|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 11 September 2002
Time: 14:30
REGISTRY
AND CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Good afternoon,
I have few announcements
to begin with:
On
Saturday 14 September, the Association of Defence Counsel practicing before
the ICTY (ADC-ICTY) will hold its first general assembly. At 2 p.m. the ADC-ICTY
will be publicly and officially established. This afternoon session will be
attended by the President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, the Registrar,
Mr. Hans Holthuis, and the Vice-President of the Dutch Bar Association. The
meeting will take place in the Washington Room at the Hotel Bel-Air and media
representatives are welcome. There’s a possibility, subject to availability,
that the first President of the ADC-ICTY will participate in next week press
briefing.
On
Monday 9 September, the Assembly of State Parties to the Statute of the ICC
appointed the Deputy Registrar of the ICTY, Mr. Bruno Cathala, to the position
of Director of Common Services of the International Criminal Court. As such,
Bruno Cathala will be responsible for all the logistical and practical arrangements
to get the court up and running as quickly as possible, to staff it and to organise
it. Bruno Cathala has been with the ICTY since May 2001. Prior to joining the
Tribunal, he had been a member of the French judiciary since 1982.
As
you are all aware, today, in the Milosevic case, the Prosecution finished presenting
its case in chief with regard to Kosovo. The Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
part of the case will begin with opening statements from the parties on 26 September.
The two-week pause is to enable the parties and the Trial Chamber to actively
prepare for the next phase of the trial.
I
have a few court documents to run through with you:
On
29 August, in the Prosecutor v. Zoran Marinic, we received the "Prosecution
Motion to Withdraw Indictment Against Zoran Marinic".
With
regard to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on 5 September, we received
the "Prosecutor’s Motion to President to Assign Trial Chamber to Prosecutor’s
Deferral Request".
Then
yesterday, 10 September, we received the "Decision on the Application
of the Prosecutor for an Interim Order and Scheduling Order". In this
Decision, Trial Chamber I, Judge Liu presiding, rejected the "Prosecutor’s
application for an interim order to stop the commencement of the cardinal proceedings
against two individuals, today, on 11 September 2002 in the Republic of Macedonia".
However, the Trial Chamber stated that, "the Prosecutor’s Request for
Deferral and Motion for Order to the Republic of Macedonia shall be addressed
in full at a hearing to be held on 25 September 2002, at 14:15 hours, in courtroom
II". Further, the Trial Chamber ordered that an "authorised
Representative of the Republic of Macedonia shall be authorised to participate
in the hearing", and that " the Decision of the Chamber regarding
the Prosecutor’s Request for Deferral and Motion for Order of the Republic of
Macedonia shall be rendered after the hearing". Finally, the Trial
Chamber invited "an authorised Representative of the Republic of Macedonia
to appear before the Chamber to explain the position of the Republic of Macedonia
with regard to the Prosecutor’s request".
On
5 September, in the Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura, we received
Trial Chamber II’s "Decision on Motion of Mehmed Alagic to Vary the
Conditions of Provisional Release".
Also
on 5 September and in the same case, we received a "Decision on Application
for Leave to Appeal" from a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, Judge Pocar
presiding. This follows the "Rule 65(D) Application for Leave to Appeal
the Decision on Motion of Amir Kubura to Vary the Conditions of his Provisional
Release" filed by Kubura on 2 August 2002 and the "Rule 65(D)
Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Motion for Change of Provisional
Release Conditions" filed by Enver Hadzihasanovic on 2 August 2002.
The Bench rejected the Applications.
On
6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, we received the English
translation of a scheduling order of 4 September 2002, in which the Appeals
Chamber ordered that a hearing of Jonathan Randal’s appeal against the "Decision
on Motion to set aside confidential subpoena to give evidence" take
place on 3 October 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom III. Time will be divided
as follows:
40
minutes for the presentation of arguments of the Appellant
40
minutes for the presentation of arguments of the amici curiae
40
minutes for the response of the Prosecutor
10
minutes for the response of Radoslav Brjanin
10
minutes for the reply of the amici curiae
10
minutes for the reply of the Appellant
Also
on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Dusko Knezevic, we received a "Decision
on Accused’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decision as to Assignment of
Counsel", in which the Trial Chamber denied the application.
Also
on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Simic, we received a "Decision
on Motion for Provisional Release", denying the Motion.
Again
on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Gojko Jankovic, we received from Judge
Wolfgang Schomburg, an "Order for Transmission of Warrant of Arrest
and Order for Surrender" and a "Warrant of Arrest Order for
Surrender".
