|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing
Date: 02.07.2003
Time: 12:20
REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS
Jim Landale,
Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:
Good afternoon,
First, the Tribunal
welcomes the transfer of Veselin Sljivancanin from Belgrade into the custody
of the Tribunal last night. He was first indicted in November 1995 and so was
at large and a fugitive from international justice for almost eight years. Sljivancanin
is charged on the basis of both his individual and superior criminal responsibility
with:
two counts
of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 2 – willfully causing
great suffering; willful killing),
two counts
of violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 – cruel treatment;
murder), and
two counts
of crimes against humanity (Article 5 – inhumane acts; murder).
According to the
Indictment, on about 20 November 1991, the JNA and Serb paramilitary soldiers
under the command or supervision of Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin
Sljivancanin, removed about 400 non-Serb individuals from the Vukovar Hospital
and then transported around 300 of them to a farm building in Ovcara, where
they beat them for several hours. Afterwards, soldiers transported their non-Serb
captives in groups of about 10 to 20 to a site between the Ovcara farm and Grabovo,
where they shot and otherwise killed at least 198 men and 2 women. After the
killings, the bodies of the victims were buried by bulldozer in a mass grave
at the same location.
According to the
Indictment, Veselin Sljivancanin was a major in the JNA in command of a military
police battalion and also served as the security officer for the Guards Brigade.
He was the operation commander for the JNA in the later stages of the siege
of Vukovar.
As soon as we
have information as to his initial appearance we will let you all know.
ICTY Outreach and the Helsinki Committee of the Republika Srpska
organised a four-day seminar on the Applicable Law and Criminal Procedure at
the Tribunal that was held in Sarajevo from 26-29 June and was attended by about
40 judges and prosecutors from Bosnia and Herzegovina who are involved in processing
war crimes cases before BH courts. The lecturers at the seminar were Tribunal
experts and local practitioners with experience of appearing before the Tribunal,
as well as representatives from the Office of the High Representative (OHR).
The seminar provided an opportunity for legal professionals from Bosnia and
Herzegovina and their Tribunal counterparts to examine the extent to which the
Tribunal experience could be applied to the Bosnian judicial system when processing
war crimes cases.
Among the court
documents we have received since the last briefing, the following are brought
to your attention:
In the Appeals
Chamber:
On 26 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic, we received
the "Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal" from a Bench of the
Appeals Chamber (Judge Pocar, presiding, Judges Shahabuddeen and Guney), in
which the Bench refused Nikola Sainovic leave to appeal Trial Chamber III’s
"Decision on Second Applications for Provisional Release" of
29 May 2003.
On 27 June, in
the same case, we received the "Decision Refusing Ojdanic’s Leave to
Appeal" from a Bench of the Appeals Chamber (Judge Pocar, presiding,
Judges Shahabuddeen and Guney), in which the Bench refused Dragoljub Ojdanic’s
leave to appeal Trial Chamber III’s "Decision on Second Applications
for Provisional Release" of 29 May 2003.
On 1 July, in
The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, we received from the Appeals Chamber
(Judge Meron, presiding, Judges Pocar, Shahabuddeen, Hunt and Guney) a "Decision
On Application for Subpoenas", in which the Appeals Chamber "orders
that subpoenas be issued requiring the two prospective witnesses identified
in the Motion to attend at a location in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at a time, to be nominated by the Krstic defence
after consultation with the prosecution (and if need be, with the Victims and
Witnesses Section), to be interviewed there by the Krstic defence".
Judge Shahabuddeen appended a dissenting opinion. The full text of the Decision
will be available to those of you who want it after this briefing.
