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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 26.03.2003
Time: 11:30

REGISTRY AND CHAMBERS

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

Firstly, I would like to announce that the Judgement in the case The Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, will be rendered on 31 March at 3 p.m. in Courtroom I. This follows the Trial Chamber’s Decision of 24 March 2003 dismissing the "Defence Motion to Stay the Deliberations in Light of Material Newly Disclosed by the Prosecution". The Decision will be available to you after this briefing.

As you would have seen from the advisory we put out yesterday, the Milosevic trial is set to resume on Thursday.

Earlier this week the Tribunal was pleased to host a visit, organised by the Outreach Programme, of journalists, lawyers and NGO leaders from the region of the former Yugoslavia sponsored by the Council of Europe. As part of its "Democratic Leadership Alumni Seminar" on International Justice in south-east Europe, the visitors participated in a two-day seminar in which they watched proceedings and listened to presentations given by staff from Registry, Chambers and the OTP and had the opportunity to engage in discussions with Judge Carmel Agius.

With regard to developments related to on-going proceedings:

  • The trials continue as scheduled in the Milosevic, Galic, Simic et al, and Stakic cases.

  • Tomorrow afternoon, there will be a status conference in the Prosecutor v. Blagojevic et al in Courtroom I starting at 2.15 p.m.

Among the decisions issued by the Chambers since the last briefing, the following are brought to your attention:

  • On 25 March, in the case The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic a bench of the Appeals Chamber (Judge Pocar, presiding, Judge Hunt and Judge Gunawardana) handed down its "Decision Pursuant to Rule 72(E) as to Validity of Appeal", in which the Bench declared that "the appeal has been validly filed insofar as it challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to Ojdanic’s individual criminal responsibility for his alleged participation in a joint criminal enterprise charged pursuant to Article (1) of the Statute". Again this will be available to you after the briefing.

  • On 19 March, in the case The Prosecutor v. Galic, Trial Chamber I (Judge Orie, presiding, Judge El Mahdi and Judge Nieto-Navia) handed down its "Decision on the Defence Request to Summon Witnesses", in which it rejected the Request.

Office of the Prosecutor:

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

Question:

Asked to confirm the statement made by Mr. Svilanovic that Belgrade expected to receive six or seven new Indictments from the ICTY, Hartmann replied that she did not know exactly what his statement related to, but that she believed that it was only a reference to the fact that the OTP would conduct further investigations until the end of 2004 and that in light of its completion strategy, it aimed to raise a further 35 Indictments relating to all regions of the former Yugoslavia.

She added that she could not explain why he had mentioned a specific figure. She could not confirm that the OTP had any Indictments about to be signed and sent to Belgrade. There was an obligation to cooperate and there would be more Indictments in the future. The figure mentioned had no specific grounds and was to be taken as symbolic.

Hartmann added that the fact that there would be new Indictments was not news. She added that the Prosecutor had on many occasions said that the OTP would continue investigating until 2004. The OTP continued to work every day and would have more Indictments for the former Yugoslavia. She could not guess at how many there would be for each part of the former Yugoslavia. She had no idea of this because either it was confidential or it was something not yet known as it depended upon the result of ongoing investigations. It did not help to guess numbers, she concluded.

Asked for more information about tomorrow’s visit to the Prosecutor by Bosnian Prime Minister Adnan Terzic, Hartmann replied that Mr. Terzic was visiting the Netherlands. He would visit the Tribunal where he would meet with the Chief Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte. She added that she did not know whether he had any other meetings scheduled. She could not give any more details of the visit at the moment, she concluded.

Asked whether the visit could be filmed, Hartmann replied that she did not think so.

Landale added that Mr. Terzic could also be meeting with the President of the ICTY, Judge Theodor Meron, and that if there was a filming opportunity available he would let the media know.

Asked whether the figure of 35 given by Florence in a previous answer related to new Indictments not including existing sealed Indictments, Hartmann replied that a figure of 40 was mentioned at the end of last year. The figure had altered because since then some Indictments had been issued and the accused had already been arrested, for example the Limaj and others Indictment relating to crimes committed in Kosovo.

A journalist asked for a clarification relating to sealed Indictments as he was of the understanding that there were no longer any sealed Indictments. Hartmann replied that she may have said at a particular time that there were no sealed Indictments. She added that certain people when they wanted to scare the public stated either that there were many Indictments that they did not know about or that anyone arrested in the region was arrested because of a sealed Indictment of the Tribunal. Sealed Indictments were still in use and would remain in use for the purpose of arrest. When a state competent for an arrest failed to act on an arrest warrant and Indictment the OTP would make the Indictment public. The Indictment would be kept sealed for a very short period of time to make it easier for a particular country to arrest an accused. If they used the sealed Indictment as a way to avoid facing their obligation, the Indictment would be made public. The Indictment against Limaj and others was a sealed Indictment until Nato’s KFOR troops had located and arrested the accused. It was sealed for a very short period. There was no secrecy involved, if an Indictment was sealed the media were soon informed, either by an arrest or by the fact that the OTP asked for the documents to be unsealed, she concluded.

Hartmann added that it was just a matter of time. New Indictments could be sealed for a very short time in order to make arrests. Maybe, she added at the time the question was asked there were no sealed Indictments. Then in January for example, the Limaj and others Indictment was sealed. It was unsealed due the Transfer of the accused to The Hague, she concluded.

******