|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 1 August 2001
Time: 11:30 a.m.
REGISTRY
AND CHAMBERS
Jim
Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
As you will have
seen from the press release that we sent out yesterday, further to the election
of 27 ad litem Judges by the General Assembly on 12 June 2001, the Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan, has appointed the following six ad litem Judges to the Tribunal
as of 3 September 2001:
Ms. Maureen
Harding Clark (Ireland)
Ms. Fatoumata Diarra (Mali)
Ms. Ivana Janu (Czech Republic)
Mr. Amarjeet Singh (Singapore)
Ms. Chikako Taya (Japan)
Ms. Sharon A. Williams (Canada)
Upon their arrival
at the ICTY, the ad litem Judges will have the opportunity to familiarise
themselves with the Tribunal during a one week seminar which will take place
from 3 to 7 September 2001.
The ad litem
Judges will then be assigned to one of the following three trials which are
expected to begin on 10 September 2001:
The Prosecutor
v. Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav Tadic, Simo Zaric
The Prosecutor
v. Mladen Naletilic, Vinko Martinovic
The Prosecutor
v. Mitar Vasiljevic
There will be
a hearing in the Plavsic and Krajisnik case this afternoon at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom
I at which the Government of the Netherlands, the Registrar and the parties
will be heard on the issue of Plavsic’s request for provisional release. The
hearing was scheduled following a request by the Dutch Government. Krajisnik
is not required to attend the hearing. It is possible that some of the hearing
will be in closed session.
Tomorrow, 2 August,
in the Stakic case there will be a hearing at 10.00 a.m. in Courtroom III on
the Prosecution’s request to amend the indictment. According to the scheduling
order, the application was made in response to the Trial Chamber’s inquiry as
to the amendment of the indictment due to an error in its form. If this is accepted
by the Trial Chamber, a hearing will follow immediately afterwards so that the
accused can enter a plea to the amended indictment.
As you all know,
the Judgement in the Krstic case will be rendered tomorrow by Trial Chamber
I at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom I. Just to remind of a few of the trial statistics,
the Prosecution called 66 witnesses and tendered 910 exhibits; the Defence called
12 witnesses and tendered 183 exhibits; and the Trial Chamber called two witnesses.
The trial lasted 94 days. You are all welcome to attend.
Copies of all
the relevant documents and an updated Krstic fact sheet will be available after
this. Finally, due to the court recess, the next scheduled press briefing will
be held on Wednesday 29 August.
PROSECUTION
Florence
Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) made no statement.
QUESTIONS:
Asked
whether he would be at the Tribunal for the whole summer, Landale replied
that he would.
Asked to
confirm that the Milosevic Status Conference was scheduled for 30 August 2001,
Landale replied that it was and that it was scheduled to begin at 10.00a.m.
Asked whether
Mr. Milosevic was required to attend the Status Conference, Landale replied
that that he would be. He added that there were exceptions to that at certain
Status Conferences, where merely the Defence Counsel and the Prosecution had
to be present. He expected in this case that Milosevic would be required to
attend, he concluded.
Asked to
confirm that Mr. Milosevic still had no lawyer, Landale confirmed that he
had still not given power of attorney to anyone.
Asked about
the exemption made for Ramsey Clark to speak to Milosevic even though he was
not his lawyer, Landale replied that it was felt that in this case where there
were exceptional circumstances Mr. Milosevic was entitled to a private consultation
with a lawyer to get legal advice on his position in the proceedings. He added
that this was a temporary measure which would be re-examined if and when necessary
in due course, but it was felt that this was appropriate at this time.
Asked whether
the Tribunal hoped that this way Mr. Milosevic would get good legal advice,
Landale replied that in a case as complicated and as important as this one,
the best course of action would be for Mr. Milosevic to have expert legal
advice to make sure that he could mount a full and thorough defence and a
full challenge to the Prosecution’s case.
Asked whether
Mr. Clark’s third visit had taken place, Landale replied that the visit was
due to take place some time between 9.00 and 12.00 this morning.
Asked whether
this was Mr. Milosevic’s first privileged visit, Landale replied that it was.
Asked whether
there were any other requests to visit Mr. Milosevic, Landale replied that
there had been requests made by other people to visit Mr. Milosevic. There
had been requests by his political party back in Belgrade, requests by Mr.
