|
Please note that this
is not a verbatim transcript of the Press
Briefing. It is merely a summary.
ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 31.05.2005
Time: 12.15
Registry and Chambers:
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and
Chambers, made the following statement:
Good afternoon,
First, at the end of
last week, in his capacity as presiding
Judge in the case, Judge Kwon ordered
that Ivica Marijacic and Markica Rebic
appear before him on 14 June 2005 for
their initial appearance where they will
be asked to enter pleas with respect to
the count of contempt of the Tribunal
against them. This will be followed by
a status conference.
Judge Kwon also ordered
that "the authorities of the Republic
of Croatia shall inform Ivica Marijacic
and Markica Rebic of their legal obligation
to surrender themselves to the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal and to be present in The
Hague for the purpose of the contempt
proceedings against them on such dates
as determined by the Trial Chamber, and
shall be further informed that, should
they fail to appear for the proceedings,
the Trial Chamber will order their arrest
and transfer to the Tribunal".
I remind you that the
appeal hearing in The Prosecutor v.
Miroslav Deronjic will be held next
Tuesday, 7 June 2005, starting at 9 a.m.
There will be status
conferences in The Prosecutor v. Cermak
and Markac tomorrow at 8 a.m. in Courtroom
II at which the accused are not required
to be present; in The Prosecutor v.
Stanisic and Simatovic on 3 June at
3 p.m. in Courtroom I and again the accused
are not required to be present; and in
The Prosecutor v. Brdjanin on 6
June at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom II.
Office of the Prosecutor:
Florence Hartmann, Spokesperson
for the Office of the Prosecutor, made
no statement.
Questions:
There were no questions.
Press Briefings
documents:
The Prosecutor
v. Slobodan Milosevic
27 May 2005 – Contempt
proceedings against Kosta Bulatovic-Notice
of Appeal of decision of contempt of the
Tribunal.
The Prosecutor
v. Mejakic et al.
27 May 2005 – Prosecution’s
supplemental submission.
The Prosecutor
v. Vojislav Seselj
27 May 2005 – Deputy
Registrar’s request for extension of time
and submission on accused conditions of
detention.
The Prosecutor
v.Ivica Marijacic and Markica Rebic
27 May 2005 – Order scheduling
further proceedings.
The Prosecutor
v. Miroslav Deronjic
4 May 2005 – Scheduling
order.
30 May 2005 – Notice
of lifting confidential status of "Prosecutions
Response Brief" of 31 August 2004.
31 August 2004 – Prosecution’s
response Brief.
The Prosecutor
v. Todovic and Rasevic
25 May 2005 – Prosecution’s
Motion for leave to amend the operative
indictments with attached annexes A and
B and confidential annexes C and D.
30 May 2005 – Savo Todovic’s
defence motion for access to all confidential
and under seal material in the Krnojelac
case.
The Prosecutor
v. Tolimir et al.
10 May 2005 – Request
for leave to reply and reply to the Prosecutor’s
response to request for provisional release
by General Miletic.
The Prosecutor
v. Pavkovic et al.
30 May 2005 – Application
for order regarding service of supporting
material by the Prosecutor.
30 May 2005 – Prosecution’s
second notification regarding disclosure
of material to accused Pavkovic pursuant
to Rule 66 (A) (i).
The Prosecutor
v. Sefer Halilovic
30 May 2005 – Re: Disclosure
obligations and Electronic Disclosure
Suite (EDS).
The Prosecutor
v. Radovan Stankovic
30 May 2005 – Prosecutor’s
response to defence motion for extension
of time to file notice of appeal.
The Prosecutor
v. Gojko Jankovic
30 May 2005 – Gojko Jankovic’s
defence motion for access to confidential
and under seal material in the Kunerac
et al case.
The Prosecutor
v. Radoslav Brdanin
25 May 2005 – Book of
authorities for prosecution’s reply brief.
25 may 2005 – Prosecution’s
brief In reply on appeal.
The Prosecutor
v. Limaj et al.
29 May 2005 – Defence
motion on behalf of Fatmir Limaj fpr provisional
admission of written evidence in lieu
of viva voce testimony pursuant to Rule
92bis and attached annexures A-C.
27 May 2005 – Expert
report of professor WA Wagenaar concerning
the issue of identification by means of
eyewitness recognition and the specific
procedures used in the present case.
******
|
