|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing
Date: 6 December 2000
Time: 11:30 a.m.
REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers made the following statement:
First
I’m very pleased to announce that all public court proceedings at the Tribunal
can now be followed on our website in English and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS).
The
hope is that this will further enhance the transparent nature of the proceedings
at the Tribunal and give a global audience the ability to keep up to date with
the latest developments at the court.
I
will hand out a press release giving you all the details of the new service
after this, however, when you get to the page you will find a court schedule
providing details of cases before the Tribunal’s three courtrooms and an audio-visual
link for each. The proceedings are broadcast with a 30-minute delay, and with
an image of the court which is refreshed every minute.ss
This
project is a collaboration between the Public Information Services’ Internet
Unit and the Tribunal’s Outreach Programme. Both sections acknowledge the invaluable
support to the project from ‘Domovina’, the first organisation to broadcast
the Tribunal’s proceeding on the internet, and ‘xs4all’ the internet service
provider.
In
the Kordic and Cerkez case, we have now received the written decision on the
Prosecutor’s Submissions concerning the so-called "Zagreb Exhibits"
and Presidential Transcripts. This follows an oral decision handed down by the
Trial Chamber last week, which grants the admission of 16 exhibits and the so-called
War Diary, and dismisses the application in all other respects. Copies of that
decision will be available after this.
In
the Todorovic case, on 30 November and 1 December, we received responses from
Norway, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, the US and the UK to the
Trial Chamber’s scheduling order of 23 November, regarding Todorovic’s request
for additional evidence. Copies will be available after the briefing.
With
regard to the Appeals Chamber hearing on 10 January in this case, we received,
on 4 December, a scheduling order setting out the procedure to be followed in
court and the time that will be allowed to hear each of the parties.
In
the Kvocka and others case, a decision was issued by the Trial Chamber on 5
December dismissing Zoran Zigic’s Motion Regarding Concurrent Procedures Before
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International
Court of Justice (ICJ) on the same questions, in which Zigic had requested the
Trial Chamber to suspend a decision on questions pending before the ICJ. Again,
copies will be made available after this.
For
those who have not already received it, we have copies for you of the order
for the Immediate Cessation of Violations of Protective Measures for Witnesses
issued by the Blaskic Trial Chamber last Friday.
We
also have copies of the Martinovic pre-trial brief in French and English, which
was filed on 23 November. I should just point out to you that the pre-trial
conference in the Naletilic and Martinovic case, which is due to take place
tomorrow at 1600 hours, will also be a further initial appearance, at which
the two accused will have to enter pleas to the amended indictment, dated 28
November.
Stéphane
Bourgon, Chef de Cabinet of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), made no statement.
Graham
Blewitt, Deputy Prosecutor of the ICTY, made no statement.
QUESTIONS:
Asked
what made the new service on the ICTY web site different from the one already
given by the Domovina website, Landale replied that it was more or less
the same service. He added, however, that it was easier in some respects
to use, because, if a person was already on the ICTY website they would
have access to all courtroom materials and basic Tribunal documents as well
as an immediate link to this service.
He
concluded that Domovina had been at the forefront of offering this service
for some time and the Tribunal was now collaborating with them to make it
part of the Tribunal website.
Asked
for a comment on Croatian press speculation that a number of Croatian Generals
would soon be indicted by the Tribunal in connection with events that took place
in 1995, Blewitt replied that he would just repeat what he had said on other
occasions. The investigation was drawing to a conclusion, at which time an indictment
would be issued. However, no time frame could be given. He added that previously
he had said that it would be at the end of this year or early next year, however,
there would be further delays as the OTP was experiencing some difficulties
with cooperation at the moment. Some of these difficulities related to the OTP’s
ability to gain access to evidence needed to complete the investigation, he
concluded.
Asked for
a comment on the fact that today Slobodna Dalmacija began publishing the
transcripts from the Blaskic trial in contravention of an order from the
Trial Chamber, Landale replied that he understood that there had been further
testimony published in Dalmacija today. If what was published was subject
to a protective order then it was foolish on their part. They had received
a clear order from the Trial Chamber last Friday warning them that any publication
of material subject to protective orders here at the Tribunal constituted
a contempt of court and a contempt of the Tribunal. Certainly consequences
could follow from that. He added that it showed a lack of responsibility
on their part.
Asked
whether anyone could be requested to come here before the Tribunal in relation
to contempt of court, Landale replied that this was up to the Trial Chamber
to decide. He could not prejudge what the Trial Chamber would do. Certainly,
it was in the Trial Chamber’s power, once they had looked at the situation
and if they felt that there had been a contempt of court, to take whatever
measures they felt necessary, including asking someone to come to the Tribunal
to answer contempt of court charges.
Asked whether
the court could subpoena someone, Landale replied that it was in their power
to do so.
Blewitt
added that Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence should be referred
to on this issue. It was clearly set out in Rule 77 what the procedures were,
he said.
Asked whether
General Shinseki would attend the hearing, Landale replied that this
issue had been referred to in the brief from the United States. Copies would
be given out at the end of the press briefing.
