|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing
Date: 03.07.2002
Time: 12:00 p.m.
REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS
Jim
Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
In the Milosevic
case:
On
27 June, a scheduling order was rendered following the oral directions given
by the Trial Chamber at a hearing on 26 June 2002. Among other things, the Trial
Chamber ordered that a pre-trial conference relating to the portions of the
case concerning Bosnia and Croatia be held on Thursday 18 July 2002. It had
been provisionally set for 12 July 2002, but the Prosecution had some difficulties
with that date. The order also states that there will be oral arguments in closed
session this Friday on the possible application of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure
and Evidence.
Also
on 27 June, we received the "Interlocutory Appeal of the Prosecution Against
Decision on Admission of Evidence of Summarizing Witness".
The
following day, 28 June, a corrigendum to the Interlocutory Appeal was filed.
You can pick up both of those documents after this briefing.
On
28 June, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, appointed the Bench
of the Appeals Chamber that will sit on the appeal filed by witness K12 on 14
June 2002. The Bench consists of Judges Jorda (presiding), Shahabuddeen, Hunt,
Pocar and Meron.
We
have also received the expert report of the Prosecution Military Expert, General
Sir Peter De La Billiere, on the subject of military command and control. Copies
will be available on request.
With
regard to other cases:
On
26 June, we received a scheduling order in the Brdjanin and Talic case ordering
a preliminary hearing on the report of the amicus curiae to be held on
10 July 2002 at 2.15 p.m., during which the amicus curiae and the counsel
for Ms. Maglov will have the opportunity to make representations. Secondly,
if the Prosecution and the accused Brdjanin, personally or through counsel of
his choice, would like to submit any observations in relation to the report,
they should so request by giving prior notice to this Chamber by 1 July 2002.
This
order concerns the earlier "Order requesting investigation into the conduct
of co-counsel for defendant Brdjanin issued by this Chamber, pursuant to Rule
77 (c) of the Rules, on 15 April 2002, in which the Chamber directed the Registrar
to appoint an amicus curiae to investigate the matters outlined in that
Order and to report back to the Chamber as to the outcome of that investigation
as soon as possible". This order also noted the "Decision of the Registrar
of 15 April to suspend the assignment of Ms. Maglov as co-counsel pending the
outcome of investigations".
On
28 June, we received a "Decision on Defence Preliminary Motion Concerning
the Form of the Indictment" in the Strugar, Jokic and Others case. The Trial
Chamber granted the Motion in respect to the Defence’s challenge to the form
of the Indictment to the extent set out in the terms of the Decision and ordered
the Prosecution to file a new Indictment within 14 days.
On
28 June we received a Decision from the Appeals Chamber in French ordering Jonathan
Randal to file his grounds of appeal no later than 4 July. This follows a request
for extension of time to file those grounds dated 21 June 2002 and repeated
in his motion to appeal, which was filed on 26 June 2002.
On
28 June, we received a scheduling order in the Naletilic and Martinovic case,
deciding that there will be a recess between the end of the presentation of
Naletilic’s Defence case and the start of Martinovic’s Defence case, which is
due to commence on 15 July 2002.
Also
on 28 June, we received a scheduling order in the Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic,
Alagic and Kubura, ordering that a status conference be held on Thursday 18
July 2002 at 9 a.m.
Again
on 28 June, we received a scheduling order setting Tuesday 9 July at 1 p.m.
as the time and date of a hearing on Momcilo Gruban’s request for provisional
release that was filed on 6 June 2002. The Order also invites the Federal Government
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Government of the Republic of
Serbia to appear at the hearing.
We
have received a number of documents in the Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic,
Dragan Obrenovic, Dragan Jokic and Momir Nikolic:
On
2 July we received a "Motion to Dismiss Count 1B – Complicity to Commit Genocide
in the Amended Joinder Indictment on the Grounds that it Offends the Principle
of Nullum Crimen Sine Lege".
Again
on 2 July, we received a "Motion to Dismiss Cumulative Charges of Counts
2, 3, 5, 6 in the Amended Joinder Indictment Based on the Legal Findings in
Krstic Regarding Cumulative Convictions".
Also
on 2 July, we received "Accused Obrenovic’s Motion on the Form of the Amended
Joinder Indictment".
We
have copies of the Halilovic Prosecution pre-trial brief. It is a very lengthy
document, so copies will only be made on request.
In
the Stakic case, I understand from what was said in court yesterday that the
Prosecution have been given to 20 September to conclude their case.
Finally,
this morning I received a revised scheduling order for the Stakic trial, which
you might find of interest.
Florence
Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
Asked to confirm
that Randal had until tomorrow at the latest to submit his appeal, and whether
it would contain more than was already known, Landale replied that he would
have till tomorrow to submit his grounds of appeal. These would contain more
than was already known. Until now Randal had only filed a one page document,
filing for appeal. This deadline was for the grounds of the appeal and the
arguments, he concluded.
Following the
Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case, raising the problem of the cost of the
amici curiae and inviting them to make submissions on various proposals,
a journalist commented on the fact that he had not yet heard Mr. Wladimiroff
react in open court to the suggestion by the Judges that there should be just
one amicus present for each session in court.
Asked whether
any Decision had been taken in camera about the proposals made and whether
any changes had been made concerning the arrangements between them and the
court, Landale replied that there had been no developments on this issue.
Asked whether
changes were still being proposed to the amicus curiae, Landale repeated
that there were no developments on this subject, it was still pending.
Asked for an
update on the Sainovic and Ojdanic appeal, Landale replied that, before the
appeal could go ahead, the Appeals Chamber was waiting for the various relevant
documents to translated into French. This was necessary so that the bench
of the Appeals Chamber could consider the issue based on the provisional appeal
filed by the Prosecution. The request for an extension of time had been rejected,
he concluded.
Asked what
form of collaboration there had been between the International Criminal Court
(ICC) and the ICTY concerning, for example, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
Landale replied that in the preparatory phase of the ICC, a number people
within the ICTY had lent their experience and expertise to the preparatory
commission in order to try and help in the setting up of the ICC.
Asked in what
ways the Tribunal had assisted the ICC, Landale replied that the ICTY had
helped in many ways, mainly lending the experiences of what valuable lessons
the ICTY had been able to draw from its experience of setting up an adhoc
international Tribunal. Perhaps things that the ICTY had done in the past
and would not do again and things that the ICTY had done which would be good
examples to follow. Collaboration had been on every level, he concluded.
Asked whether
it had been on a technical level, Landale replied that it had.
Asked whether
she could comment on the US threat to block the Bosnia mission and what the
implications would be for the OTP if the US were to back out of the Bosnia
mission, Hartmann replied that she could not comment on the issue, the OTP
was waiting for new developments on the subject.
*****
|
