proceedings against him if he made such a request through counsel. The trial chamber decision clearly stated that the possibility for Seselj to participate directly in the proceedings would be considered on a case by case basis. Any comments to the effect that Seselj was being gagged were therefore incorrect.

Nikiforov added that the Prosecution welcomed the decision to assign counsel.

Document List: