|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing
Date: 19.03.2003
Time: 11:30
REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman
for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:
First to start with a reminder:
On Tuesday 25 March at
2.30 p.m. Trial Chamber III (Judge May presiding, Judge Robinson and Judge
Kwon) will hold a hearing on the Motions for Provisional Release filed by
Dragoljub Ojdanic and Nikola Sainovic on 10 February 2003, and by Milan Milutinovic
on 23 January 2003.
With regard
to developments related to on-going proceedings:
In the Prosecutor v.
Slobodan Milosevic, on 13 March we received the Expert Report of Mr Andras
Reidlmayer on the "Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina
1992-1996: A Post War Survey Of Selected Municipalities."
On 14 March we received
a "Motion for Provisional Release of Darko Mrdja".
In the case
The Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, on 18 March Trial Chamber
I issued a scheduling Order vacating its Order of 27th February
2003 setting Monday 24 March at 2 p.m. as the date and time for the rendering
of the Judgement in this case.
This follows the
"Motion for Stay of Further Deliberation of the Evidence & Expedited
Request for the Taking of Further Evidence in Light of Newly Disclosure Material
Provided by OTP" submitted on 12th March 2003 by the Defence
Counsel for Naletilic.
The Trial Chamber
found "in the present circumstances, that it is appropriate to hold a hearing
in order to ascertain the position of the Parties as to the possibly exculpatory
nature of the Material, including for the Prosecution to clarify its reasons
for submitting the Material if it did not think it was exculpatory, and for
the Defence to establish prima facie that the Material falls under Rule
68 of the Rules by showing just where and how it contains exculpatory information.
The Trial
Chamber scheduled a hearing with the Prosecution and the Defence Counsel of
the Accused Mladen Naletilic to take place this Thursday, 20th March
2003, at 4.30 p.m. in Courtroom I in the presence of the Accused.
On 13 March, a scheduling
Order was issued changing the time of Vojislav Seselj’s further initial appearance
from 4.30 p.m on Tuesday 25 March, to 09.30 a.m. the same day.
The trials continue as
scheduled in the Galic, Simic et al, and Stakic cases. We will obviously let
you know of any developments in the Milosevic case.
This afternoon, there
will be a status conference in the Prosecutor v. Krstic in Courtroom I starting
at 2.30 p.m.
Tomorrow there will be
a status conference in the Prosecutor v. Mrda at 3 p.m. in Courtroom I.
Among the
decisions issued by the Chambers since the last briefing, the following are
brought to your attention:
On 13 March,
in the case The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, the Appeals Chamber
(Judge Meron, presiding, Judge Pocar, Judge Shahabuddeen, Judge Hunt and Judge
Guney) handed down its "Decision on Appeal From Refusal of Application
For Disqualification and Withdrawal of Judge". The Disposition reads:
"Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber deals with the application errroneously
made to the section of Trial Chamber I hearing Prosecutor v. Galic as one
made to the Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber I, and, in the place of the Presiding
Judge, the Appeals Chamber refers that application to the Bureau to determine
the original application made by Galic, namely, the ‘Defence Request for Withdrawal
of Judge Alphonsus Orie, Presiding’, dated 23 January 2003". The detailed
reasoning contained in the Decision will be available after this briefing.
On 17 March,
in the case The Prosecutor v. Strugar, Jokic and Kovacevic, Trial Chamber
I (Judge Liu, presiding, Judge El Mahdi and Judge Orie) handed down its "Decision
on the Prosecutor’s Amended Indictment and Application for Leave to Amend",
which granted the Prosecution’s Application subject to the amendments indicated
in the text of the Decision, and ordered the Prosecution to file the proposed
Amended Indictment within 14 days of the Decision.
On 18 March,
in the case The Prosecutor v. Meakic, Gruban, Fustar, Banovic and Knezevic,
Trial Chamber III (Judge May, presiding, Judge Robinson and Judge Kwon) issued
its "Decision on Dusko Knezevic’s Motion for Provisional Release",
dismissing the Motion.
We will be handing out a
list of all the latest court documents at the end of the briefing. Please let
my office know which you would like copies of.
Florence
Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement.
The Prosecutor
will be in Belgrade this Friday where she will be attending a seminar organized
by NATO and the Assembly of Serbia and Montenegro and dealing with the challenges
the country is facing. The Seminar was organized before the assassination of
the Prime Minister. She has been invited to participate at a session entitled
" Serbia and Montenegro and the ICTY". This Session will also be held
with the Interior Minister of Serbia, Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic.
Questions
Asked when
we could expect a medical report on Milosevic, Landale replied that he believed
that the Judges expected it sometime today. He added that if and when he received
a copy, which could be made public, he would make it public and if not he would
keep the press updated about any results, which would stem from this report.
He also said that as soon as he knew he would inform the press whether there
would be continued Milosevic sessions this week.
Asked for
an explanation regarding the Motion filed by the Defence Counsel for Naletilic,
Landale referred the journalist to the filing itself since that was very clear.
He added that it essentially concerned information that the OTP had, that might
or might not be considered exculpatory in this case.
Florence
added that the document had already been given to the Defence. The OTP did not
believe that it was Rule 68 (exculpatory material). The document was not given
to the Defence at the beginning of the Trial since it was not seen as an exculpatory
document by the OTP. The Defence, in light of another document related to the
same person, believed that it was. Asked if a new date for the judgement has
been set, Landale replied in the negative since this would depend on the discussions
to be held.
Asked whether
the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic affected the work of the Tribunal,
Landale replied that the Tribunal expected the Rule of Law would be upheld and
that there would be cooperation. He continued to say that obviously the situation
had changed and that Tribunal was watching it very closely to see how it would
affect our work. He concluded by saying that the Tribunal hoped that cooperation
would be continued and would be strengthened.
Hartmann
said the Prosecutor had already answered this question very precisely in the
last days at a press conference in Geneva. She did not wish to repeat what she
had already said, just one main line: the OTP’s demands would not change towards
Serbia or any other state, they would not be less, and they would not be more.
Cooperation was an obligation on a state and not on a person. Those who killed
Prime Minister Djindjic were wrong in believing that this might diminish the
determination to continue the reform of the country to move forward and to cooperate
with the Tribunal. She added that for the moment, and it was a good sign, both
the President of the Union and the new Prime Minister of Serbia were unequivocal
in their support of the Tribunal.
Asked to
comment on the Newspaper article Identitet linking people that
had been arrested in relation to the assassination in Yugoslavia to the detainees
in the UN Detention Unit in Scheveningen, Landale said that it would not be
appropriate to comment on ongoing investigations in Serbia. Hartmann replied
that she also did not wish to comment. She added that the list of public indicted
persons could be found on our internet web site. Any further questions about
this should be addressed to her of Jim Landale.
Asked if
communication with the detainees and their lawyers was monitored, Landale replied
that all communication with their Defence Counsel or legal representatives was
privileged. All other non-privileged communication could be monitored by the
management of the Detention Unit.
*****
|
