Decision to Deny Defence’s Motion for Rescission of the Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender

Case No: IT-95-14 & 14/2-R77

IN TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Amin El Mahdi
Judge Alphons Orie

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Date filed:
6 October 2005

THE PROSECUTOR

JOSIP JOVIC

_____________________________________________________________________

DECISION TO DENY DEFENCE’S MOTION FOR RESCISSION OF THE WARRANT OF ARREST AND ORDER FOR SURRENDER

______________________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Mr. David Akerson

The Government of the Republic of Croatia

per: the Croatian Embassy in The Hague

Counsel for the Defense

Mr. Kresimir Krsnik

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

att: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Trial Chamber I ("the Chamber") of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 ("the Tribunal");

BEING SEISED OF Mr. Josip Jovic’s (“the Accused’s”) “Motion of the Accused Josip Jovic for Rescission of Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender" ("Motion for Rescission"), filed on 30 September 2005;

NOTING the “Prosecution Response to the Accused Josip Jovic’s Defence Motion for Rescission of Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender", filed on 5 October 2005, in which the Prosecution states that it does not take a position on the Motion for Rescission;

NOTING the "Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender" for the Accused, filed on 28 September 2005;

Noting the indictment submitted by the Prosecutor against the Accused, confirmed by Judge Alphons Orie and the "Order Summoning the Accused to Appear" for his initial appearance before the Trial Chamber on 26 September 2005 ("the Summons"), issued by Judge Alphons Orie, on 9 September 2005;

NOTING the Record of Serving the Indictment (Ref. nr.: I Kir-1859/05), filed by the County Court in Split on 27 September 2005, in which an Investigative Judge at the County Court in Split confirms that the Summons and the Indictment and the relevant provisions in the Tribunal’s Statute ("the Statute") and Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") were served on the Accused in Croatian and English versions on 16 September 2005;

NOTING the Accused’s “Motion of the Accused Josip Jovic for Postponement of the Initial Appearance”, filed on 23 September 2005 (“Motion for Postponement"), that the Registry of the International Tribunal informed the Accused’s Counsel, Mr Kresimir Krsnik, telephonically on Friday 23 September 2005 that the Motion for Postponement was denied and that the Accused still failed to appear before the Tribunal for his initial appearance on 26 September 2005;

CONSIDERING that in the Motion for Rescission the Accused argued that:

he never received a decision on his Motion for Postponement;
if the Chamber rules in favour of the Motion for Postponement that there would be no obligation on the Accused to appear before the Tribunal;
without first deciding on the Motion for postponement and delivering it to the Accused and giving the Accused the possibility to challenge the decision, the Tribunal had prejudged the matter and "issued the most severe measure for ensuring the presence of the Accused, without first establishing the possibility of the Accused to appear before the Tribunal";
by issuing the Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender, "the Tribunal is subjecting Mr Jovic, as a journalist charged with contempt committed in the course of his work, to criteria for issuing of measures of arrest and detention which criteria are even more drastic than those applied to persons accused of serious war crimes" and
that, consequently, the Accused is of the opinion that the Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender are not legally founded.

CONSIDERING that the Chamber would have been entitled, under Article 19(2) and Rules 54 and 55 of the Rules to issue a warrant of arrest and order for surrender of the Accused immediately upon confirmation of the indictment;

CONSIDERING that, the Chamber gave due consideration to the fact that the Accused is a journalist and that he is accused of contempt and did not issue an arrest warrant for the Accused, but instead issued a summons to the Accused to appear;

CONSIDERING that the Accused was served with the indictment more than a week before the date on which his initial appearance was scheduled, that his Counsel was informed telephonically on the date on which he filed the Motion for Postponement that it had been denied and that the Accused was obligated to appear for his initial appearance on 26 September 2005 as ordered in the Summons;

CONSIDERING that the Accused still failed to appear for his initial appearance on 26 September 2005;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, and

PURSUANT TO Article 19(2) of the Statute and Rules 54, 55 and 73(A) of the Rules;

REJECTS the Motion,

Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.

Dated this sixth day of October 2005,
The Hague,
The Netherlands

__________________________
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge of Trial Chamber I

[Seal of the Tribunal]