Similar
documents were received from Judge Schomburg on 6 September in the Prosecutor
v. Dragan Zelenovic, the Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic and the Prosecutor v. Savo
Todovic. Copies of all of these can be picked up after the briefing.
On
9 September, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, we received an "Order
Scheduling a Hearing on the Motion for Provisional Release and Status Conference",
ordering that a hearing be held to address the motion on Monday 23 September
2002, at 11:00 hours. This will be followed by a Status Conference.
On
10 September, in the Prosecutor v. Zeljko Meakic, we received an "Order
for transmission of Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender" and
a "Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender".
Today,
in the Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub
Prcac, we received from the Appeals Chamber, Judge Shahabuddeen presiding, an
order of the Appeals Chamber on the motion for provisional release by Miroslav
Kvocka and the motion was denied.
Florence Hartmann,
Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement:
The
Prosecutor is finishing a three week mission to offices in Arusha and Kigali.
She will be back in The Hague next Monday.
Questions:
Asked
what the Tribunal’s stance was in relation to the Wladimiroff article published
in the ‘Haagshe Courant’, Landale replied that the matter was under consideration
by the Trial Chamber and as such it was not appropriate for him to make any
comment.
A
journalist mentioned ‘hints’ made by Mr. Wladimiroff that the amici curiae
may withdraw from the Milosevic case. Asked whether this issue was under discussion,
Landale replied that he did not have any specific knowledge of this subject.
He believed however, that many of the issues that arose from the article would
now be the subject of some conversations for clarification purposes. Further
than that he could not make any comment.
Asked
whether this issue was completely in the hands of the Trial Chamber at this
stage or whether it was being discussed with the Registry, Landale replied
that while the issue was under consideration by the Trial Chamber, (who were
considering the article as a whole and various issues which arose from it),
it was for them first and foremost to come to any decision, or make any ruling
relating to it.
Asked
to comment on the fact that the Prosecution wanted to continue the trial against
Mr. Talic, in the light of what was said today in open court about him being
terminally ill, Landale replied that this was still subject to consideration
by the Trial Chamber in that case. This was made clear by what was said in
open session this morning. As a result he could not make any comment until
the Chamber had made their position absolutely clear.
Hartmann
added she could also say nothing on this issue.
Asked
whether he felt that the interview with Mr. Wladimiroff would effect the credibility
of the Tribunal, Landale once more reiterated that he could not make any comment
on this issue as it was under consideration by the Trial Chamber. It would
be improper for him to make a comment at this stage.
Asked
for the OTP’s opinion on the first stage of the Milosevic trial, Hartmann
replied that the OTP did not comment about ongoing trials. She did say, however,
that the OTP felt that it had achieved what it wanted to in this part of the
trial. This was of course not the end of the Milosevic trial and also not
completely the end of the evidence concerning Kosovo.
She
went on to say that, despite the fact that most of the evidence relating to
Kosovo had already been presented and that it would not be possible to present
evidence relating purely to Kosovo later in the trial, there were witnesses
who would testify on Croatia and Bosnia who could also be asked certain questions
relating to Kosovo.
She
added that at the beginning of the Kosovo section of the trial, the OTP had
requested not to bring the same witnesses twice. They requested that when
certain witnesses were in court to testify on Bosnia and Croatia, they could
at the same time be questioned on Kosovo. It would be the decision of the
Judges, but it could happen, she said.
She
could not give specific details on this subject because the OTP did not speak
about future witnesses. It was not the end of the trial but the end of a chapter
and the OTP could have some more specific evidence on Kosovo in testimony
related to the next part of the trial.
Asked
when the Tribunal expected confirmation as to whether Lilic would testify
in the Milosevic case, Landale replied that he could not comment on this issue.
In
connection to the Wladimiroff article, asked if there had been a precedent
set on this subject and in principle whether there were grounds to hold Wladimiroff
in contempt of court, Landale replied that as far as the second part of the
question was concerned, it was up to the Judges. In answer to the first part
of the question in terms of a precedent having been set, this was a unique
situation as it was a unique trial. No amici curiae had appeared in
other trials in the way that they did in the Milosevic trial.
Asked
whether the Tribunal was aware of and planned to take action against one of
the Belgrade dailies which had published the initials of protected witness
K41, Landale replied that he was aware of the issue, as was the Trial Chamber.
*****
|
