ICTY Weekly Press Briefing - 19th Apr 2006

Please note that this
is not a verbatim transcript of the Press
Briefing. It is merely a summary.

Date:
19.04.2006

Time: 12:00

Registry
and Chambers:

Christian Chartier, Senior Information
Officer, made the following statement:

Good Afternoon,

I would like to kick off with two judicial
announcements:

The Appeals Chamber has set a date to
deliver its Judgement in the Naletilic
and Martinovic case: that will be on
Wednesday 3 May, which is in two weeks
time, at 2.15pm.

The other announcement is that the President
of the Tribunal, Judge Fausto Pocar,
on 11 April, granted early release to
Amir Kubura. This decision was taken
following a Defence request based on
the fact that Amir Kubura had served
most of the time of the sentence of 2,5
(two and a half) years imposed on him
by Trial Chamber II on 15 March. The
President’s Decision was made,
among other factors, after consultation
with the Judges of the Trial Chamber
and the Bureau.

To remain on the Hadzihasanovic and
Kubura case:

The Prosecution filed yesterday a notice
of appeal against the Judgement of 15
March. In addition to claiming that the
sentences against both accused were "manifestly
inadequate," the Prosecution contends
that Amir Kubura was wrongly acquitted
of wanton destruction in Vares and also
that the Trial Chamber erred in finding
that he had sufficiently discharged his
duties to punish subordinates by taking
against them disciplinary measures; the
Prosecution says that this duty can only
be discharged through the prosecution
and punishment of subordinates.

The Defence for Enver Hadzihasanovic
also filed yesterday a Notice of Appeal,
raising eight grounds of appeal related
to fairness of the trial, investigation
methodology, the discharge by the Accused
of his superior’s duties, the consideration
given by the TC to certain witnesses
and the denial of a Defence Motion in
2003 on additional resources for the
Defence. The latter requests the Appeals
Chamber to reverse the Trial Chamber’s
Judgement, to find the accused not guilty
and to release him immediately.

These Notices of appeal follow on the
Notice of appeal filed earlier, on 13
April, by the Defence for Amir Kubura.
The Defence claims that the accused was
wrongly found guilty of not taking measures
to punish plundering and that the sentence
imposed upon him is "manifestly excessive." The
Defence seeks a full acquittal or, in
the alternative, a reduction of sentence.

Let me continue by singling out a number
of Chamber’s filings received since
the last briefing:

Last week, the President of the Tribunal,
Judge Fausto Pocar, dismissed an appeal
lodged by Vojislav Seselj against decisions
by the Registrar placing a ban on visits
from Tomislav Nikolic to the accused.
These decisions had been made on the
basis that Nikolic had been found in
breach of the undertaking signed by visitors
by revealing to the media the name of
a potential witness as well as details
about the state of health of accused
persons. The President found that the
Registrar had not acted improperly; accordingly,
he dismissed the appeal.

On 12 April, last Wednesday, Trial Chamber
III sitting on the Stanisic and Simatovic
case, issued a decision ordering the
Prosecution to file by 15 May a revised
indictment clarifying that the new charges
brought against the accused in December
2005 with regard to the Srebrenica events "pertain
only to the murder of six Bosnian Muslim
prisoners." Also a paragraph of the existing
indictment, namely paragraph 68, must
be revised as it makes a reference to
Srebrenica under counts which, according
to the prosecution itself, do not refer
to Srebrenica.

In terms of the courtroom schedule,
the week ahead will be extremely busy:

This week’s sessions in the trial
of Momcilo Krajisnik have been cancelled,
and the trial will resume next Tuesday,
25 April at 9:00 in courtroom I. It will
continue for the rest of the week.

Before that, the trial of Milan Martic,
former President of the war-time Croatian
Serb entity, will resume next Monday
at 9:00 in courtroom II.

The Vukovar trial against Mile Mrksic,
Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin,
former Yugoslav Army high-ranking officers,
continues next Monday and Tuesday at
14:15 in courtroom I. The hearing will
continue next Wednesday in courtroom
III at 9:00.

Next Tuesday, an important pre-trial
conference will take place at 14:15 in
courtroom III. It is related to the Prlic et
al. case, which involves six former
high ranking political and military officials
of the so-called "Croatian Community
(and later Republic) of Herceg-Bosna",
charged with the ethnic cleansing of
Muslims and other non-Croats who lived
in the area. This multiple accused trial,
the biggest held so far at the Tribunal,
is scheduled to commence the following
day at 14:15, also in courtroom III.
In view of the beginning of the trial,
the six accused, who have been on provisional
release since September 2004, have been
ordered to return to the Detention Unit
no later than Monday 24 April.

Office of the Prosecutor:

Anton Nikiforov, Advisor to the
Prosecutor and acting Spokesperson of
the Office of the Prosecutor, made the
following statement:

There is no any specific announcement
to make today, but there are a couple
of clarifications in regards to a few
cases. First, responding to some speculations
in the Serbian media regarding the order
of the Trial Chamber of 12 April 2006,
in the Stanisic/Simatovic case from last
week, I would like to clarify that no
charges in regard to Srebrenica were
withdrawn from the indictment and the
accused were not acquitted of any charges
as alleged in the media. The Prosecution
was requested to clarify a couple of
charges of the Second amended indictment
in regard to the killing of six Bosnian
Muslims shown in the Scorpions video
and charges in relation to deportation.
I bring your attention to paragraph 24
of the Order, where it is clearly stated
that ‘any inconsistency between
the Prosecution’s evidence… is
a matter which should be presented and
argued during trial… Whether the
Prosecution is able to link the very
discrete case concerning the murder the
six Bosnian Muslim prisoners to the alleged
joint criminal enterprise is a matter
for trial.’

