Please note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely a summary.

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 05.02.2003
Time: 12:10

REGISTRY AND CHAMBERS
James Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:

Good afternoon,

In terms of court documents:

In the Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic:
- On 4 February, we received the "Prosecution Reply to the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Second Amended Indictment".

In the Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez:
- On 3 January we received a Scheduling Order changing the time of the upcoming status conference to 2.15 p.m. on 7 February. It had been previously been scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

In the Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic:
- On 31 January, we received the "Defence’s Submission Pursuant to Rule 94bis of Expert Report of Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic". This is a lengthy document and so will only be available on request.
- On 3 February, we received the "Decision on the Defence Motion for Withdrawal of Judge Orie", denying the Motion.

In the Prosecutor v. Meakic, Gruban, Knezevic, Fustar and Banovic:
- On 28 January, we received "Dusko Knezevic’s Request for Oral Hearing on Motion for Provisional Release".

In the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic:
- On 29 January, we received a Scheduling Order from the President of the Tribunal for the prosecution to file its Appeals Brief within seven days of receipt of the Order; for the Defence to file their response within 10 days after that; and for the Prosecution to reply within four days.
- On 30 January, we received the "Amici Curiae Observations in Response to the Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Written Statements in Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92bis, Filed 10th January 2003 and Confidential Annex A".
- On 31 January, we received the "Decision on Motion By the Defence for Momcilo Krajisnik For Access to Confidential Material".Again on 31 January, we received a "Request for Correction or Clarification" from the Defence Counsel for Momcilo Krajisnik.
- And yet again on 31 January, we received the "Amici Curiae Observations on the Prosecution Motion for the Admission of the Transcripts in Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92bis (D), Filed January 2003".
- On 4 February, we received an English copy of the expert report compiled by Renaud de la Brosse, entitled "Political Propoganda and the Plan to Create a ‘State for all Serbs’ Consequences for Using the Media for Ultra-Nationalist Ends". We expect to have a BCS translation later on in the week or next week.

In the Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic:
- On 3 February, we received an Order from the President of the Tribunal nominating Judges Shahabuddeen (presiding), Guney, Gunarwardana, Pocar and Meron to sit on a bench of the Appeals Chamber in this case.
- On the same day, we received the "Prosecution Reponse to ‘Appellant’s Brief on Appeal Against A Decision of the Trial Chamber Dated 9 October 2002’".

In the Prosecutor v. Blagojevic, Obrenovic, Jokic and Nikolic:
- On 31 January, we received the "Prosecution Response to Blagojevic’s Second Appeal Regarding Provisional Release". Then, on 3 February, we received the Accused’s reply to that document.
- Also on 3 February, we received the "Prosecution’s Submission of BCS Translations of Statements of Expert Witness Rick Butler".
- Also, I would like to confirm that the full transcript of the Babic testimony in the Milosevic trial is now on the ICTY website.
- Finally, as of next week, I will be away on a month’s home leave. The contact point in my absence will be Christian Chartier.

 

Florence Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement.

On the Bobetko case, I wish to inform you that the Prosecution has received the expert report presented by the medical team mandated by the Registrar of the ICTY. The OTP has taken note that, according to the medical findings, due to the health condition of the accused, the arrest warrant cannot be executed and the accused is unfit for transfer or to stand trial. In view of this development, the OTP is not contemplating to request the withdrawal of the indictment against Janko Bobetko. The OTP takes the position that the Registrar of the ICTY should continue to monitor the condition of the accused. A motion will be filed soon regarding this case. However, it will be for the Duty Judge to decide any further step.

Putting aside the Bobetko case, Ms Del Ponte wishes to underline that there is growing concern within the OTP in regard to the level of co-operation provided by Croatia. The Chief Prosecutor addressed this issue briefly before the UN Security Council last October. There are two main points to make at this stage:

  • the failure to locate and arrest the accused Ante Gotovina, who is freely travelling through Croatia; it is not a good sign for further indictments we could have in the future.

  • the selective, slow and incomplete compliance with specific requests for documents in regard to original Croatian archives. On this subject, it is fair to say that co-operation in some areas is good, while in some specific instances is not sufficient and causes unacceptable delays for our investigations. Therefore the Prosecutor demands full cooperation and not partial cooperation.

Questions:

  • A correspondent asked whether the Tribunal was afraid of setting an unwanted precedent, namely that everybody accused in the future over 50 years old would ask for a detailed medical examination and would try to get away with it? He continued that it was not only the outcome of the medical report of Bobetko but that it seemed to him that there had been two months of negotiations with Croatia as to whether they would arrest him or would not arrest him, then the accused fell ill…. Was the Tribunal not afraid this would set a precedent for other States in the region?

  • Hartmann replied that there were no negotiations, there was the refusal of Croatia to cooperate or the postponing of compliance with their obligations.

  • Landale said that he did not think that this would set a bad precedent. Where there was a real question as to the health of the accused that was something the Tribunal would take very seriously and it would follow the appropriate procedures to ensure whether or not someone could be transferred. In this particular case, an expert team of doctors had gone out to examine the accused, a report had been submitted through the Registrar to the Duty Judge and we would see what decision would be taken on that basis. He did not think that this would set a precedent. The health of the accused was something that obviously the Tribunal was concerned about.

  • Asked for clarification as to when the Duty Judge would make the decision based on the expert medical report, Landale replied that this would be up to the Judge based on any feedback that that Judge received from the Office of the Prosecutor.

  • In answer to a journalist’s question as to how the continued monitoring of Bobetko’s health would work and who would undertake it, Landale replied that it would be the responsibility of the Registrar to undertake that task when appropriate. Any possible future medical examination would most likely be conducted in cooperation with the authorities in Zagreb, he added.

  • In reference to Hartmann’s statement, a journalist asked what evidence the OTP had when she mentioned that Ante Gotovina was travelling freely through Croatia. Hartmann replied that as usual it was based on information that the OTP collected on which of course she could not give details. When the OTP announced that Mladic was in Serbia, it had information. When the OTP was insisting that some government had to cooperate in locating or arresting fugitives it was because it had the information that they were on their territory and therefore that government should comply.

  • Asked for comments about Seselj, both Hartmann and Landale declined.

  • Asked whether an accused would need a visa in order to come to The Hague, Hartmann replied that they did not need a visa.

  • Asked in the Bobetko case about the role of the Dutch Government who had blocked the ratification of the Association Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the EU in December, Hartmann replied that she was surprised with this question since the OTP would never interfere on any bilateral relations. Landale added that this also applied to the whole Tribunal.

*****