|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 13.11.2002
Time: 11:30
REGISTRY
AND CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman
for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Good
morning,
I
have a few documents to run through with you and then we’ll take your questions.
In
the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic:
On 8 November,
we received the "Submission From the Office of the Prosecutor on the
Future Conduct of the Case in the Light of the State of the Accused’s Health
and the Length and Complexity of the Case".
In the Prosecutor
v. Janko Bobetko:
On 8 November,
we received a letter from the Croation Government addressed to the President
of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda.
In the Prosecutor
v. Krajisnik and Plavsic:
On 7 November,
we received the "Prosecution’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated
Facts". This is a lengthy document and so will only be available on
request.
Then, on 11 November,
we received the "Decision on Krajisnik Motion for Access to Ex Parte
Factual Basis of Plavsic Plea". The Motion was denied.
In the Prosecutor
v.Hadzihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura:
On 12 November,
we received the "Decision on Joint Challenge to Jurisdiction".
This is a lengthy document and so will only be available on request. The Motion
was dismissed in full.
In the Prosecutor
v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic:
On 8 November,
we received the "Decision on Application by Dragoljub Ojdanic for Disclosure
of Ex Parte Submissions". The motion was granted.
On 11 November,
we received a "Motion for Modification of Decision on Provisional Release".
Again on 11 November,
we received a "Motion to Admit Additional Evidence".
In the Prosecutor
v. Blagojevic, Obrenovic, Jokic and Nikolic:
On 8 November,
we received the "Prosecution’s Amended, Redacted Witness Summaries Pursuant
to Rule 64 ter (E)(ii)". This is a lengthy document and will only available
on request.
Also on 8 November,
we received the "Prosecution’s Amended, Redacted Pre-Trial Brief".
Again, this is a lengthy document and will only available on request.
Then on 11 November,
we received a Scheduling Order, ordering, among other things, that Dragan Jokic
return to the United Nations Detention Unit not later than 26 November to appear
at the Status Conference along with the other accused on 27 November. The Order
states that Jokic can continue his provisional release after the Status Conference
under the same conditions as set out by the Decision of the Appeals Chamber
of 28 May 2002.
Then, on 12 November,
we received the "Prosecution’s Consolidated Response Pursuant to the
Trial Chamber’s Scheduling Order of 8 October 2002 Concerning Provisional Release
of Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Obrenovic". Again, another lengthy
document that will only be available on request.
In the Prosecutor
v. Dragan Nikolic:
On 1 November,
we received the "Notice of Appeal from the Judgement, Pursuant to Rule
108 of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, of Trial Chamber II dated the 9th
Day of October 2002 Concerning the Defence Motion Challenging the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by the Tribunal."
Florence Hartmann,
Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
Asked
about the whereabouts of the amici curiae’s submission to the court
on the future proceedings of the Milosevic trial, Landale pointed out that
this was a confidential document and therefore not available. Despite the
fact that Mr. Milosevic raised points made in the submission in open court
and that these were not redacted from the records, Landale re-iterated that
the document was a confidential filing and that he could therefore not make
any more comment on it. He pointed out that to make any comment on it would
constitute a breach of a protective order. In response to a comment that Mr.
Milosevic’s words in court had already been reported, Landale pointed out
that the Trial Chamber had not requested the words to be redacted from the
records.
Asked
for an update on Mr. Milosevic’s health and when he could be expected to return
to court, Landale stated that as yet we did not know. Mr. Milosevic had been
seen by a doctor last night, he had seen the nurse this morning and would
see her again during the day. The Trial Chamber would base its decision on
when the trial will resume on the medical report it requested from the doctor.
He added that we might have a better idea about tomorrow’s schedule later
on in the day.
A
journalist asked whether anything was known about the specialist examination
of Mr. Milosevic which Judge May mentioned in court. In response, Landale
pointed out that the Trial Chamber had not yet ordered such a report to be
made, though it remained an option. He added that the Trial Chamber had the
submissions made by the OTP and the amici curiae, as well as the report
from the doctor at the Detention Unit. Judge May indicated that there would
be some discussion on the future conduct of the case in court before any final
decision or agreement was made. If and when this happened, the press would
be informed.