I would like to draw your attention
also to the second amended indictment
in the Delic case, filed by the Prosecution
yesterday, which will be made available
to you by the Registry as soon as possible.
This Second amended indictment was filed
following the orders of the Trial Chamber
and is similar to our proposed amended
indictment of 31 October 2005. The difference
is that some crimes alleged are charged
under both Articles 7.1 and 7.3 of the
Statute. It contains the additional crime
base of Grabovica and Uzdol (litigated
in the Halilovic case) and Bugojno (litigated
partially in Hadzihasanovic/ Kubura case).

In the Boskovski case, the accused again
filed a motion for provisional release
which will be opposed by the Prosecution.

Questions:

In response to what was meant by "soon" in
terms of receiving the internal reports
into the deaths of Milan Babic and Slobodan
Milosevic, Chartier responded that "soon" meant
just that, adding that every day passing
brought us closer to the day the reports
would be received.

A journalist asked if there was any
further information on the transfer of
General Mladic to the Tribunal. Chartier
answered that he had not heard of any
upcoming transfer. Transfer would imply
that the accused had been arrested or
had surrendered. Had any of this happened,
the Tribunal and the media would have
surely heard about it by now.

Nikiforov added that the OTP had received
promises from the Serbian authorities
that Mladic would be in custody by the
end of April and that the Tribunal therefore
simply had no option but to wait for
the authorities to take action and do
their job. The prosecution would wait
for the end of April and then make its
assessment and its views public.

He further noted that some news reports
from the Serbian diaspora were reporting
that Mladic was very sick and that the
government was simply waiting for him
to "end" somewhere and that they would
then report that. He had no comment to
make on there reports.

Chartier concluded by saying that if
the Prosecutor had received such promises,
the Tribunal would wish that words be
followed by deeds, as quickly as possible.
He recalled that Ratko Mladic had been
indicted on 25 July 1995 and that he
should have been arrested on that day.

In response to a question asking how
the "bridging" of the Easter holidays
(catholic and orthodox)and the lack of
court sittings between the two holidays
impacted on the completion strategy,
Chartier responded that the Krajisnik
trial had originally been scheduled to
sit this week but had been cancelled
for reasons discussed in court. With
regard to other cases, he pointed that
a number of factors have resulted in
an "unfortunate coincidence of calendar":
the Oric case had finished, there was
a need in the Mrksic et al case to give
the parties more time before re-commencing
proceedings and other chambers were preparing
for trial. He recalled that next week’s
schedule was extremely busy.

He also stated that clearly this was
not something the Tribunal was happy
about but that such things would not
affect the completion strategy. The completion
strategy was a framework which set out
a number of tasks and time parameters
but the reality was that court proceedings
could not always proceed as speedily
as desirable: sometimes parties had to
be given more time, sometimes judges
had to consider important documents or
motions. He noted that it was therefore
too easy to relate everything to the
completion strategy. He made it clear
that the completion strategy was a target
to which the Tribunal was working as
efficiently as possible. There was no
reason to panic if occasionally there
are a number of obstacles. He reiterated
that the Tribunal would complete its
mandate: a number of high profile trials
were set to begin soon including the
Prlic et al mentioned earlier and the
Srebrenica trial likely to commence after
the summer recess. There were many things
for the Tribunal to do and enough time
in which to do them.

He added that there was no such thing
as a perfect planning, neither for the
Tribunal nor the media. External factors
always had to be taken into consideration.
The only perfect scheduling plan was
one that had a certain degree of flexibility.

In answer to a query whether all questions
raised during the briefing were included
in the briefing notes, Chartier answered
that the whole briefing was always recorded,
transcribed and checked. He pointed out
that the briefing notes had never been
conceived as a verbatim report of the
briefing but were designed to reflect
the announcements and discussion which
took place. No judgement call was made
on the value of a question: the notes
posted on the Internet were simply a
way to inform those journalists who could
not attend the briefing of the core of
the matter – to reflect the gist
of the discussion. However, he added
that a number of factors could result
in an oversight being made in the briefing
notes. He invited journalists to inform
the Media Office should they notice such
an oversight and this would be remedied.

A journalist asked Nikiforov if he had
any comment to make on the statement
made by the High Representative, Schwarz-Schilling
today in a BBC interview on the transfer
of power to the government of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Nikiforov answered that
the prosecution had a good meeting with
the High Representative immediately after
he took the position in which the so-called
Bonn powers were discussed. Before, during
and after that meeting, the High Representative
made it clear that the only situation
in which he would still use his powers
was in relation to ICTY matters. Nikiforov
added that it was perfectly logical for
the international community to give more
powers to the local government. This
was a common and reasonable thing to
do. Nikiforov made it clear that the
High Representative would use the Bonn
powers in relation to the Tribunal if
necessary. For example, if the network
surrounding Mladic or Karadzic were identified
and the local government did not carry
out their international obligations towards
that Tribunal, the High Representative
would make use of the Bonn powers which
gave him the authority to tell the local
services and government to do their job
properly and take action if they did
not.

Documents: