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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 05.11.2003
Time: 12:20

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

Good afternoon,

The President of the Tribunal, Judge Theodor Meron has been invited by the British Government to meet with the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and other senior officials in London this Monday, 10 November. President Meron and Foreign Secretary Straw will discuss current issues of mutual interest and concern relating to the work of the ICTY.

As you should have seen from the advisory, Milan Simic was released from the Tribunal’s custody yesterday following President Meron’s Order for his release dated 27 October 2003.

On 30 October, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amicus Curiae Submissions on Self-Defence Arising in the Kosovo Part of the Case as Stipulated in Part (A) of the Order of the Chamber to the Amicus of 11 December 2002".

The following day on 31 October Judge Shahabuddeen filed a Separate Opinion "Appended to the Appeals Chamber’s Decision Dated 30 September 2003 on Admissibility of Evidence-in-Chief in the Form of Written Statements", and a Separate Opinion "Appended to the Appeals Chamber’s Decision Dated 28 October 2003 on the Prosecution’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s 10 April 2003 Decision on Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts".

On 3 November in the Milosevic case, the amicus curiae filed their "Request for Separation of and Extension of Time for the Filing of Written Submissions".

The following day on 4 November in the Milosevic case we received the Trial Chamber’s "Order to the Prosecution to Finalise its List of Exhibits", in which the Trial Chamber ordered the following:

1. "The Prosecution shall produce, within 21 days, a definitive exhibit list, setting out the documents it intends to introduce into evidence for the remainder of the Prosecution case:
2. The list may include confidential and/or ex parte schedules in order to protect witnesses; and
3. Any exhibit not listed in a definitive or unqualified manner will be excluded by the Chamber, unless it could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence by the Prosecution."

On 28 October in The Prosecutor v. Dragan Obrenovic, we received "Dragan Obrenovic’s Exibit List for the Sentencing Hearing".

On 31 October in The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, we received from the Appeals Chamber (Judges Pocar, presiding, Mumba, Schomburg, Guney and Weinberg De Roca) a "Decision on Evidence", in which the Appeals Chamber granted the defendant’s motions to admit additional evidence in part. This is a detailed Decision and I refer you to copies that will be available after the briefing.

On 31 October in The Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, we received from Trial Chamber II the "Decision on Joint Defence Motion for Extension of Provisional Release and Scheduling Order", in which the Trial Chamber granted the Motion and ordered "that both Accused shall surrender to the custody of the Tribunal on Thursday 27 November 2003, in the conditions set out in the Order" and rescheduled the Pre-Trial Conference to Friday 28 November 2003 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom III.

In the same case on 3 November, we received the pre-trial briefs from both Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.

On 31 October the Deputy Registrar, David Tolbert, issued a Decision in the Brdjanin case assigning Ms. Brenda Hollis as amicus curiae "for the purpose of prosecuting Ms. Milka Maglov for:

1. the alleged intimidation of the Witness; and
2. the alleged disclosure of the identity of the Witness to a member of the public, in violation of an order of the Chamber".

On 31 October in The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, we received Decisions denying all three Accused’s Requests for Provisional Release.

On 3 November in The Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, the Deputy Registrar, David Tolbert, issued a Decision withdrawing Mr. Ahmet Hodzic from the case and assigning Mr. Stefan Kirsch as lead counsel.

In the same case again on 3 November, we received the "Prosecution’s Response to Defence Motion Regarding Order in Which Prosecution Witnesses Will be Called at Trial".

On 31 October in The Prosecutor v. Mrksic, Radic and Sljivancanin, we received the "Defendant Veselin Sljivancanin’s Preliminary Motion".

On 23 October in The Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Trial Chamber II ordered inter alia, that the trial will commence on 2 December 2003. The Pre-Trial conference in this case will be held on 28 November.

In The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, on 31 October we received from the Appeals Chamber a Scheduling Order which inter alia ordered that the appeal hearing in this case commence on 8 December 2003 and that the parties file "if they so wish, a supplementary brief in the light of the admitted additional evidence and rebuttal material, by 1 December 2003".

In The Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic, Trial Chamber II has ordered that the Sentencing Judgement in this case will be rendered on 18 December at 2 p.m.

A reminder that in The Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljevic, the Appeal Hearing in this case will be held on Tuesday, 18 November 2003.

The Appeal Hearing in The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic will be held on 24 November.

The Sentencing Hearing in The Prosecutor v. Ranko Cesic will be held on 27 and 28 November.

The Pre-trial conference in The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic will be held on 24 November.

There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Naser Oric on Tuesday 25 November 2003 commencing at 3 p.m.

All the documents I’ve mentioned are available from us on request.

Florence Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement

Stéphane Bourgon, President of the Association of Defence Counsel for the ICTY, made the following statement:

On behalf of the Association of Defence Council, I do not have any specific statement to make. However, I am pleased to announce that tomorrow I will be meeting with the Registrar, Mr. Hans Holthuis, and that the first meeting of the Registry Working Group on the Pre-Trial Legal Aid Policy will take place.

Questions:

Asked if Milan Simic’s early release was final and for how long he had actually been detained for the crime he pleaded guilty to, Landale stated that he could give an exact figure of the number of days Simic had been detained after the briefing, but that as of Monday, 3 November 2003, he had served two thirds of his sentence. Landale explained that when sentences were rendered by the Trial Chamber the number of days spent in detention at the detention unit were taken into consideration. Therefore, following an application to the President of the Tribunal for early release, President Meron granted Milan Simic that early release, he said.

Asked for more information on an article which appeared yesterday in Dnevni Avaz that reported an alleged bout between Carla del Ponte and the President of the Association of the Women of Srebrenica, Hartmann replied she was not aware of the article.

The journalist replied that he could get a copy of the article, and Hartmann agreed to take a look at it at a later time.

Another journalist added that an English translation of the article described a screaming match between the Prosecutor and the President of the organisation, Hajra Catic. He added that in the alleged article, Catic accused the Prosecutor of screaming at her. Hartmann stated that there was no such incident and reiterated that she would like to first take a look at the original article.

The journalist quoted from an English translation of the article in Dnevni Avaz, stating that "Del Ponte reacted hysterically and started shouting when she complained about the Prosecution’s defence deals at The Hague. Catic says Del Ponte started shouting and saying that they have no right to ask such questions and what concerns is it to them if someone gets a smaller or larger sentence? Del Ponte continued shouting and told Catic that she should be satisfied with the fact that the dead members of the families had been found".

The journalist further quoted that "Catic says she has to get medical help after the meeting and says her trust in The Hague as an institution is non-existent." Hartmann responded again by saying that she would look at the original article adding that this did not reflect at all what happened during the meeting and that their discussion had been interesting.

Asked if Del Ponte raised her voice at all during this discussion, Hartmann said that they were speaking normally to each other and she believed that the person who took part in the discussion would not say these things to a journalist. Hartmann added that she believed there was no dispute and that it was just a strange article.

Asked if there would be no more investigations in Kosovo against Serbian military for crimes committed against Albanians, Hartmann confirmed that no more investigations would be made by the ICTY. Hartmann added that the ICTY was under a completion strategy where it was clearly limited and its mandate was very clear at a high level. Hartmann encouraged the journalist to look at resolution 1503 of 28 August 2003.

Hartmann added that in respect to the guidelines, given by the UN Security Council, the ICTY was not conducting any more investigations relating to Serbian police or military. This did not mean that there were no other individuals bearing responsibility for crimes committed in Kosovo against Albanians, but that the ICTY had finished its part of the job.

Hartmann stated further that the OTP expected a bond with the new special prosecutor and the new court in Serbia that would deal with war crimes and would continue the work that was started by the ICTY. She added that no criminal investigations would open related to the mass graves discovered in Serbia, where a total of 900 bodies were found in 2001 and the exhumation conducted in the course of 2002. It was expected that this case and others would be conducted before the local judiciary.

Asked to comment on the scathing articles in reaction to the Pedrag Banovic sentence, Landale replied that he had seen such articles as well as others that stated the opposite point of view.

The journalist commented that these articles came from victim associations. Landale said he was aware of them and had no particular comment except to recommend that people should carefully read the Judgement and the statement made by Pedrag Banovic himself. He concluded that then they were of course free to make up their own minds.

Asked by a journalist if the Prosecutor was saying that proceedings would not be completed by 2010, and whether if she had said this she had checked with the President and the Security Council, Hartmann replied that the Prosecutor did say that and that as usual things were taken out of context.

