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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 17.09.2003
Time: 12:20

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

Good afternoon.

First, the President of the ICTY, Judge Theodor Meron, has been in Paris for the past few days. Among other senior officials, President Meron met with Ms. Marie-Noelle Lenoir, Minister of European Affairs on 15 September. The President is due to meet with Mr. Dominique Perben, Minister of Justice Minister later today.

As a reminder, I’d like to point out that President Meron and the Vice-President, Judge Fausto Pocar, are paying an official visit to Serbia and Montenegro tomorrow and Friday. This follows an invitation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro, Goran Svilanovic, in his capacity as the Chairman of The National Council for Cooperation with the International Tribunal and is the first official visit by a President of the ICTY to Belgrade. President Meron and Vice-President Pocar will meet with the President of Serbia and Montenegro, Svetozar Marovic, the Foreign Minister, Goran Svilanovic, the Prime Minister of Serbia, Zoran Zivkovic, and other high officials.

In terms of scheduling:

A reminder that the Appeals Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac will be rendered on this afternoon at 3 p.m. The Appeals Chamber will be comprised of Judges Jorda (presiding), Schomburg, Shahabuddeen, Guney and Agius.

On 11 September in The Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic, we received a Scheduling Order, ordering the following:

-that the sentencing hearing be held from 3 to 7 November 2033, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Courtroom II,

-that the Parties should file their sentencing briefs and provide statements of any witnesses they might call in relation to the sentencing hearing as well as any other relevant information that might assist the Trial Chamber in determining the appropriate sentence, no later than Monday, 20 October 2003.

On 15 September in The Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, we received an Order re-scheduling the Status Conference planned this afternoon to Wednesday 1 October 2003, commencing at 3 p.m.

The Blagojevic and Jokic trial has been postponed until this Friday, 19 September.

The sentencing hearing in the Mrdja case, scheduled for Monday, 22 September 2003 has been cancelled and will now take place on Wednesday 22 October in Courtroom I at 2.15 p.m.

A Status Conference in The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Deronjic will be held on Friday 26 September, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom I.

You are of course all invited to cover these events.

Of the court documents we have received from the last briefing:

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, we received from the Appeals Chamber (Judges Meron, presiding, Pocar, Schomburg, Shahabuddeen and Guney) the "Decision on Application for Admission of Further Additional Evidence on Appeal", in which the Appeals Chamber denied the Motion and noted that "further reasons for the present decision will be given in due course".

On 16 September, in The Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, we received from the Appeals Chamber (Judges Jorda, presiding, Schomburg, Shahabuddeen, Guney and Agius) the "Public Version of the Confidential Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Filed on 11 September 2003".

First, most of you will have seen the "Oral Ruling on the Preparation and Presentation of the Defence Case" in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic that was rendered by Judge May earlier this morning. We will provide you with the written and authoritative Order once we receive copies.

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received Trial Chamber III’s "Fifth Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54bis of Prosecution and Serbia and Montenegro". This is a substantial Decision, so I will not read it out at this moment, but copies will be available to those of you who want them after this.

On 12 September, in The Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, we received the "Decision on Defence Access the EUMM Archives", in which Trial Chamber II denied the Defence Motion.

For those of you who do not already have one, you can pick up a copy of Trial Chamber I’s "Decision on Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj" that was rendered on 12 September after this briefing.

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Darko Mrdja, we received the "Decision on the Defence Motion for Medical Examination and Variation of Scheduling Order", in which the Trial Chamber granted the Motion and ordered inter alia that a psychological examination of Darko Mrdja be carried out "with the purpose of, in particular, providing the Chamber with the necessary information and findings concerning the psychological state of mind of the Defendant at the time of the crime". For further details, I refer you to the text of the Decision.

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Ivica Rajic, we received the "Decision on Joint Defence Motion for Access to Confidential Supporting Material, Filings, Transcripts and Exhibits in the Rajic Case" in which the Trial Chamber granted the Motion in part. Again, this is a substantial Decision, so I refer you to the text for the details.

On 16 September, in The Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, we received the "Decision On Prosecution Unopposed Motion for Two Day Continuance for the Testimony of Momir Nikolic", in which the Trial Chamber granted the Motion and ordered "that trial proceedings in this case shall resume on Friday, 19 September 2003 at 9:00 am in Courtroom III, with the testimony of Prosecution witness Momir Nikolic".

On 15 September in The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovic, we received a Decision from the Registrar assigning Mr. Eugene O’Sullivan as lead defence counsel in this case.

On 16 September in The Prosecutor v. Predrag Banovic, we received a Decision from the Registrar withdrawing the assignment of Mr. Rothpfeffer as co-counsel for the defence in this case.

On 11 September, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Amici Curiae Reply to Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Written Statement of David Harland in Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92bis Dated 3 September".

Again in the Milosevic case on 12 September, we received the "Amici Curiae Reply to Partly Confidential Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Witness Statements Relevant to Events in Brcko, Foca, Bijeljina and Bosanska Krupa Municipalities in Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant to Rules 54, 75 and 92bis Dated 4 September 2003".

On 12 September, again in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received the "Prosecution’s Submission of An Addendum to the Expert Report of Helge Brunborg".

On 12 September, in The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj, we received the "Prosecution’s Response to the Accused’s ‘Motion Number 19’".

On 12 September, in The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we received "Dragan Jokic’s Urgent Request For Disclosure of All Rule 68 Materials Being Withheld by the Prosecution Relating to the Evidence Affecting the Credibility of Dragan Obrenovic’s Testimony Before the Trial Chamber".

On 16 September, in the same case, we received the "Prosecution’s Unopposed Motion for Two Day Continuance for the Testimony of Momir Nikolic".

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Milan Simic, we received an "Application for the Early Release of Mr. Milan Simic".

On 15 September, in The Prosecutor v. Stanisic and Simatovic, we received the "Prosecution’s Response to Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment".

On 16 September, in The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, we received a "Motion of the International Criminal Bar for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae and to Join in Brief of Association of Defence Counsel of ICTY".

As ever, copies of all the documents I have mentioned are available to you on request.

Asked whether a full medical report on Milosevic had been provided as requested by the Trial Chamber, Landale replied that he believed a medical report had been made available to the Judges, but added that he could not say whether this contained a psychological evaluation. He added that this medical report was confidential and therefore could not be made public.

****