Asked
whether, following the fact that UN Member States had been asked to make
proposals for possible ad litem Judges, the ICTY had any involvement
in the selection of these Judges, Bourgon replied that at this time, Member
States had not yet been invited to make proposals with respect to ad
litem Judges.
He
added that a letter had been sent on behalf of the Secretary-General on
10 November inviting States to make nominations for the election of permanent
Judges. The current Judges’ term would end on 16 November 2001 and the President
had requested an early election in order to know exactly which Judges would
still be in place in November of next year, with the aim of avoiding any
disruption of trial activity.
Given
that States had until 9 January 2001 to make their nominations, the Tribunal
could expect an election for permanent Judges sometime towards the end of
February or the beginning of March. This was earlier than the last elections
which were held in the month of May, he added.
With
respect to ad litem Judges, now that a resolution had been adopted,
the budget process must first be completed, before States were invited to
make nominations. The objective was to start the ad litem mechanism
next year. The aim would be to have six ad litem Judges at the Tribunal
sometime in July 2001 for a six month period, he added.
Budget
proposals had been submitted by the Tribunal to the Budget Division in New
York which must now be submitted to the Advisory Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions, which would review the proposals and submit them
to the Fifth Committee to be analysed and approved. Once this process had
taken place and the Tribunal knew what resources had been approved by the
United Nations to implement the ad litem Judges mechanism, States
would be invited to make nominations. The Tribunal would not be involved
in the nomination process. According to the resolution, States would be
invited to make up to four nominations for ad litem Judges, he concluded.
Asked whether
the President believed it would be necessary for the first time in July
to use ad litem Judges because the current capacity would no longer
be sufficient, Bourgon replied that it was not that it would become necessary
at that point. One could say that it was already necessary given the number
of trials that were ongoing and the number of trials that were at the pre-trial
stage.
The
idea was that, if the Tribunal succeeded in implementing the mechanism as
early as July, as soon as a Trial Chamber completed a trial (because it
was necessary to have mixed Chambers of permanent Judges and ad litem
Judges), the case load of that Trial Chamber would be looked at to see whether
it was possible for the Chamber to take on two trials at that point. If
so, the Chamber would be assigned three ad litem Judges to make a
Chamber of six Judges in total. Two sections of that Chamber would be created.
In the first section, there would be one permanent Judge and two ad litem
Judges and in the other section, two permanent Judges and one ad litem
Judge. Both of these trials would begin as soon as they were ready, he concluded.
The
Tribunal now had eight trials at the pre-trial stage. It was hoped that
sometime in the summer period the Tribunal would be able to get a fifth
and a sixth trial going at the same time.
Asked
whether, once the ad litem Judges were added to a list they would
only come to The Hague and be paid when they were involved in a trial, Bourgon
replied that this was the case. He added that the idea behind the mechanism,
budget wise, was that these Judges would not be paid while only on the list.
According to the resolution, they would be elected for a term of four years
during which time they could be called upon to come to the Tribunal to sit
on one or more trials for a period of time not exceeding three years.
He
added that once the list of 27 Judges was confirmed, the President would look
at the list and take into consideration first, the number of votes received
by the Judges in the election process by the General Assembly.
The
President would then consider the qualifications of the Judges and the type
of Judges needed for a particular case, whether this was a Judge with more
extensive experience in trial activity or a Judge who had more extensive experience
in criminal law or international law. He would then make a recommendation
to the Secretary-General inviting him to nominate three Judges to come to
the Tribunal, he concluded.
Asked
whether this meant that the Tribunal had the possibility of having six Chambers
working simultaneously, and how this would work, Bourgon replied that the
basic premise was that the Tribunal could deal with six trials at the same
time, two in each Chamber, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
This implied that court time for each specific trial might be reduced a
little, with each trial sitting for four hours a day. This also implied
that there would be eight hours of trial time per courtroom, which went
beyond a normal working day. This was why additional staff and resources
were required.
Asked whether
this system would lead to a two-tier system where certain Judges had more
prestige, Bourgon replied that on the contrary the concept of ad litem
Judges was based on the fact that ‘a Judge is a Judge is a Judge’. Looking
at the resolution, the ad litem Judges had all the same powers and
privileges and exactly the same status as permanent Judges.
In
terms of difference, however, the ad litem Judges would come to the
Tribunal only to sit on trials. The idea was that they would come to the Tribunal
once the trial was ready to be heard, once the pre-trial procedures were over
and once the questions of law and fact had been identified. They would come
to the Tribunal, sit on a trial, write a judgement and go. As mentioned before,
they would be able to stay here for a maximum period of three years, which
meant that they would be able to sit on more than one trial. The idea was
for ad litem Judges to concentrate on trials, he concluded.
Asked whether
having the Judges here on a temporary basis to hear a trial without any of
the pre-trial proceedings would lead to some loss in the experience the Judges
had, Bourgon replied that this was a concern of the Security Council. Extensive
negotiations had taken place and a lot of work had gone on with the Working
Group of the Security Council which wanted to avoid any loss of experience
and to ensure that maximum use was made of the experience of the permanent
Judges. To this end, the ad litem Judges would be mixed with permanent
Judges, bearing in mind that under this mechanism, it would be possible for
former Judges to come back and sit for those trials, he concluded.
*****
|