On 27 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the Trial Chamber’s
"Order on Amicus Curiae’s Request Concerning the Manner of their Future
Engagement and Procedural Directions Under Rule 98 bis". The Trial
Chamber ordered as follows:
"(1) The
amici curiae may submit a Motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis within seven days of
the close of the Prosecution case;
(2) One of
the amici curiae may be excused from attendance at the hearings from 1 July,
2003, to prepare such a Motion, but should be available to attend hearings to
deal with legal issues as and when required;
(3) The appointment
of Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic as amicus' curiae shall end at the conclusion of
the Prosecution case. The Chamber expresses its gratitude to Mr. Tapuskovic
for his services;
(4) Thereafter,
the appointment of Mr. Steven Kay as amicus' curiae shall continue and Ms. Gillian
Higgins shall be appointed as amicus curiae on the following basis:
(a) Mr. Kay
and/or Ms. Higgins shall attend the hearings on a full time basis for the first
four weeks of the Defence case, during which time the Trial Chamber will assess
the extent to which their presence and assistance is required for the duration
of the Defence case and thereafter;
(b) Such assistance
as the Trial Chamber determines is thereafter required shall be provided by
Ms. Higgins in collaboration with Mr. Kay; and
(c) The Registrar
is directed to remunerate Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins appropriately for their assistance
on the basis of services that would be provided by one amicus curiae.
(5) The terms
of the appointment of the amicus curiae, Professor Timothy McCormack shall remain
the same and are unaffected by this Order."
On 27 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the Trial Chamber’s
"Order on Amicus Curiae’s Request for Approval to Identify Relevant
Trial Documents in Person for the Completion of Written Submissions and for
Further Extension of Time", in which the Trial Chamber ordered as follows
with regard to Timothy McCormack:
"(1) That
the time for filing submissions on self-defence as it has arisen in the Kosovo
part of the case shall be extended to 14 October, 2003;
(2) That the
Registrar should make the necessary arrangements for the amicus curiae to travel
to The Hague for the period 28 July to 1 August 2003 for the purposes of examining
the documentation relevant to the preparation of submissions on self-defence
as it has arisen in the Kosovo part of the case, and for any other period when
the amicus curiae considers it necessary for the discharge of his functions."
On 30 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the Trial Chamber’s
"Decision on Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Transcripts in
Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to 92 bis (D) – Foca Transcripts".
Judge Robinson appended a Dissenting Opinion. The full text of the Decision
will be available after the briefing.
On 27 June in
The Prosecutor v. Predrag Banovic, we received from Trial Chamber III
an "Order for Release of Confidential Plea Agreement", in which
the Trial Chamber directed the Registry "to release the Plea Agreement
as a public document seven days after the issue of this Order unless, within
that time, either of the parties files a motion showing good cause why the confidential
nature of the filing should be maintained".
On 27 June in
The Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, we received a "Scheduling
Order", from the Pre-Trial Judge, Judge Kwon, ordering the following:
-"The
pre-trial conference in this case shall be held on Tuesday 15 July 2003, commencing
at 3 p.m., at which the accused, defence counsel and the Prosecution are to
appear;
-the accused,
Sefer Halilovic, shall return to the United Nations Detention Unit no later
than Monday 14 July 2003, and
-The Provisional
Release of the accused, Sefer Halilovic, will continue as soon as practicable
after the status conference under the same conditions as set out in the Trial
Chamber Decision of 13 December 2001, subject to the necessary arrangements
being made by the Registrar of the International Tribunal."
On 30 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin, we received Trial Chamber II’s "Decision
on Prosecution’s Second Request for a Subpoena of Jonathan Randal",
in which the Trial Chamber inter alia dismissed the Motion and admitted
the Article into evidence "without prejudice to the weight to be ascribed
to it by the Trial Chamber in reaching its judgement" The Trial Chamber
further invited the Prosecution to file public versions of the Motion and the
Reply, and instructed the Registrar to lift the confidentiality of the Response.
Judge Taya appended a separate opinion.
On 30 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic, we received a "Decision on
Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Indictment",
in which Trial Chamber II declared the "Motion for Leave to Amend the
Second Amended Indictment" moot considering that the "Second
Motion for the Leave to Amend the Second Amended Indictment" was "granted
orally during the Status Conference of 27 June 2003".
In terms of
other court documents:
On 26 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amici
Curiae’s Request for Approval to Identify Relevant Trial Documents in Person
For the Completion of Written Submissions and for Further Extension of Time".
On 27 June, again
in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amici
Curiae Observations on Prosecution’s Third Omnibus Motion for Leave to Amend
the Witness List and Request Protective Measures for Sensitive Source Witnesses,
Filed 23 June 2003".
