| 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, Tomorrow, Thursday 25 March, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Theodor Meron, will preside over a hearing in the Milosevic case in order to ascertain whether Mr. Milosevic gives his consent for his trial to continue with a replacement Judge pursuant to Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The session will commence at 10 a.m. in Courtroom I. In the case The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin, this afternoon starting at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom I, Trial Chamber II will hold a hearing to inform the Accused about the locations that the Trial Chamber visited in the presence of the Prosecution and Defence during its on-site visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina between 14 and 18 March 2004. Judge Agius, Judge Janu and Judge Taya, who are sitting on the trial of Radislav Brdanin, visited Bosnia and Herzegovina to familiarise themselves with various locations contained in the Indictment where it is alleged crimes were committed. The pronouncement of the Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Deronjic will be held on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 starting at 12 p.m. in Courtroom III. The pronouncement of the Sentencing Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Darko Mrdja will be held on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 starting at 3 p.m. in Courtroom I. With regard to the rest of the court schedule and in addition to the ongoing trials: There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic before the Pre-Appeal Judge, Judge Pocar, on 29 March starting at 4 p.m. in Courtroom III. There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic before the Pre-Appeal Judge, Judge Pocar, on 30 March starting at 3 p.m. There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v.Stanislav Galic before the Pre-Appeal Judge, Judge Mumba, on 31 March starting at 10 a.m. There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic before the Pre-Appeal Judge, Judge Meron, on 5 April starting at 9.30 a.m. in Courtroom II. In The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, the Defendants have been ordered by the Pre-Trial Judge to file their pre-trial briefs on 10 May 2004. Office of the Prosecutor: Florence Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement. Questions: Asked whether, in the Milosevic case, the Prosecution had filed their response to the amici curiae ‘Motion for Judgement of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis’, Landale replied that they had filed it confidentially. Asked whether the recent events in Kosovo fell under the jurisdiction of the ICTY, Hartmann replied that, for all crimes except genocide, the Statute of the ICTY required an armed conflict to have occurred. The ICTY Prosecution therefore had no jurisdiction regarding the recent events in Kosovo, however, they were of course aware of the unfolding situation. The Prosecutor, Hartmann went on to say, was very vigilant in paying attention to those events. It was a pity that justice did not deter crimes from being committed, she concluded. Landale added that it was worth pointing out that the ICTY had concurrent jurisdiction with the authorities and courts in the former Yugoslavia and that both UNMIK and the authorities in Belgrade could and should investigate possible crimes committed within their jurisdictions. Hartmann added that the Prosecutor could only act according the Statute and that it was not a matter of choice. The Statute required an armed conflict to have occurred. In this case, the OTP did not have jurisdiction, but this did not mean that these events should not be seen as crimes. A journalist remarked on the fact that an international body was present in Kosovo in the form of UNMIK, people had been killed and what had taken place between UNMIK and the demonstrators should be seen as a form of armed conflict. Asked what the definition of armed conflict was, Hartmann replied that the definition of armed conflict was difficult to specify. On a number of occasions discussions were held within the OTP as to whether an indictment could contain events relating to a period before ‘very obvious’ armed conflict had begun. The first weeks or months of events that would later be seen as obvious armed conflicts were challenged, it was not easy. It was a pity for the victims involved that such discussions had to take place, but a framework was in place which had to be respected, she concluded. The journalist stated that the framework was set by the ICTY Judges. Hartmann replied that the ICTY held the precondition of armed conflict for everything except genocide. This was not, she added, the case for the ICTR or the ICC, but was specific to this Tribunal, which was established in 1993 when there was no question of the fact that the situation within the former Yugoslavia involved armed conflict. At the time it was not foreseen that in certain cases the situation might not be quite so clear. For example, she went on to say, the question of whether, following the Kumanovo peace agreement, crimes committed after NATO was deployed in Kosovo, fell within the jurisdiction of the ICTY as having occurred during armed conflict. A similar situation occurred at the beginning of the events in Macedonia. But as soon as she could, the Prosecutor said that an armed conflict had occurred and that the ICTY had jurisdiction. Hartmann recalled that Ms. Del Ponte had already addressed the issue on 24 November 2000, when she had asked the U.N. Security Council, which has the sole authority to amend the Statute of the ICTY, to modify Article 5 of the Tribunal’s Statute in order that the reference and requirement for an ‘armed conflict’ should be withdrawn. At that time, Ms. Del Ponte was already saying that the "requirement that crimes are linked to an armed conflict effectively precludes her Office from dealing with on-going crimes committed in Kosovo after the deployment of KFOR" (since June 1999) (Press Release No. 542, page 3). Documents: The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Mlado Radic, Zoran Ziric and Dragoljub Prcac 22 March 2004 "Decision." The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdajnin (concerning allegations against Milka Maglov) 19 March 2004 "Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis." 19 March 2004 "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal." The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic 19 March 2004 "Appellant’s Supplemental Brief on Appeal." The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic 18 March 2004 "Order Concerning Authentication of Intercepted Communications." 21 March 2004 "Amici Curiae Observations Pursuant to Rule 15bis(C) for Hearing on 25 March 2004." 22 March 2004 "Order Extending Page Limit for Prosecution Response to the Rule 98bis Motion." The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic 12 March 2004 "Prosecution’s Redacted Consolidated Response to Vidoje Vidoje Blagojevic’s and Dragan Jokic’s Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis." The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura 19 March 2004 "Submission of the Amended Report of the Prosecution’s Military Expert." The Prosecutor v. Milan Babic 22 March 2004 "Prosecution’s Sentencing Brief." 22 March 2004 "Milan Babic’s Sentencing Brief." The Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar 23 March 2004 "Decision on Defence Motion Requesting Access to Miodrag Jokic’s Plea Agreement and Related Documents." The Prosecutor v. Miodrag Jokic 23 March 2004 "Decision on Pavle Strugar’s Request for Variation of Protective Measures." ***** |