|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing.
It is merely a summary.
ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 13.10.2004
Time: 12.20 p.m.
Registry and Chambers:
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers,
made the following statement:
Good morning,
Yesterday Judge Kwon signed an Order making public
the indictment, warrant of arrest and order for surrender for Miroslav
Bralo. Bralo was originally indicted in November 1995 on nine counts
of grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and 12 counts of violations
of the laws or customs of war, for his direct individual participation
in the unlawful confinement of civilians, inhumane and cruel treatment,
torture and rape.
It is alleged that at all times relevant to the
indictment, between April 1993 and mid-June 1993, Bralo was a member
of the "Jokers" special forces group of the Croatian Defence
Council, or HVO.
According to the indictment, Bralo’s victims were
captured Bosnian Muslim civilians and included Witness A, a Bosnian
Muslim woman, who was tortured, raped and sexually abused on a number
of occasions by Bralo and others. Copies of the indictment will
be available after this briefing.
On Saturday, 9 October 2004, and the Tribunal’s
Outreach Programme and The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in
Republika Srpska held a conference in Foča, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
entitled “ICTY Cases in Relation to War Crimes Committed in Foca”.
The event enabled the Tribunal to provide key audiences
in Foca with a detailed and comprehensive picture of the Tribunal’s
activities in relation to allegations of serious violations of international
humanitarian law in Foca during the 1992-1995 armed conflict. The
conference was attended by more than 100 people, including a number
of Bosniak victims’ associations and, contrary to some media reports,
a number of local residents from Foča, including the Deputy
Mayor, representatives from the local police, judicial authorities
and veterans associations.
Senior ICTY officials who were involved in Foca-related
cases described the investigations conducted, outlined the strategy
of the Office of the Prosecutor and the evidence presented during
trials, as well as the facts established.
The conference was the second in a series entitled
"Bridging the Gap Between the ICTY and Communities in Bosnia
and Herzegovina" in which the Tribunal deals directly with
the immediate communities most affected by the crimes at the heart
of ICTY cases.
In all the presentations, ICTY representatives
echoed Bosnian public sentiment in calling on local authorities
to conduct their own investigations and to bring additional charges
where evidence exists regarding the many crimes committed in the
Foca region.
The next event is scheduled to take place during
the course of November 2004 concerning the so-called "Celebici"
case.
We received word yesterday that the trial in The
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu will commence on 15 November
2004 at 2.15 p.m. The pre-trial conference will be held on the same
day at 10 a.m.
Next week, aside from the continuation of the Milosevic,
Krajisnik and Oric trials, the defence case in The Prosecutor
v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura will commence on Monday 18 October
at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom I.
In addition, there will be a status conference
in The Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic on Wednesday 20 October
at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom II.
With regard to court documents, a list of the most
recent court documents will be available to you after this.
Office of the Prosecution:
Florence Hartmann for the Office of the Prosecutor
made the following statement:
Following the publication of press articles stating
that there is no evidence linking Milosevic to the genocide committed
in Srebrenica, I wish to recall first and foremost that this is
a matter under consideration in an ongoing trial and it should be
left to the judges' determination rather than being the object of
speculation. Although no final conclusion can be drawn before the
completion of the trial, and before the Defense has completed its
case, substantial evidence linking Milosevic to the worst atrocities
committed in Bosnia has been submitted during the trial, and the
Trial Chamber has apparently found that evidence sufficient at this
stage to warrant the continuation of the trial on 66 counts in the
indictment against Milosevic, including the charge of genocide (as
indicated in the June 16, 2004 Decision on the Motion for Judgment
of Acquittal pursuant to Article 98 bis of the ICTY Rules of Procedure
and Evidence). However, once again, let me stress that this is a
preliminary finding by the Trial Chamber, subject to the presumption
of innocence of the accused and rendered before the presentation
of the Defence case. The charge of genocide, as the rest of the
charges against Milosevic, is being considered in the ongoing trial,
and should be left to the Judges' determination.
At this stage, and as a preliminary disposition,
the Trial Chamber holds in the above mentioned document on page
134 – paragraph 323, that there is sufficient evidence that
(1) there existed a joint criminal enterprise,
which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and
intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims
as a group, and that its participants committed genocide in Brcko,
Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski
Novi;
(2) the Accused was a participant in that joint
criminal enterprise, Judge Kwon dissenting ;
(3) the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal
enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership,
to commit other crimes than genocide and it was reasonably foreseeable
to him that, as a consequence of the commission of those crimes,
genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group would be committed
by other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, and it was
committed;
(4) the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit
in the commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge
of the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants
substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention was
the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as group;
(5) the Accused was a superior to certain persons
whom he knew or had reason to know were about to commit or had committed
genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and he failed
to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide,
or punish the perpetrators thereof.
