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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 22.05.2003
Time: 12:20

REGISTRY AND CHAMBERS

Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:

First, you all should have received our press release on 20 May from the President of the ICTY, Judge Theodor Meron, welcoming the unanimous adoption by the Security Council on 19 May of resolution 1481 amending the Tribunal’s Statute to enhance the powers of ad litem Judges.

Next, you will all have been busy yesterday on a number of fronts. In addition to Milan Kucan’s testimony in the Milosevic trial, you should have seen that Trial Chamber I (Judge Liu, presiding, Judges Vassylenko and Argibay) entered a finding of guilt for Dragan Obrenovic on Count 5 of the Second Amended Joinder Indictment as part of a Plea Agreement between the Prosecution and Dragan Obrenovic.

Additionally, you should also all be aware that Miroslav Radic at his initial appearance yesterday afternoon entered not-guilty pleas to all six counts in the Indictment against him.

On behalf of the Outreach Programme, the Tribunal was pleased to participate in a three-day training event dealing with the application of International Humanitarian Law for legal professionals from Serbia that took place in Palic, Vojvodina, between 8 and10 May.

The event, organised by the International Bar Association and the Humanitarian Law Center, with the additional support of the Tribunal's Outreach Programme, aimed to provide training for judges, prosecutors, attorneys and police investigators from Serbia and Montenegro and other newly formed states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in how to apply International Humanitarian Law and to better enable them to conduct domestic trials for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Four representatives of the Tribunal took part in the training which is the first of three such events planned to take place in the months ahead.

From the Appeals Chamber:

In The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic on 21 May the Appeal Chamber (Judge Meron, presiding, Judges Pocar, Shahabuddeen, Hunt and Guney) issued an "Order Granting Extension of Time", in which the Appeals Chamber granted the "Prosecution’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of its Interlocutory Appeal", filed on 13 May 2003, and denied the "Prosecution’s Second Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of its Interlocutory Appeal" filed on 19 May 2003". The Appeals Chamber ordered "the Prosecution to file its Interlocutory Appeal on Wednesday, 21 May 2003". Judge Hunt appended a dissenting opinion and Judges Pocar and Shahabuddeen appended a joint Declaration.

On the same day in The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic the Appeals Chamber (Judge Shahabuddeen, presiding, Judges Pocar, Jorda, Hunt and Gunawardana) issued its "Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise", in which the Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. Judge Shahabuddeen and Judge Hunt appended separate opinions.

In terms of other court documents:

On 16 May, in the The Prosecutor v. Momcilo Krajisnik we received a "Motion for an Order and Direction", from Momcilo Krajisnik’s former lead counsel, Deyan Brashich.

On 16 May, in the The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic Trial Chamber I (Judge Liu, presiding, Judges El Mahdi and Orie) issued its "Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Rule 94(B)", in which the Trial Chamber allowed the motion with respect to a number of proposed facts listed in the Decision, "subject to the qualifications expressed in the accompanying footnotes", and denied the Motion in all other respects.

On 19 May, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic we received the "Prosecution’s Second Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of its Interlocutory Appeal".

Again in the Milosevic case and on the same day, Trial Chamber III (Judge May, presiding, Judges Robinson and Kwon) issued its "Scheduling Order for Hearing on Prosecution Motion for Binding Order". This followed the "Prosecution’s Request for a Further Hearing Concerning the Production of Documents by Serbia and Montenegro", filed on 9 May. The Trial Chamber ordered that a hearing be held on Tuesday 3 June 2003 commencing at 3 p.m., at which both the Prosecution and Serbia and Montenegro, through its "designated senior responsible official" should appear to address the Prosecution’s application.

On 20 May in the Milosevic case, we received the "Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92 bis (D)".

In the same case and on the same day we received the "Prosecution Response to the 6 May Submission by Serbia and Montenegro Regarding Outstanding Requests for Assistance".

The following day, on 21 May, in the Milosevic case, we received the "Amici Curiae Reply to Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Evidence-in-Chief of its Witnesses in Writing".

On 16 May in the Prosecutor v. Blagojevic, Obrenovic and Jokic, we received the "Prosecution’s Notice of Filing Additional Transcript to Accomany Rule 92 bis Motion".

On 19 May in the same case, we received "Vidoje Blagojevic’s Expedited Motion to Compel the Prosecution to Disclosure its Notes From its Discussions with the Nikolic Defense Team and During the Negotiating & Debriefing Sessions with Accused Nikolic Resulting in the Agreed Facts in Support of the Guilty Plea Agreement of Accused Nikolic" and "Request for an Expedited Open Session Hearing".

On 15 May, in the Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic we received "Annex B – Admitted, Undisputed and Contested Facts, Pursuant to Rule 65 ter (E) (i) ICTY RPE".

On 20 May, in The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj, we received a letter from the Registrar, Hans Holthuis, in response to Seselj’s "Petition no. 10 – To the Tribunal Registry" dated 24 April 2003.

Copies of all the documents I have mentioned are available to you on request.

In reference to the plea agreement in the Obrenovic case a question was asked as to how the OTP would deal with other defendants who would like to do the same in exchange for dropping counts or giving evidence. Hartmann replied that the modalities of the plea agreement were established by the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It was an agreement between both parties on trial and acceptance was on a case by case basis. It was not a matter of bargaining, it was an agreement and the Rules were very precise.

The journalist added that there seemed to be some kind of bargaining since an accused would plead guilty and the OTP would drop five or six counts. Hartmann replied that the fact that some counts had been withdrawn by the Prosecution from the Indictment would never affect the facts the OTP wanted to establish. This would only affect the legal qualification of the charges brought against an individual but never the facts.

In answer to a question as to whether Biljana Plavsic was still in the Hague and if she was when could she be expected to be transferred to serve her sentence, Landale replied that Plavsic had not yet been transferred, but added that he predicted that this would happen in the near future. He would let journalists know once the transfer had taken place.

Asked whether there was any news on when Stanisic and Simatovic would arrive in The Hague and whether there would be a chance that they would testify against Milosevic, Landale replied that the Tribunal was confident of cooperation on the part of the authorities in Belgrade and that he was confident that the transfer would happen in due course. Hartmann added that members of the joint criminal enterprise could have been informed about the dealings of the other core members and could bring evidence, therefore they would be contemplated by all parties as potential witnesses.

Asked to confirm that Biljana Plavsic would be transferred to Sweden to serve her sentence as had been reported, Landale replied that no comments would be made on any potential transfer of someone who had been convicted and sentenced by the Tribunal as to which country they would be serving that sentence in until that individual was transferred. He added that this was obviously for security reasons.

A journalist asked whether anything could be said about Carla Del Ponte’s visit to Belgrade, Hartmann replied that the Prosecutor was pleased to hear in Belgrade that both the Prime Minister and the President were explaining publicly the importance of bringing all accused to justice. She continued to say that the Prosecutor had said that she expected concrete steps and the realization of the promises made by them.

Asked whether it was true, as reported in the press, that the OTP would defer some of its cases to Belgrade and whether these cases were: 1) cases already under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or 2) investigations which had already been carried out but would not been prosecuted by the Tribunal or 3) investigations that the Tribunal would like to be carried out by Belgrade, Hartmann replied in general that the Tribunal would always encourage, on the principal of concurrent jurisdiction, the local judiciaries to initiate war crimes cases. The OTP had a mandate for the higher level cases and when established by the Security Council it was clear that immunity to the other war criminals was not granted. An International Tribunal could not deal with all cases and the local judiciaries could. It was a moral obligation to their future generation. The Tribunal was encouraging the establishment of a Chamber for war crimes within the State Court in Bosnia. The OTP was not happy to hear in Sarajevo that it would not be operational before the second half of 2004. The OTP would hope that some efforts would be made that it could be operational before then. Regarding Serbia the Prosecutor heard that they were working on war crimes law and she encouraged this effort. In the course the "Sabre" operation the OTP had expected that this Serbian Police operation would at the end result in catching also war criminals. This had not been the case, which was a pity, but some of the people that had been arrested were linked with war crimes, for instance the killings of Ovcara, Vukovar. This was the reason why the OTP had offered to give evidence on the low-level perpetrators who were arrested. Therefore the OTP gave to the State Prosecutor in Belgrade eight boxes of evidence. This did not change the status of the three co-accused in the case of Ovcara before the ICTY. The OTP did not contemplate deferring this case to Serbia. This is why the OTP had requested the arrest of Sljivancanin. Not only of Sljivancanin but of all 18 other fugitives who were currently in Serbia or often crossing into Serbia.

Landale added that on the issue of deferral of cases where an indictment had been confirmed by a Judge of the ICTY, approval would have to be given by the Judges, in accordance with Rule 11bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. He continued that before the Judges would defer a case to either the State Court in Bosnia, or courts in Croatia or Serbia or wherever, they would have to be absolutely satisfied that the necessary safeguards were in place to protect witnesses and the make sure that the trial would be conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

*****