Tomanovic and his wife had also applied for another visa, he concluded.
Asked whether
permission had been granted for those visits, Landale replied that permission
had been granted for a small group from his party to visit for a limited time.
That would not be a privileged visit. He added that he was not sure of the
status of the Tomanovic visit. He did not believe he had yet received a visa.
The issue of Mrs. Markovic was at the moment one for the Dutch authorities,
as she was applying for a visa, he concluded.
Asked whether
the small group from his party had been given permission from the Registrar,
Landale replied that they would be granted access in two groups, made up of
three and two people respectively. He added that these visits would probably
be for something like two hours each.
Asked whether
the members of his party had their visas yet, Landale replied that he was
not sure of this. He added that he did not have an exact date, but that it
would likely be some time in mid August.
Asked to
explain the difference between a privileged and a normal visit, Landale replied
that a privileged visit was a visit between the accused and his Defence Counsel.
This would be a confidential visit which would not be monitored by the Detention
Unit. All other visits were monitored. Conversations were either listened
into or there would be someone present in the room during the visit, he said.
Asked whether
there was a glass wall between the visitor and the accused for visits, Landale
replied that there were different types of visit at which different measures
were taken. Those were decisions taken by the Registrar dependent on the circumstances.
Asked whether
there had been a glass wall between Mrs. Markovic and Mr. Milosevic, Landale
replied that there had been.
Asked whether
Mr. Milosevic was still not willing to mingle with other detainees, Landale
replied that there was a separation order specifically prohibiting him from
mixing with certain people. He added that Mr. Milosevic had been offered the
chance to mix with other detainees and he had declined that offer on more
that one occasion.
Asked for
the position of the people from the political party intending to visit Milosevic,
Landale replied that he believed that it could be the Vice President of the
Executive Committee and four other members.
Asked whether
there was any word from the Croatian authorities on what they were doing to
arrest Mr. Gotovina, Hartmann replied that there was no news. She added that
the Tribunal expected that Mr. Gotovina be arrested immediately.
Asked about
a report in the Croatian media that stated that the ICTY was investigating
30 people, one of which was the son of Franjo Tudjman, Hartmann replied that
the OTP did not comment on speculation from the media. She added that these
kind of stories always emerged during difficult moments in relations with
a particular state.
Asked whether
the Croatian authorities were cooperating with the Tribunal in every way they
were expected to concerning documents, investigations, witnesses and archives,
Hartmann replied that Croatia was cooperating with the Tribunal. She added
that this had been ongoing for a few years. The first time the OTP had a real
problem was when the indictments and arrest warrants were served on Mr. Ademi
and Mr. Gotovina. Part of the problem was solved through the voluntary surrender
of Mr. Ademi, but the Tribunal still expected the Croatian authorities to
respect their legal obligations and to arrest Mr. Gotovina.
Asked whether
they were still receiving documents and whether the archives were still open,
Hartmann replied that they were.
Asked for
an update on the cooperation from Belgrade concerning documents, investigations,
witnesses and archives, Hartmann replied that cooperation was ongoing and
that the OTP had filed quite a lot of requests before the beginning of cooperation,
during the winter. She added that the OTP was beginning to receive answers
on them. The OTP had access to the territory and was monitoring exhumations
in Serbia and for the ongoing requests the OTP would have access to witnesses
in the case of some other investigations, witnesses who were living in Serbia
and who were not accessible until now.
Asked whether
the OTP had access to the archives, Hartmann replied that she did not have
a complete picture of the degree of positive answers to the OTP requests and
she could not be more specific.
Asked whether
Mr. Milosevic had been given any special facilities in order to prepare for
his next appearance in court considering the amount of documents he would
have to read, Landale replied that he had his cell and he had access to the
documents and supporting material delivered to the Detention Unit by the Prosecution,
as was their obligation. He had ample space in which to study those documents.
It went back to the point that he would be better equipped to properly study
those documents, analyse them and start building a case, if he had a defence
counsel, he concluded.
Asked whether
the District Prosecutor and Investigation Judges would be coming to The Hague
from Belgrade to interview Milosevic with regard to charges against him in
Belgrade, Hartmann replied that she could not confirm whether the Tribunal
had received any official request for that. Generally speaking the Prosecutor
said that she would not oppose this kind of request from the authorities in
Belgrade.
*****
|