The Chamber’s dispositions are detailed in the
142 pages document. I would encourage the public to consult the
document through our website http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm
and I would underline the findings related to genocide, noting once
again that they are preliminary and rendered pursuant Rule 98 bis
by the Trial Chamber, before the presentation of the Defence case.
Page 91 – Finding
246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this
evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members
of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy
a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in
fact committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica,
Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the
Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including
the evidence set out in paragraphs 238 -245. The scale and pattern
of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims
killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their
brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting
of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are
all factors that point to genocide.
P.103-104 – Finding
288. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from the evidence,
including evidence referred to in paragraphs 250-287 and 304-308,
a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the Accused was a participant in the joint criminal enterprise,
found by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 246 to include the Bosnian
Serb leadership, and that he shared with its participants the aim
and intention to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group,
Judge Kwon dissenting.
On the basis of the evidence as to –
(1) the overall leadership position of the Accused among the Serbian
people, including the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(2) the Accused’s advocacy of and support for the concept of a
Greater Serbia;
(3) the logistical and financial support from Serbia to the Bosnian
Serbs, which it is reasonable to infer was provided with the knowledge
and support of the Accused ; the logistical support is illustrated
by the close relationship of VJ personnel with the VRS;
(4) the nature of the Accused’s relationship and involvement with
the Bosnian Serb political and military leadership, as evidenced
by the request of Karadzic that the Accused keep in touch with him
and that it was very important for Karadzic to have his assessment
;
(5) the authority and influence of the Accused over the Bosnian
Serb leadership;
(6) the intimate knowledge that the Accused had "about everything
that was being done "; his insistence that he be informed "about
everything that was going to the front line"; and
(7) the crimes committed, the scale and pattern of the attacks
on the four territories, their intensity, the substantial number
of Muslims killed, the brutal treatment of Muslims in detention
centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to
the survival of the Muslims as a group,
a Trial Chamber could infer that he not only knew of the genocidal
plan of the joint criminal enterprise, but also that he shared with
its members the intent to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims
as a group in that part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina
which it was planned to include in the Serbian state.
Answer to the First Question
(The question being : Is there evidence
upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied that the Accused was
a participant in the joint criminal enterprise and that he shared
the required intent of its participants?)
The Trial Chamber concludes that there is sufficient evidence
that genocide was committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica,
Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi and, Judge Kwon dissenting,
that there is sufficient evidence that the Accused was a participant
in a joint criminal enterprise, which included the Bosnian Serb
leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part
of the Bosnian Muslims as a group.
Page 106. Finding and Answer to the Second Question
(The question being : Is there evidence upon
which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise
to commit a particular crime and it was reasonably foreseeable to
him that, as a consequence of the commission of that crime, a different
crime, namely genocide, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslims
as a group, would be committed by other participants in the joint
criminal enterprise, and it was committed?)
292. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from the evidence
set out in relation to the First Question, a Trial Chamber could
be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was a participant
in a joint criminal enterprise to commit other crimes than genocide
and it was reasonably foreseeable to him that, as a consequence
of the commission of those crimes, genocide of a part of the Bosnian
Muslims as a group would be committed by other participants in the
joint criminal enterprise, and it was committed.
Although this basis of liability is alternative to the liability
of the Accused as a perpetrator sharing the intent of the other
members of the joint criminal enterprise (First Question), the
Trial Chamber will not make a final determination as to the one
or the other basis at this stage, that is, whether to acquit the
Accused at this stage of one or the other basis of liability.
The reason is that a determination as to the Accused’s liability
depends to a certain extent on issues of fact and the weight to
be attached to certain items of evidence, which calls for an assessment
of the credibility and reliability of that evidence. These issues
do not arise for determination until the judgment phase.
Page 107. Finding and Answer to Third and Fourth
Questions
(The questions being : Is there evidence upon
which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the Accused aided and abetted in the commission of the crime
of genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina,
Kljuc and Bosanski Novi?
Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was complicit in the commission
of the crime of genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica,
Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi? )
On the basis of the evidence set out above in relation to the
First Question, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit in the
commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge of
the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants
substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention
was the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group.
Although complicity and aiding and abetting are possible alternatives
to the liability of the Accused as a principal, the Trial Chamber
will not, for the reason stated in paragraph 293 in relation to
the third category of joint criminal enterprise, make a determination
at this stage as to the one or the other.
Page 111. Finding and Answer to Fifth Question
(The question being : Is there evidence upon
which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the Accused knew or had reason to know that persons subordinate
to him were about to commit or had committed genocide, in whole
or in part, of the Bosnian Muslims as a group in Brcko, Prijedor,
Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi, and
he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission
of genocide or punish the perpetrators thereof?)