Hartmann said that the Prosecutor had said if people were not arrested. She added that they were speaking about the fact that everyone was forgetting the UN Security Council resolution 1503 in which there were guidelines and a timetable for the Tribunal and all its sections. There were also clear reminders to the states that they had to fully cooperate. The Prosecutor, together with the President and Registry could work on the completion strategy. But there were elements which were not under control of the Tribunal. For instance the cooperation and prompt arrest of fugitives. If we did not have Karadzic, Mladic, Gotovina, the five who were indicted for Srebrenica, and other people who were under the control of the police in the countries where "they are hiding", then the Tribunal would have problems with the deadlines.

For instance, the Krajisnik trial was scheduled for some time next year, and if he could be tried with Karadzic there would not be a repetition of the trial. With around two year’s time for each trial tried separately, the Trial Chamber would be trapped for four years. Then it was true that it would have problem with the deadline. The cooperation and the prompt arrest according to the law of the fugitives was a way for the ICTY to fight impunity, and it would insist on it and not give up.

Asked if the ICTY was aware of the concern in foreign capitals that this deadline seemed to be under pressure, Landale replied that the Tribunal was concentrating all its efforts internally to try and meet the 2010 deadline, but as Florence had pointed out, there were external considerations and factors that were out of the Tribunal’s control. Certain things needed to take place for the Tribunal to complete its mandate and that involved full and complete cooperation from all people involved, especially the governments and authorities in the former Yugoslavia who were still not completely living up to their obligations under international law to cooperate with the Tribunal, most notably in the transfer of people indicted by the Tribunal, but also in other areas. The Tribunal had to see an improvement in all areas in order for it to complete its work.

Asked if the Prosecution was having problems bringing in 20 key witnesses in the last 30 days of the Prosecution’s case against Milosevic and if these witnesses were from countries other than the former Yugoslavia, Hartmann replied that she believed that this question referred to a comment made by the Prosecutor in Vienna yesterday. Hartmann said that the prosecution had up to 34 days to finish their presentation of evidence. The problem the Prosecutor had mentioned was not about witnesses, but the fact that crucial documents in the Milosevic case were not given to the OTP after being requested from Belgrade. Access to military and state archives in Belgrade was needed to establish the facts of the responsibility of Milosevic. The OTP would do its best to bring live witnesses, but the testimony would have a stronger sense if supported by state documents. If documents were missing, then there was a problem related to the trial. The OTP was hopeful that the documents asked for two years ago would reach the Tribunal before it was too late.

Asked whether the Tribunal had any indication as to when the ‘Srebrenica Quintet’, the five officers indicted for their alleged involvement in crimes committed in Srebrenica would be brought to the ICTY, Landale replied that in responding to questions about various developments, for instance the unsealing of the Indictment against the four generals, the Tribunal was specific in talking about them in its insistence that they would be apprehended and transferred, but at the same time, he added that he hoped that the Tribunal had also been clear that others indicted by the Tribunal, who were currently fugitives also had to be apprehended and transferred if they did not surrender voluntarily to the Tribunal.

Hartmann added that the OTP desperately mentioned all those names and tried not to reduce the request to Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina. She added that at the beginning of the year she took time during a press briefing to list all of the names of accused who were very important and could not be tried locally, who had to come to The Hague. She added that if they had already come, they would have been tried together with the two now on trial. It was again obstruction, not only that they did not come in time, but that it was making a mess of the programme of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had deadlines now, it was always known that the Tribunal would not last 20 or 50 years which was the problem as it was obstruction not only by not sending somebody but it had an impact on all of the work of criminal justice and the fight against impunity. The Tribunal did not have its own police and could only hope that people would comply.

Asked to specify which documents were still needed from Belgrade, Hartmann replied that she could not specify because some of the documents on which the Tribunal was working and which were very important were discussed in closed session. What she suggested was that the media refer to the sentence in the Prosecutor’s report before the Security Council on October 9 in which she was very clear in explaining that there was obstruction from the Belgrade authorities related to documents dated prior to 1996. This meant clearly documents related to the war in Bosnia and Croatia. Obviously this related to the fact that the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro were not willing to give access to documents that could be used in one way or another by Bosnia and Croatia in their case against Serbia and Montenegro before the International Court of Justice.

A journalist stated that Krajisnik had been in detention at the UN detention unit for four years now. Asked whether it was possible that if Karadzic was caught right now or in one months’ time Krajisnik would have to wait another two years before coming to trial, Landale replied that this would be a determination of the Judges.

Hartmann added that as far as Krajisnik was concerned, the prosecution was ready and that the trial had been postponed at the request of the defence.

In relation to allegations that Mrs. Maglov had apparently been involved in a staged trial of Muslims in Banja Luka during the war, a journalist asked whether the ADC-ICTY would be in contact with the Registrar when it came to the selection process of lawyers who were to defend accused at the Tribunal and whether the ADC-ICTY had any way of checking the background of the people and whether it did so. Bourgon replied that ever since the ADC-ICTY was created the intent of the Registrar was to work with the ADC-ICTY with respect to the selection of defence counsel. He added that in the beginning when the ADC-ICTY was created certain criteria were included into its constitution in terms of who could be a defence counsel before the ICTY.

There were differences between these criteria and those that existed in the directive on assignment of defence counsel. At the present time the ADC-ICTY was working to have the same criteria. The Judges had been working now for some time on a new qualification, new specific requirements for any one to be a defence counsel before the Tribunal. This working group would come up with some new criteria, he would imagine, before they sat at their next plenary in December. The ADC-ICTY would adopt the same criteria for its constitution and would work with the Registrar in order that the first step in the screening process for any defence counsel should begin with the ADC-ICTY. There was more to be done he added and in the statement he made last week he had said that the ADC-ICTY wanted to get involved with the Registrar in terms of identifying the criteria which would now become the norm, he concluded.

A journalist stated that the fact that it was made public the day after his funeral that Izetbegovic was under investigation by the Tribunal had caused a huge and continuing storm in Bosnia. Asked why the OTP felt it should name him and why the OTP refused to give any details as to what the investigation concerned in the light of the fact that most prosecutors around the world would not say someone was being investigated if they were dead because it left people in a ‘shadow’. Hartmann replied that the Prosecutor was asked why she had not indicted Izetbegovic and she was transparent as she usually was and answered the question. Hartmann added that in Sarajevo Del Ponte said two things: certain war crimes were committed by certain elements of the BH army and that it was under the mandate of the OTP to investigate the chain of command related to those crimes. This investigation was related to war crimes and not crimes against humanity. There were enough elements here to understand why she would not give anymore details, she stated.

The journalist said that this response was not clear, and asked why the Prosecutor made this public and whether it was for a political reason. Hartmann replied that there was not a political reason, it was a question of transparency. The Prosecutor was very precisely asked why Izetbegovic was not indicted and she said that he was under investigation and that he was not yet indicted because the investigation was not finished. The OTP had not collected enough evidence to bring an indictment. It was as simple as that, she concluded.

Asked whether the Prosecutor regretted saying this, Hartmann replied that they could not regret answering questions wherever possible. She added that she regretted that she had been obliged to repeat the answer, which she had given two days before in London, in The Hague on the day of the funeral.

A journalist stated that a war crime could be murdering 1,000 people or it could be using an enemy flag by mistake. There was a huge difference between one crime and another and obviously people were now expecting the worst, that Izetbegovic was involved in some dark terrible series of crimes as that was a possibility. Asked whether the world would ever hear what he was being investigated for, Hartmann replied that if the media read carefully what the Prosecution had said in Sarajevo they would know why she could say no more.

The journalist said that he was asking what the position was now, not about what was said in Sarajevo. Hartmann replied that she had said again and again that if the media carefully read what the Prosecutor had said in Sarajevo they would understand the reason why she was not giving more details.

Asked how long the OTP would need to be ready for trial if Karadzic was arrested tomorrow, Hartmann replied that the OTP could ask the Judges for a joinder with Krajisnik and if it had the opportunity to suggest the Judges contemplate the possibility of joining the trials. The OTP had all of the elements needed for a joinder in the case of Krajisnik and Karadzic.

Asked whether they were ready for trial, Hartmann replied that they were.

Landale added that any accused who arrived here had the right to receive full disclosure of all materials and a chance to build and investigate their case. Hartmann added that this was the case for Kovacevic and Strugar.

****