Asked
what the OTP meant when it requested an independent, outside evalution into
Mr. Milosevic’s health and how extensive this evaluation was going to be,
Hartmann stated that the OTP wanted to know all the elements relevant to the
situation. She added that the OTP had asked for further expertise to be brought
in on other occassions too and that it was again necessary in this case. Hartmann
also pointed out that in their submission as to the future conduct of the
case, the OTP indicated both the legal and medical advantage to Mr. Milosevic
of appointing him defense counsel. She added that the OTP had reduced the
case to its bare minimum, stating that only five weeks were spent on the Kosovo
part of the indictment.
Landale
reiterated that the Trial Chamber was in possession of the OTP and amici
submissions, as well as the doctor’s reports and would consider all the necessary
material before coming to a decision.
In
response to a point of clarification as to who decided that Mr. Milosevic
was too sick to come to court on Monday, Landale stated that apart from the
doctor, the nurse saw Mr. Milosevic on a regular basis and could take his
blood pressure at any time. In consultation with the doctor she could state
whether the blood pressure was too high and whether it was wise to continue
with the trial on a particular day.
To
the question as to whether Mr. Milosevic’s sickness might lead to some of
the evidence being curtailed, Hartmann pointed out that she had already made
the point that the OTP case had been reduced to its minimum. She added that
the OTP mandate was not simply to put Mr. Milosevic behind bars but to bring
to light what happened in the former Yugoslavia and to prove personal responsibility.
Reconciliation in the region would not be achieved, she stated, by merely
dealing with one aspect of a case. Furthermore, the court needed a full and
comprehensive overview of the case in order to come to its decision. This
was essential for the process of justice not only in court but also for the
population, the victims and everyone in the region.
Asked
what would be the result of the lack of co-operation by the FRY with the Security
Council, Landale made it clear that the ICTY wanted the FRY to fully live
up to its obligations under international law. He pointed out that no apprehensions
or transfers to the ICTY of indictees believed to be in the FRY had been made
recently and that many of these indictees had been wanted for years. He added
that their continued liberty was a disgrace. Although unable to comment on
any possible co-operation between the OTP and the FRY, he pointed out that
the arrest and transfer of indictees was a first and very important step in
co-operation and had not yet been made. The ICTY would like the Security Council
to look at this matter and take whatever measures it could to bring the FRY
into line.
On
this issue, Hartmann added that the OTP followed this line and pointed out
that indictees such as Mladic were still in the FRY and must be arrested.
She added that co-operation was required not just for arrests but also in
terms of answering the OTP’s other requests.
A
journalist made reference to President Kostunica’s letter to the Council of
Europe in which he enumerated the FRY’s co-operation with the OTP, stating
the number the documents which were transferred, and asked Hartmann how many
requests were directed to the FRY and how many had actually been dealt with
satisfactorily. In response, Hartmann pointed out that a full answer might
involve disclosure of confidential information but that Kostunica was manipulating
the figures as many of the answers received from the FRY were incomplete and
inaccurate. As an example she pointed out that the FRY answered requests for
documentation by stating that the documents were destroyed by NATO bombing
and considered that it had thereby honored the request. The OTP did not, as
it believed that not all documents could have been destroyed by NATO bombing.
A further problem arose when OTP asked for a waiver to allow a witness to
testify. This was given, but only at a very low level and did not encompass
the higher levels of security. This meant that a witness was not able to give
full testimony. She added that the OTP judged the level of co-operation on
the quality of the answers to its requests and not the quantity.
Landale
added that co-operation could not be piecemeal. For the ICTY to fulfil its
mandate it had to receive full co-operation from all states.
Asked
how fast a defence lawyer could be appointed to Milosevic, Landale stated
that it would be up to the Trial Chamber to make any decision of that nature.
*****
|
