|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing
Date: 24.09.2003
Time: 11:30
REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS
Jim Landale,
Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:
Good morning.
In terms of scheduling:
On 17 September in The
Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, we received a Scheduling Order
ordering:
"That the Prosecutor
shall file the final version of its pre-trial brief not later than Friday
10 October 2003, taking into account all prerequisites set out in Rule 65
ter (E) (i) – (iii),
That the Defence shall
file a pre-trial brief not later than Monday 3 November 2003, taking into
account all prerequisites set out in Rule 65 ter (F) (i) – (iii),
That the parties
will inform this Chamber at the latest by 24 September 2003 about any difficulties
they may see in having the trial in this case start by mid-November 2003."
I have also just been informed
that there will be a status conference held in The Prosecutor v Momcilo Krajisnik
on Thursday, 25 September 2003 at 10 a.m. Courtroom I.
A reminder that the trial
in The Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar is due to commence on 9 October 2003.
Of the court documents we
have received from the last briefing:
From the Appeals Chamber:
On 15 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, we received the from the Appeals Chamber
(Judges Shahabuddeen, presiding, Pocar, Hunt, Guney and Weinberg de Roca) the
"Decision On Appeal By Vidoje Blagojevic to Replace His Defence Team", in
which the Appeals Chamber dismissed the Appeal and stated that a reasoned decision
would be given in due course.
On 23 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, we received an Order from the Pre-Appeal
Judge, Judge Pocar, ordering that the Appeal Brief of Vinko Martinovic be treated
as a confidential filing "by any individual, group, or entity that has received
it".
From the Trial Chambers:
On 16 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, we received the "Decision on Provisional
Release of Haradin Bala", in which Trial Chamber I denied the Defence Motion.
On 17 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, we received the "Decision on Provisional
Release of Isak Musliu", in which Trial Chamber I denied the Defence Motion.
On 17 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, we received from Trial Chamber I an "Order
for Return to United Nations Detention Unit", in which the Trial Chamber
inter alia:
-suspended the provisional
release of Pavle Strugar from 6 October until further order, and
-ordered the Accused to
return to the United Nations Detention Unit on 6 October 2003.
In the same case and on
the same day, we received an "Order for Separation", in which Trial Chamber
I ordered that:
"the proceedings
against Miodrag Jokic shall be separated from the proceedings against the
Co-Accused charged under the Second Amended Indictment;
the date for the
sentencing hearing, filing of pre-sentencing briefs and witness statements
shall be fixed by further Order".
On 18 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, we received the "Decision Granting Leave
to Amend the Indictment of 31 March 2003 and to File a Second Amended Indictment",
in which Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecution Motion in part.
On 17 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, we received the "Decision on
Form of Indictment", in which Trial Chamber II inter alia ordered
the Prosecution to file a Third Amended Indictment based on the requirements
set out in the decision no later than 26 September 2003.
On 18 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Mejakic, Gruban, Fustar and Knezevic, we received Trial Chamber
III’s "Decision on Prosecution Motion to Resolve Conflict of Interest Regarding
Attorney Jovan Simic", in which the Trial Chamber upheld the Registrar’s
Decision of 30 July 2003 appointing Mr. Jovan Simic as counsel for Zeljko Mejakic.
On 23 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received Trial Chamber III’s "Seventh
Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54bis of Prosecution and Serbia and
Montenegro". The Trial Chamber ordered that:
- "Serbia and Montenegro’s
request to extend the time for its compliance with paragraph three of the Fifth
Decision is Granted; and
- Serbia and Montenegro
shall comply with paragraph three of the Fifth Decision within four weeks from
the date of the Fifth Decision."
From the Registrar, Hans
Holthuis:
On 17 September in The
Prosecutor v. Stanisic, we received a Decision from the Registrar assigning
Mr. Gerardus Godefridus Johannes Knoops as co-counsel for the accused for a
temporary period of 30 days effective as of 17 September.
On 18 September in The
Prosecutor v. Momcilo Krajisnik, we received a Decision from the Registrar
assigning Ms. Chrissa Loukas as co-counsel to the accused.
In terms of other filings:
On 19 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, we received the "Application for
Leave to Appeal Against Decision on Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj, Rendered
by Trial Chamber on 12 September 2003".
On 23 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, we received the "Application of
Haradin Bala for Leave to Appeal Against Decision on Provisional Release".
On 18 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amici Curiae Request
for Certificate Pursuant to Rule 73(B) to Appeal Against the Trial Chamber Order
Concerning the Presentation and Preparation of the Defence Case Dated 17 September
2003".
Again in the Milosevic case
on 22 September, we received the "Submission of Serbia and Montenegro Pursuant
to the Trial Chamber’s ‘Fifth Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54bis
of Prosecution and Serbia and Montenegro’ Dated 15 September 2003".
On 23 September, again in
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Prosecution
Motion for a Hearing to Discuss the Implications of the Accused’s Recurring
Ill Health".
And, once again in the Milosevic
case on 24 September, we received the "Prosecution Response to the Request
by the Amici Curiae Dated 18 September 2003 for a Certificate Pursuant to Rule
73(B)".
On 23 September, in The
Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, we received the "Application
of Amir Kubura for Certification of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Form of
Indictment of 17 September 2003".
In The Prosecutor v.
Blagojevic,Obrenovic, Jokic, and Nikolic we received "Tab ‘B’ to
the ‘Joint Motion for Consideration of Plea Agreement Between Momir Nikolic
and the Office of the Prosecutor’ – Declaration of Momir Nikolic". This
is dated 6 May 2003, but only now has the seal on the document been lifted.
As ever, copies of all the
documents I have mentioned are available to you on request.
Florence Hartmann, Spokeswoman
for the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement:
This afternoon at 3.00 p.m.
the Serbian Minister of Justice, Mr. Vladan Batic, will visit the Prosecutor.
Afterwards, some time between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., the Prosecutor and Minister
Batic will be available to answer media questions in the press briefing room.
Tomorrow, Thursday 25 September,
the Prosecutor will receive a visit from Goran Granic, Deputy Prime Minister
of Croatia.
Questions:
A journalist asked for information
on the health problems Biljana Plavsic was reportedly suffering from and more
generally how the Judges would deal with a situation of an accused becoming
very ill once they were serving sentence in a country which had signed an agreement
on enforcement of sentences with the Tribunal and whether the Judges had to
decide in advance whether or not they could be released. Landale replied that
the primary responsibility for the health and well being of someone who had
been convicted and sentenced by the Tribunal and was serving that sentence in
one of the countries who had an agreement to enforce sentences was obviously
with that country. In this particular case, he said that the Registry had been
informed by one of Plavsic’s defence counsel that she was unwell. The Registry
immediately contacted the Swedish Embassy in the Netherlands to inform them
that the Tribunal had been given this information and to pass it on to them.
Asked to confirm that the
authorities in Sweden had to first inform the Tribunal that the convicted person
was too ill to continue to serve their sentence, Landale replied that he did
not wish to speculate on any particular case, but, if such a situation were
to arise, the Tribunal was then faced with the question of early release. Any
question of early release ultimately came down to a decision from the President
of the Tribunal. It was the same situation as if someone under the laws of the
country in which they were serving sentence was coming up for parole or early
release. That country could raise the issue with the Tribunal, but the President
would give the final yes or no.
*****
|
