note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
would like to remind you all that the Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Milomir
Stakic, will be rendered tomorrow, Thursday 31 July 2003 at 3 p.m. You are
all welcome to attend. We will hopefully be able to provide you with a press
release relatively soon after the rendering of the Judgement tomorrow afternoon.
the court documents we have received since the last briefing, the following
are brought to your attention:
the Appeals Chamber:
23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura,
we received from the Appeals Chamber a "Corrigendum" amending
two sentences in the "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction
in Relation to Command Responsibility" issued by the Appeals Chamber
on 16 July 2003. For further details I refer you to the document.
24 July, in The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, we received from the President
of the Tribunal, Judge Theodor Meron, an "Order" assigning
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg to replace Judge David Hunt on the Appeals Chamber
in the case.
the Trial Chambers:
23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received an "Order
to an Amicus Curiae to Prepare Written Submissions", in which the Trial
Chamber ordered, among other things, that "Professor McCormack as Amicus
Curiae, shall prepare written submissions on self-defence as it has arisen in
the Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina parts of this case, on the same basis as
the outstanding submissions in relation to Kosovo; these submissions are to
be prepared on the basis of the evidence adduced so far in the case, and are
to be forwarded to the Chamber by November 30, 2003".
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, we received from Trial Chamber
III a "Decision on Application on Provisional Release", in
which the Trial Chamber dismissed the Motion.
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura,
we received from Trial Chamber II a "Decision on ‘Joint Defence Request
for Certification of the ‘Decision on Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended
Indictment’ Dated 18 June 2003’", in which the Trial Chamber denied
the Joint Request.
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we
received a "Scheduling Order", ordering that the trial proceedings
in the case resume on 15 September 2003 with the continuation of the Prosecution’s
presentation of evidence.
the same day, in The Prosecutor v. Momir Nikolic and The Prosecutor
v. Dragan Obrenovic, we received Scheduling Orders setting Status Conferences
for 8 and 10 September 2003 respectively.
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura,
we received from Trial Chamber II the "Decision on ‘Joint Defence Request
for Certification of the ‘Decision on Joint Defence Oral Motion for Reconsideration
of ‘Decision on Urgent Motion for Ex Parte Oral Hearing on Allocation of Resources
to the Defence and Consequences Thereof for the Rights of the Accused to a Fair
Trial ‘ Dated 18 July 2003", in which the Trial Chamber denied the
25 July in The Prosecutor v. Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin,
we received from Trial Chamber II a "Scheduling Order for Filings",
in which the Trial Chamber ordered that "Mrksic, Radic and Sljivancanin
respectively file a single document containing any response to the Motion pursuant
to Rule 50(A)(i)(c) and/or any preliminary Motion pursuant to Rule 72 alleging
defects on the form of the proposed Consolidated Indictment by no later that
12.00 on 25 August 2003".
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar and Miodrag Jokic, we received
a "Scheduling Order for Submission of Pre-Trial Briefs and Setting the
Date for the Pre-Trial Conference and Commencement of the Trial", in
which the Pre-Trial Judge ordered that " (a) The Prosecution to submit
the final version of its Pre-Trial Brief, including the list of witnesses to
be called by the Prosecution and the list of exhibits to be tendered at trial
on Tuesday, 19 August 2003; (b) The Defence to submit the final version of its
Pre-Trial Brief on Tuesday, 9 September 2003; (c) The Pre-Trial conference to
be held on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 at a time and in a courtroom to be notified
through the Registry; (d) The Trial to commence on Wednesday, 1 October 2003
at a time and in a courtroom to be notified through the Registry".
terms of other court documents:
22 July, in The Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala and Isak Musliu,
we received the "Reply to Prosecution’s Response to the Defence
Application for Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj".
the same case on 24 July, we received an "Addendum to Reply to Prosecution’s
Response to the Defence Application for Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj".
23 July, in The Prosecutor v.Tihomir Blaskic, we received the "Prosecution’s
Notice of Filing of the Official Translation of Exhibit PA4 of Prosecution’s
Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments Filed 7 January 2003".
23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub
Ojdanic, we received "General Ojdanic’s Appeal of Decision on Motion
for Additional Funds Ex Parte".