309. On the basis of this evidence as well as other evidence, a
Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
Accused was a superior to certain persons whom he knew or had reason
to know were about to commit or had committed genocide of a part
of the Bosnian Muslims as a group in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most,
Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi, and he failed to
take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide,
or punish the perpetrators thereof.
Questions:
Asked whether, as announced by the Trial Chamber
in the Milosevic case, the one week break in November would be a
Tribunal recess, Landale replied that he understood there would
only be a one week break in the Milosevic case.
A journalist asked to which court the Indictment
in the Stankovic case under Rule 11bis should be referred to. Hartmann
replied that the request was made by the Office of the Prosecutor
to refer the case to Bosnia and Herzegovina where the crimes allegedly
had taken place. She added that the decision would be made by the
Chamber.
Asked, in relation to the Prosecutor’s visit to
Belgrade during which the Belgrade Government repeatedly mentioned
that there was a case that the Prosecution Office had given to them,
to elaborate on this case, Hartmann replied that indeed this was
an investigation case within the Office of the Prosecutor and not
an Indictment which, following the UN Security Council resolution
in 2003 and in line with the Completion Strategy, the Office of
the Prosecutor could not continue and had to transfer to local Prosecutors
in order for them to complete the case and issue an indictment.
Asked whether more details about the case could be given, Hartmann
replied that she could not discuss on an on-going investigation
and that this was henceforth up to the local judicial authorities
to do so.
A journalist asked whether we could assume that
the Miroslav Bralo Indictment would be subject to the Rule 11bis.
Hartmann answered that she did not want to assume anything and that
for the moment they asked for the arrest of Miroslav Bralo.
Asked whether Mirsolav Bralo was one of the perpetrators
mentioned in the Furundzija case, Landale replied that was indeed
the case.
A journalist asked for a comment on a statement
made yesterday by a Defence witness in the Milosevic trial that
Mladic was in Sarajevo. Hartmann replied that according their information
Mladic was in Serbia, as mentioned by the Prosecutor in Luxembourg
before the EU Foreign Ministers on October 11, and that no one among
the officials she met in Belgrade on October 4, denied that Mladic
was in Serbia.
Asked whether a new time-limit had been set for
Croatia for the arrest of Gotovina, Hartmann replied that the rules
required that a warrant of arrest should be enforced as soon as
possible. She added that Croatia is aware that unless Gotovina is
apprehended before the next ICTY report to the UNSC, there might
be a reevaluation of the assessment of full cooperation provided
by the Croatian authorities.
A journalist stated that during her address to
the EU Foreign Ministers the Prosecutor had said that as a result
of unbearable financial pressure on the Tribunal she had lost almost
50% of senior legal staff and over 40% senior investigators. Asked
if this was accurate. Hartmann replied that it was correct and that
these figures came from the speech that she gave and which has been
made public. She added to say that not only were they accurate,
but also problematic due to the freeze on recruitment that simply
prevented the tribunal to replace those who left.
Asked whether this freeze was in place for the
whole Tribunal or only for the Office of the Prosecutor, Landale
replied that it was for the whole Tribunal.
Press Briefing documents
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic
5 October 2004 – Prosecution Motion to Strike Ground
of Appeal (3) from Assigned Counsel "Appeal Against the Trial
Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel". (5pgs)
8 October 2004 – Defence Reply to Prosecution Motion
to Strike Ground of Appeal (3) from Assigned Counsel "Appeal
Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel".
(7pgs)
The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic
5 October 2004 – Order Appointing a Trial Chamber
for the Purposes of Determining whether the Indictment should be
referred to another Court under Rule 11bis. (2pgs)
5 October 2004 – Order Transferring a Motion Pursuant
to Rule 11bis. (2pgs)
The Prosecutor v. Mejakic, Gruban, Fustar
and Knezevic
6 October 2004 – Decision on Appeal by the Prosecution
to Resolve Conflict of Interest Regarding Attorney Jovan Simic.
(6pgs)
The Prosecutor v. Stojan Zupljanin
5 October 2004 – Ordonnance Autorisant la Modification
de l’Acte d’Accusation Modifie en Application de l’Article 19 du
Statut 50 (A)(i)(b) du Reglement. (4pgs)
The Prosecutor v. Stanisic and Simatovic
8 October 2004 – Prosecution’s Appeal Against "Decision
on Provisional Release". (19pgs)
8 October 2004 – Prosecution Application Under
Rule 115 to Present Additional Evidence in its Appeal Against Provisional
Release. (26pgs)
The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu
11 October 2004 – Order Assigning a Case to a Trial
Chamber (1pg)
The Prosecutor v. Ljubisa Beara
11 October 2004 – Order Assigning a Case to a Trial
Chamber (1pg)
The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan
Jokic
6 October 2004 – Corrigenda to Prosecution’s Closing
Brief
*****
See
also the latest ADC-ICTY press briefing.
|
