Time: 12:00
Registry and Chambers:
Nerma Jelačić, Spokesperson for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Good afternoon,
Turning straight to the court schedule,
Trial Chamber II postponed yesterday the Initial Appearance of Vojislav Šešelj in his contempt of court case due to the unavailability of the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor at the scheduled time as a result of the current widespread air traffic disruption. Once determined, the revised date and time of Šešelj’s Initial Appearance will be communicated to you.
The hearing in the trial of Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović scheduled for this afternoon has been cancelled. Information on the status of the hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon will be provided in due course.
In the trial of Gotovina and others, the last remaining Trial Chamber witness is expected to be heard tomorrow at 9:00 in Courtroom III.
The Appeals Judgement in the case of Ljube Boškoski, former Macedonian Minister of the Interior and Johan Tarćulovski, a former Police Officer will be heard on 19 May at 9.30am in Courtroom I. In July 2008, the Trial Chamber found Tarčulovski guilty of ordering, planning and instigating crimes committed between 12 and 15 August 2001 when a Macedonian police unit under his control entered the village of Ljuboten, shooting and killing six unarmed ethnic Albanians and severely mistreated 13 other residents. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Boškoski was acquitted of charges of failing to investigate the crimes and ensuring those responsible be punished.
A hearing regarding Veselin Šljicančanin’s application for review of the Appeals Chamber Judgement of 5 May 2009 will take place on 3 June 2010 before the Appeals Chamber for the purpose of hearing the testimony of Miodrag Panić, who will be called by Šljicančanin to present new evidence. The timing and courtroom will be confirmed in due course.
The trials of Radovan Karadžić, Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Vlastimir Đorđević and Zdravko Tolimir continue this week and next as scheduled.
Office of the Prosecutor:
Olga Kavran, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement:
Prosecutor Serge Brammertz will be in Bosnia and Herzegovina next week, from Monday to Wednesday.
This will be the first of his planned working visits to the region of the former Yugoslavia in preparation for the OTP's biannual report to the UN Security Council. The Prosecutor plans to travel to Belgrade, Serbia and Zagreb, Croatia in the course of May. He will address the Security Council in the second half of June.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prosecutor Brammertz will meet with representatives of the national government and judicial authorities as well as the international community, to discuss ongoing cooperation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Office of the Prosecutor and other matters related to the Tribunal’s Completion Strategy.
The Prosecutor will also meet with representatives of the victims, both in Sarajevo and in Srebrenica.
I will inform you by Monday of any possible media opportunities.
Questions:
A journalist asked whether, in the trial of Radovan Karadžić, a different Prosecutor would be assigned to each witness, as has been the case with the first three witnesses. Olga Kavran explained that as with every other case, there is a team of Prosecutors for the Karadžić trial who are assigned different witnesses. However this does not mean that each witness has a different Prosecutor. Indeed for the Karadžić case, this would require over 400 Prosecutors.
Regarding the case of Veselin Šljicančanin, a journalist asked what would occur were witness Miodrag Panić to present new facts to the Appeals Chamber. Nerma Jelačić explained that she could not speculate about the outcome at this point as this issue was the subject of the planned hearing – the evidentiary value and relevance of testimony and if the testimony itself constituted a new fact. The Bench will hear and evaluate the evidence given by Miodrag Panić in order to reach a decision on Šljicančanin’s request for review but the fact that hearing is being held does not in any way express the view of the Appeals Chamber on the Review Motion. She added that Judge Pocar dissented from the majority decision. Both the decision and Judge Pocar’s dissenting opinion are available from the Tribunal’s Media Office.
Asked if the Tribunal had other requests for review and if any of them were successful in the past, Jelačić responded that 11 previous requests for review had been filed by either the convicted persons or the Prosecution, with this being the first time that a hearing has been held to examine the request and hear a witness. Nerma Jelačić confirmed that none of the earlier requests for review of Appeals Chamber judgements were granted.