On 27 June, once
more in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amici
Curiae Observations on Prosecution’s Motion for the Admission of Written Statements
Relevant to Events in Bijeljina, Bratunac and Zvornik Municipalities in Lieu
of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to Rules 54, 75 and 92 bis Dated 18 June 2003".
On 27 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric, we received
the "Additional Authorities for Closing Arguments".
On 27 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Drago Josipovic, we received the previously confidential
"Motion of the Counsel with Which he Answers to the Prosecutor’s Response
to the Counsel’s Request for the Revision of the Case" filed on 16
September 2002, and the "Request for Review of the Counsel of the Convicted
Drago Josipovic" filed on 11 February 2003.
On 30 June, in
The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we received the
"Prosecution’s Motion for Clarification of Oral Decision Regarding Admissability
of Accused’s Statements".
On 1 July, in
The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin, we received the previously confidential
"Response to Prosecution’s Second Request for a Subpoena of Jonathan
Randal", made public following the Decision on this matter by Trial
Chamber II on 30 June that I have already mentioned.
Copies of all
the documents I have mentioned are available to you on request.
Finally, I will
be away next week on five days leave. I will be back in the country on Saturday
12 July. Next week’s briefing will be held by Mr. Chartier. Thank you.
Florence Hartmann,
Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor made the following Statement:
I will spend two
weeks with the Prosecutor at the ICTR so for this reason Mr. Jean-Daniel Ruch
will attend the briefing next week.
Questions:
Regarding the
efforts being made in Bosnia to set up a State Court to deal with war crimes
cases and the consultation and monitoring of this process by the ICTY, a journalist
asked whether similar mechanisms for consultation and monitoring were in place
for the special tribunal that the parliament of Serbia decided to set up yesterday.
Landale answered that the Tribunal had seen the decisions taken yesterday and
was still taking a look at what those decisions meant and what they involved.
He stated that he had no further comment on this matter until this process had
been completed.
In response to
the question as to whether there had been any previous consultation on this
matter, Landale stated that there had been some communication but could not
make any further comment.
Hartmann added
that the word monitoring was maybe not the accurate term to use in regard to
the setting up of the state court in Bosnia. Landale clarified the Tribunal’s
involvement with the state court in Bosnia by stating that the Tribunal was
paying close attention to what was being done in Belgrade and Sarajevo though
this did not necessarily involve people on the ground monitoring at this stage.
He added that the Tribunal took a great deal of interest in any moves to set
up local courts in Belgrade or Sarajevo.
Hartmann added
that one of the aspects of this that the OTP was interested in was any rules
of proceedings which would allow the local jurisdictions to use OTP evidence
in their cases. As an example she suggested that if the OTP had conducted an
investigation into a high ranking individual, this might include evidence against
persons at the middle or lower level which local courts could use. She hoped
a way could be found, if not the courts would have to carry out the same investigations
as the ICTY, possibly using information gathered by the OTP. These technical
problems would need to be discussed with the countries concerned and would depend
partly on their standards. She added that any monitoring would not take place
until trials started.
In regard to this
last comment, Landale reiterated that the ICTY was monitoring what developments
were taking place in Belgrade and Sarajevo at the present time and how this
was happening in order to enable local courts to prosecute war crimes cases.
There were, however, no mechanisms as yet for monitoring the actual trials themselves
once they were on-going.
A journalist made
reference to the recent court Order to Serbia and Montenegro to release the
stenographic recordings of the Supreme Defence Council Sessions and pointed
out that the time limit imposed by the court to hand over these documents was
nearing an end. He wanted to know whether the Tribunal had already received
these documents and whether there was any action the Tribunal could take if
they did not arrive on time. Landale answered that that was a question for the
Trial Chamber as the Order was clear. The Trial Chamber would look to see whether
the time schedule mentioned in the Order was adhered to. Hartmann added that
the deadline was either 6 or 7 July. She confirmed that no documents had as
yet been sent.
A journalist asked
for information on Zeljko Meakic’s alleged surrender. Landale answered that
the Tribunal was aware that Meakic was in custody and was awaiting his transfer
to The Hague.
*****
|