23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we
received the "Prosecution’s Notice of Rule 94 bis Disclosure of Expert
Report of Kate Barr".
28 July, in the same case, we received "Vidoje Blagojevic’s Response
to Prosecution’s Notice of Rule 94 bis Disclosure of Expert Report of Kate Barr".
25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Veselin Sljivancanin, we received the "Appeal
of Mr. Momcilo Bulatovic on the Registry’s Decision Declining Assignment of
Defense Counsels to the Accused".
of all the documents I have mentioned are available to you on request.
this is the last briefing before the summer court recess. The next briefing
will be on Wednesday 27 August. Thank you.
Harmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor made no statement.
what the position of the Prosecutor was concerning recommendations made by the
UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, not to extend her mandate as Prosecutor of
the ICTR, Hartmann replied that the next step, following the recommendation
of the Secretary-General, was for the Security Council to issue a resolution.
It was up to the Security Council to decide on such matters. She concluded that
the Prosecutor would make no comment until a decision had been made.
to a journalist, Carla Del Ponte had told a Swiss newspaper a few days ago that
if her mandate for the ICTR was not extended, she would not stay at the ICTY.
Hartmann replied that she had no further comment to make on this issue except
that she was waiting to see what the Security Council decided. She would comment
after that, but not at the moment as it was too early.
journalist stated, however, that she had made comments on Friday in advance
of the Security Council decision, concerning political pressure connected to
investigations of the Rwandese Patriotic Army (RPA). Hartmann replied that the
Prosecutor went to New York on Monday to express her concern over the separation
of the two Prosecutor posts. She added that the Prosecutor had explained, through
her experience as the Prosecutor since 1999, what negative consequences she
foresaw in the case of separation at a point in time when both the ICTY and
the ICTR prosecution were in the last stage of their completion strategy.
went on to say that the completion strategy was established by the Prosecutor
to work in a parallel manner in both Tribunals, with the aim of concluding the
investigations by 2004. It was exactly the same in both Tribunals, with a re-focus
on suspects bearing the highest responsibility.
She added that the Prosecutor believed that a new Prosecutor at the ICTR would
either implement the programme of the previous Prosecutor, which was a strange
solution or put in place his/her own strategy which could cause delays.
Prosecutor was surprised that the idea of separating the two positions, an old
idea which had been rejected up till now, had come again, when the completion
strategy had been approved last year by the UN Security Council.
added that it was true that when certain random NGO’s had announced publicly
that they had last week sent a letter to the Secretary-General and to the Member
States of the Security Council asking for the removal of Carla Del Ponte from
the ICTR, she had reacted to this initiative by saying that it looked like an
attempt by the Government in Kigali to prevent to Prosecutor from going any
further with her ‘special investigations’. The term ‘special investigations’
was a word used for investigations that were not related to the genocide but,
in accordance with the Statute of the ICTR, were other violations of international
humanitarian law related to crimes committed by members of the RPA.
added that the Prosecutor had complained about the lack of cooperation from
Kigali on different occasions, twice last year, in July and in October, before
the Security Council and in conversation with the Secretary-General. Those discussions
resulted in a statement from the President of the Security Council in December
2002. This statement incidentally came at almost the same time as one relating
to the ICTY and the requirement of Belgrade to cooperate with The Hague. The
statement asked Kigali to cooperate according to their international obligations
in the purpose of all investigations which were conducted by the Tribunal. This
included the ‘special investigations’.
for more information concerning Milosevic’s health, Landale replied that he
could not really go much further than what Judge May had said in court this
morning during the administrative session, which was that the Trial Chamber
understood that Milosevic was suffering from problems with his blood pressure
and that was the reason he was not able to attend court this week and why the
trial would now adjourn until 25 August 2003. He could not go further than that,
journalist stated that everyone had become used to interruptions of the Milosevic
trial due to reasons of blood pressure, flu or exhaustion, but that Milosevic,
during the public hearing on Friday, had mentioned that he had asked for a pain
killer and that it was the first time he did so. Asked whether this indicated
that there was a new ailment, or new symptoms, Landale replied that he would
not go any further than what Judge May had said in court today. He added that
it was not for him to disclose confidential medical information and that he
would not do so.