|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 5 June 2002
Time: 11:00 a.m.
REGISTRY
AND CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
The
Appeals Judgement in the Kunarac and others case, or the so-called ‘Foca’ case,
will be rendered next Wednesday 12 June at 4.30 p.m.
In
terms of court documents:
On
29 May in the Hadzihasanovic and others case, the presiding Judge of Trial Chamber
II, Judge Schomburg, issued a request to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
to provide the Trial Chamber with details on Mehmed Alagic’s recent conviction
and sentence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judge Schomburg stated that "the
Trial Chamber needs to be appraised of developments of the legal proceedings
against Mehmed Alagic in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to be able to monitor
the conditions of his provisional release". A copy of the request will be
available after this.
On
30 May, we received the fifth amended Indictment in the Prosecutor v. Blagoje
Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric. Copies are available after this.
The
President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, on 30 May 2002 issued a Decision
rejecting a request, made in a letter on 4 March 2002, by Zdravko Mucic for
release. In his letter, Mucic had argued that he has already spent two-thirds
of his nine year sentence, handed down by Trial Chamber II on 16 November 1998,
in detention. The full text of that Decision in French will be available after
the briefing.
On
31 May 2002, Judge Schomburg, the presiding Judge of Trial Chamber II, issued
an "Order on Mile Mrksic’s Motion for Provisional Release", which ordered:
1. the Head of the UN Detention Unit to report to the Trial Chamber on the
medical treatment, conditions and facilities, including any special dietary
needs actually requested by the accused at the UN Detention Unit and report
on the measures taken to make the same available to him, and particularly whether
in the UN Detention Unit the accused can be provided with all the medical attention
he may need, no later that 15 days after the receipt of this order;
2. a copy of
the report of the Head of the UN Detention Unit shall be filed with the Registry
no later than one day from the date that the report becomes due;
3. a medical
examination of Mile Mrksic shall be carried out as soon as feasible, and the
Trial Chamber instructs the Registrar to entrust this task to experts whose
names appear on a list previously drawn up by the Registry;
4. a copy of
the medical reports resulting from the examination of the expert approved by
the Registry shall be filed with the Registry no later than 15 days of conducting
the examination;
5. the Office
of the Prosecutor ("Prosecutor") in the light of the nature of the Motion, is
to file its general response to the Motion, if any, by Wednesday, 5 June 2002
and, if regarded necessary, to the expected medical reports no later than three
day after the receipt of those.
This
follows Mrskic’s Motion for Provisional Release which was filed on 23 May 2002,
"requesting provisional release on humanitarian grounds relating to his health".
Following
that, on 3 June, Judge Agius, the Pre-trial Judge in the case, issued an "Order
on Mile Mrksic’s Motion for an Urgent Request for Hearing on Provisional Release",
which was filed on 30 May 2002, stating that "the Chamber will rule upon
the Motion after receiving copies of the report of the Head of the UN Detention
Unit and the Medical Report, and after hearing any further submissions if necessary".
On
3 June, the Deputy Registrar, Bruno Cathala, issued a Decision withdrawing the
assignment of Mr. Xavier de Roux as lead counsel for Mr. Momir Talic and assigning
him as a legal consultant, and assigning Mr. Slobodan Zecevic as lead counsel
for the accused. In coming to his Decision, the Deputy Registrar considered,
among other factors:
"that the accused
has submitted a request to the Registrar to withdraw the assignment of Mr.
de Roux as lead counsel, and to assign Mr. Slobodan Zecevic as lead counsel";
"that due to
other commitments, Mr. de Roux has been unable to attend all trial hearings";
"that it is
in the interests of justice that an accused be represented by a lead counsel
who is available to attend court hearings regularly"; and,
"that Mr. Zecevic
satisfies the requirements to be listed on the Rule 45 list of counsel who
are eligible to be considered for assignment of counsel".
A
copy of that Decision will be available after this.
Finally,
the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in
the Milosevic case will be available in PDF format on our website later today.
We are endeavoring to provide you with paper copies, however due to the length
of the document, that is taking some time. I will make sure that as soon as
we receive copies we will distribute them to you.
Florence
Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
Asked to comment
on the contempt proceedings against witness K12 in the Milosevic trial, what
the legal procedure was, and what the legal punishment would be, Landale replied
that he could not add much to what was said by Judge May yesterday in court.
Witness K12 had been found in contempt. The OTP had been directed to investigate
the matter. Defence counsel had been appointed to witness K12 to represent
him in this matter and in 28 days from yesterday, there would be a hearing
(the specific date would be set in due course) to hear from the OTP, and to
hear any submissions that the defence counsel for K12 might wish to bring
to the attention of the Judges. Any punishment, if deemed appropriate by the
Trial Chamber, would then be handed down.
Asked what
the penalty would be, Landale replied that it was a matter for the Judges
to decide, however, according to Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
the maximum penalty that could be imposed was anything up to a 100,000 Euro
fine, seven years’ imprisonment, or both.
Asked whether
witness K12 was being detained, Landale replied that he could not discuss
these sorts of details due to the protective measures that had been accorded
to the witness.
Asked when
William Walker would testify, Landale replied that next week had been mentioned
in court.
Asked whether
a date had been set, Hartmann replied that the OTP would not give a specific
date because it depended on the witnesses who were appearing before him. He
was expected some time next week, she concluded.
Asked for a
comment on the ‘pressure’ witness K12 said he had been put under by the Prosecutor,
which he mentioned in court yesterday, Landale replied that all he could do
was state what the situation was. This was a Prosecution witness who had been
afforded protective measures, including the use of pixelation to obscure his
face, and the ability to testify in closed session. Witness K12 was unwilling
to answer questions and unwilling to give any explanation as to why he was
unable or unwilling to do so. He was warned by the Presiding Judge that he
could be found in contempt and in the end this was exactly what had happened,
he said.
Asked to clarify
the statement ‘the witness was unwilling to give an explanation’ as to why
he would not answer, Landale replied that witness K12 was given the opportunity
to explain and did not do so.
Asked whether
Mr. Nice was surprised by the behavior of witness K12 and the fact that he
had refused to testify both the days, Hartmann replied that witness K12 was
supposed to give his testimony and to answer the questions asked. He was brought
to The Hague to testify in court, she concluded.
Asked whether
witness K12 had given any hint of what might happen before he entered the
courtroom, Hartmann replied that she could not give any details on that issue.
*****
|
