ICTY Weekly Press Briefing - 18th Apr 2007

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing

Date: 18.04.2007

Time: 12:00

Registry and Chambers:

Refik Hodžić, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:

President Fausto Pocar will receive this Thursday night, on behalf of the Tribunal, the Justice in the World Award, bestowed by the Madrid-based Foundation "Justice in the World" for "the achievements of the ICTY and, in particular, for the independence with which it carries out its mandate." The Justice in the World Foundation is comprised of Spanish jurists and is affiliated with the International Association of Judges. The award will be presented to President Pocar at a solemn ceremony attended by King Juan Carlos and the highest judicial authorities of Spain. A number of judges will be accompanying the President as will the Registrar, Hans Holthuis, who will be representing staff members.

SCHEDULE:

On to the schedule:

The trials for the Dragomir Milošević, Haradinaj et al., Popović et al., and Prlić et al. cases will continue this week and next in the Tribunal’s three courtrooms.

The trial in the case against Milutinovic et al. has been canceled for the remainder of the week and will resume next Tuesday 24 April. The Rule 54bis hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow morning has also been canceled.

Next Friday, 27 April, a motion hearing will be held in the Perišić case at 3 p.m. in courtroom II.

TODAY’S FILINGS:

Yesterday the Prosecutor filed her 3rd progress report in the Rašević and Todović case which was referred to the authority of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 3 October 2006. The progress report is based on the OSCE’s second report which outlines the main findings of trial monitoring activities from the perspective of international human rights standards. This document can also be requested from your document list.

While on the subject of 11 bis referrals - just to remind you that the Appeals Chamber of the Court of BiH yesterday passed its judgement in the case of Radovan Stankovic, increasing his sentence from 16 to 20 years. This was the first case referred to national authorities under the provisions of rule 11 bis. To date, Tribunal has referred

Office of the Prosecutor:

Olga Kavran, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.

Questions:

In response to a question regarding the start of the Gotovina et al case, Hodžić stated that no decision had yet been made, reminding journalists of Judge Moloto’s comments on this matter during recent status conference. He confirmed that the trial would not begin on 7 May as originally scheduled.

In answer to a question regarding the motion hearing in the Perišić case scheduled for next Friday, Hodžić stated that the hearing was to discuss 54bis issues. He added that a decision on 54bis matters had been filed earlier today.

In relation to the Prosecutor’s statement which was issued earlier this week, a question was asked whether a decision had been made in relation to 54bis, whether this decision was public and, if not, whether the OTP would be requesting it be made public. In response, Kavran reiterated that, in accordance with the ICTY’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, only the Judges can decide on protective measures. She added that the Tribunal was not at liberty to discuss any issues related to confidentiality. Kavran further added that the Prosecution was looking into what, if any, protective measures applied to the documents in question and was looking into all aspects of this issue to determine a course of action.

When asked, again, whether she could confirm that there was a Trial Chamber decision to keep the documents in question confidential, Kavran reiterated that she could not. Hodžić added that confidential decisions, including whether they in fact existed or not, could not be discussed.

Asked whether she had any comment on Geoffrey Nice’s letters to the press in recent days in which he stated that the Prosecutor did make a deal on documents, Kavran again made it clear that any reports that the Prosecutor was involved in a deal to conceal evidence were false. She further explained that any documents the OTP obtained from states were for trials held at this Tribunal, adding that the OTP had spared no effort in obtaining documents to be presented to the Judges of the ICTY.

Kavran added that every document, even those subject to confidentiality, were available to the Judges in a particular case. She went on to explain that the OTP had no standing before the ICJ and that there was no formal link between the ICJ and the ICTY; they were separate legal institutions. She added that for a case litigated before the ICJ, it was only the ICJ that could request the documents it needed for a particular case. That could not be the responsibility of the Office of the Prosecutor.

She repeated that ICTY’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence provided for forms of protection of both witnesses and documents. In terms of documents, there were several provisions available to states which had been ordered to produce them. She reiterated that it was the ICTY Judges who decided on issues of confidentiality.

Kavran stated that correspondence between the OTP and governments was regular. There had been many instances in which the OTP had requested documents from various governments. She added that the OTP had spoken openly of the problems sometimes encountered in receiving these documents from several governments, particularly that of Serbia in many instances. That there was correspondence with states was nothing new but part of the normal work flow. Kavran reiterated that the suggestion that such correspondence was some sort of deal to conceal evidence was false.

Kavran added that, in its correspondence with authorities in Serbia, the OTP had stated that it would not oppose a reasonable application for protective measures. She stated that the OTP’s position has been that an application for protective measures, the sole justification of which was to shield the applicant from responsibility before another court, could not be considered reasonable and would not be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Asked whether the Trial Chamber would have seen all the materials unredacted, Kavran responded that she could only speak in general terms, and not on the specific case in question: when materials were given protective measures, they were protected from the public, not from the Judges. Kavran gave an example of hearings held in closed session in which a witness would be testifying whose identity was not known to the public, but in which the Judges would clearly be aware of the witness’ identity: who they were, what they were talking about and the full content of their testimony. The same would apply to documents, she added. She explained that the role of the OTP was to prove to the Judges charges they brought against an individual and that, for this to be accomplished, the Judges would clearly have to be fully informed of the content of the evidence.

Asked whether, had the ICJ Judges asked for the documents in question, they would have received the full, non-redacted versions, Kavran stated that she could not speculate on that. She added that the OTP had not received a request from the ICJ and that in its Judgement, the ICJ pointed out that it had decided not to request those documents. She reiterated that only the ICTY’s Judges could decide whether to withdraw protective measures: they are the only ones who could decide whether to impose them, and only they could decide to amend them. Hodžić added that it was impossible to speculate what would have happened, especially in view of the fact that the Tribunal could not discuss details of any documents. At this point it was impossible to speculate as to what would have happened regarding a non-existent request.

Documents: