|
Please note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely a summary. ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing REGISTRY AND
CHAMBERS Good afternoon, I would like to remind you all that the Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic, will be rendered tomorrow, Thursday 31 July 2003 at 3 p.m. You are all welcome to attend. We will hopefully be able to provide you with a press release relatively soon after the rendering of the Judgement tomorrow afternoon. Among the court documents we have received since the last briefing, the following are brought to your attention: In the Appeals Chamber: On 23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura, we received from the Appeals Chamber a "Corrigendum" amending two sentences in the "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility" issued by the Appeals Chamber on 16 July 2003. For further details I refer you to the document. On 24 July, in The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, we received from the President of the Tribunal, Judge Theodor Meron, an "Order" assigning Judge Wolfgang Schomburg to replace Judge David Hunt on the Appeals Chamber in the case. In the Trial Chambers: On 23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, we received an "Order to an Amicus Curiae to Prepare Written Submissions", in which the Trial Chamber ordered, among other things, that "Professor McCormack as Amicus Curiae, shall prepare written submissions on self-defence as it has arisen in the Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina parts of this case, on the same basis as the outstanding submissions in relation to Kosovo; these submissions are to be prepared on the basis of the evidence adduced so far in the case, and are to be forwarded to the Chamber by November 30, 2003". On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, we received from Trial Chamber III a "Decision on Application on Provisional Release", in which the Trial Chamber dismissed the Motion. On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura, we received from Trial Chamber II a "Decision on ‘Joint Defence Request for Certification of the ‘Decision on Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Indictment’ Dated 18 June 2003’", in which the Trial Chamber denied the Joint Request. On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we received a "Scheduling Order", ordering that the trial proceedings in the case resume on 15 September 2003 with the continuation of the Prosecution’s presentation of evidence. On the same day, in The Prosecutor v. Momir Nikolic and The Prosecutor v. Dragan Obrenovic, we received Scheduling Orders setting Status Conferences for 8 and 10 September 2003 respectively. On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic, and Amir Kubura, we received from Trial Chamber II the "Decision on ‘Joint Defence Request for Certification of the ‘Decision on Joint Defence Oral Motion for Reconsideration of ‘Decision on Urgent Motion for Ex Parte Oral Hearing on Allocation of Resources to the Defence and Consequences Thereof for the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial ‘ Dated 18 July 2003", in which the Trial Chamber denied the Joint Request. On 25 July in The Prosecutor v. Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin, we received from Trial Chamber II a "Scheduling Order for Filings", in which the Trial Chamber ordered that "Mrksic, Radic and Sljivancanin respectively file a single document containing any response to the Motion pursuant to Rule 50(A)(i)(c) and/or any preliminary Motion pursuant to Rule 72 alleging defects on the form of the proposed Consolidated Indictment by no later that 12.00 on 25 August 2003". On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar and Miodrag Jokic, we received a "Scheduling Order for Submission of Pre-Trial Briefs and Setting the Date for the Pre-Trial Conference and Commencement of the Trial", in which the Pre-Trial Judge ordered that " (a) The Prosecution to submit the final version of its Pre-Trial Brief, including the list of witnesses to be called by the Prosecution and the list of exhibits to be tendered at trial on Tuesday, 19 August 2003; (b) The Defence to submit the final version of its Pre-Trial Brief on Tuesday, 9 September 2003; (c) The Pre-Trial conference to be held on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 at a time and in a courtroom to be notified through the Registry; (d) The Trial to commence on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 at a time and in a courtroom to be notified through the Registry". In terms of other court documents: On 22 July, in The Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala and Isak Musliu, we received the "Reply to Prosecution’s Response to the Defence Application for Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj". In the same case on 24 July, we received an "Addendum to Reply to Prosecution’s Response to the Defence Application for Provisional Release of Fatmir Limaj". On 23 July, in The Prosecutor v.Tihomir Blaskic, we received the "Prosecution’s Notice of Filing of the Official Translation of Exhibit PA4 of Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments Filed 7 January 2003". On 23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic, we received "General Ojdanic’s Appeal of Decision on Motion for Additional Funds Ex Parte". On 23 July, in The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, we received the "Prosecution’s Notice of Rule 94 bis Disclosure of Expert Report of Kate Barr". On 28 July, in the same case, we received "Vidoje Blagojevic’s Response to Prosecution’s Notice of Rule 94 bis Disclosure of Expert Report of Kate Barr". On 25 July, in The Prosecutor v. Veselin Sljivancanin, we received the "Appeal of Mr. Momcilo Bulatovic on the Registry’s Decision Declining Assignment of Defense Counsels to the Accused". Copies of all the documents I have mentioned are available to you on request. Finally, this is the last briefing before the summer court recess. The next briefing will be on Wednesday 27 August. Thank you. Florence Harmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor made no statement. Questions:
Asked what the position of the Prosecutor was concerning recommendations made by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, not to extend her mandate as Prosecutor of the ICTR, Hartmann replied that the next step, following the recommendation of the Secretary-General, was for the Security Council to issue a resolution. It was up to the Security Council to decide on such matters. She concluded that the Prosecutor would make no comment until a decision had been made. According to a journalist, Carla Del Ponte had told a Swiss newspaper a few days ago that if her mandate for the ICTR was not extended, she would not stay at the ICTY. Hartmann replied that she had no further comment to make on this issue except that she was waiting to see what the Security Council decided. She would comment after that, but not at the moment as it was too early. A journalist stated, however, that she had made comments on Friday in advance of the Security Council decision, concerning political pressure connected to investigations of the Rwandese Patriotic Army (RPA). Hartmann replied that the Prosecutor went to New York on Monday to express her concern over the separation of the two Prosecutor posts. She added that the Prosecutor had explained, through her experience as the Prosecutor since 1999, what negative consequences she foresaw in the case of separation at a point in time when both the ICTY and the ICTR prosecution were in the last stage of their completion strategy. She went on to say that the completion strategy was established by the Prosecutor to work in a parallel manner in both Tribunals, with the aim of concluding the investigations by 2004. It was exactly the same in both Tribunals, with a re-focus on suspects bearing the highest responsibility. She added that the Prosecutor believed that a new Prosecutor at the ICTR would either implement the programme of the previous Prosecutor, which was a strange solution or put in place his/her own strategy which could cause delays. The Prosecutor was surprised that the idea of separating the two positions, an old idea which had been rejected up till now, had come again, when the completion strategy had been approved last year by the UN Security Council. Hartmann added that it was true that when certain random NGO’s had announced publicly that they had last week sent a letter to the Secretary-General and to the Member States of the Security Council asking for the removal of Carla Del Ponte from the ICTR, she had reacted to this initiative by saying that it looked like an attempt by the Government in Kigali to prevent to Prosecutor from going any further with her ‘special investigations’. The term ‘special investigations’ was a word used for investigations that were not related to the genocide but, in accordance with the Statute of the ICTR, were other violations of international humanitarian law related to crimes committed by members of the RPA. She added that the Prosecutor had complained about the lack of cooperation from Kigali on different occasions, twice last year, in July and in October, before the Security Council and in conversation with the Secretary-General. Those discussions resulted in a statement from the President of the Security Council in December 2002. This statement incidentally came at almost the same time as one relating to the ICTY and the requirement of Belgrade to cooperate with The Hague. The statement asked Kigali to cooperate according to their international obligations in the purpose of all investigations which were conducted by the Tribunal. This included the ‘special investigations’. Asked for more information concerning Milosevic’s health, Landale replied that he could not really go much further than what Judge May had said in court this morning during the administrative session, which was that the Trial Chamber understood that Milosevic was suffering from problems with his blood pressure and that was the reason he was not able to attend court this week and why the trial would now adjourn until 25 August 2003. He could not go further than that, he concluded. A journalist stated that everyone had become used to interruptions of the Milosevic trial due to reasons of blood pressure, flu or exhaustion, but that Milosevic, during the public hearing on Friday, had mentioned that he had asked for a pain killer and that it was the first time he did so. Asked whether this indicated that there was a new ailment, or new symptoms, Landale replied that he would not go any further than what Judge May had said in court today. He added that it was not for him to disclose confidential medical information and that he would not do so. |