|
Press Release · Communiqué de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)
CC/PIO/129-E
The Hague, 19 November 1996
CELEBICI CASE: THE TWO MOTIONS ON THE FORM OF THE INDICTMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS LANDZO AND DELIC ARE DENIED
Trial Chamber II, presided over by Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, has disposed on 15 November 1996 of the two motions by the Co-defendants Esad LANDZO and Hazim DELIC based on defects in the form of their joint indictment.
Filed on 28 June and 1 August 1996 respectively, the motions by both accused were orally argued in a public hearing held on 1 October 1996.
Both motions have been denied "in all respects" by the Judges.
1. THE MOTION BY ACCUSED ESAD LANDZO
The Defence asserted the following:
- several counts of the indictment are "too general, imprecise and unclear";
- due to the cumulative nature of the charges, the Accused is charged twice for one single criminal event;
- two counts should be disregarded as "it has not been established that the alleged victim existed or not";
- due to the "time continuity" for the criminal acts described in the various charges, "all those acts should be considered as representing one extended criminal act and should be treated as such":
The Prosecutor's responses were that:
- the counts of the indictment are further detailed in the supporting material;
- separate charges reflect and address different aspects of the alleged criminal conduct;
- disputed matters of facts should be decided at trial;
- every alleged offence is a discrete event and a result of a separate exercise of the will of the accused over an extensive period of time.
And the Judges determined that:
- the indictment "contains all the necessary information for the Defence to prepare its Defence";
- the matter of cumulative charges is "relevant only to the penalty considerations, if the accused were ultimately to be found guilty of the charges in question";
- the existence or not of the victim mentioned in counts 9 and 10 is "a matter of fact that will have to be considered at trial";
- the possible existence of a relation between the different crimes "is a matter that can be addressed at the time of sentencing".
2. THE MOTION BY ACCUSED HAZIM DELIC
The Defence contended the following:
- the indictment is "incorrect" in attributing command responsibility to the Accused;
- is "vague" because "it does not give a concise statement of the facts and the crimes or crimes with which the accused is charged";
- and is "contradictory" in holding the Accused responsible for the same acts "both as a direct participant and as a superior".
The Prosecutor responded that:
- the indictment provides the Defence with "enough precise information" to prepare its defence;
- and that "challenges of fact" are not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
The Judges determined that:
- the position of the Accused over the Celebici camp, or the quality of the persons confined in the camp, are "factual questions that must be determined at trial";
- the indictment describes with "sufficient detail the acts, place and time of the crime";
- the indictment "does separate the acts for which the Accused is being held responsible as a direct participant and as a superior" and properly "informs" the Accused;
- the indictment "puts the Defence on notice of the legal classification of the crime and sufficiently enables the Accused to prepare its defence".
|
