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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 13.10.2004
Time: 12.20 p.m.

Registry and Chambers:

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

Good morning,

Yesterday Judge Kwon signed an Order making public the indictment, warrant of arrest and order for surrender for Miroslav Bralo. Bralo was originally indicted in November 1995 on nine counts of grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and 12 counts of violations of the laws or customs of war, for his direct individual participation in the unlawful confinement of civilians, inhumane and cruel treatment, torture and rape.

It is alleged that at all times relevant to the indictment, between April 1993 and mid-June 1993, Bralo was a member of the "Jokers" special forces group of the Croatian Defence Council, or HVO.

According to the indictment, Bralo’s victims were captured Bosnian Muslim civilians and included Witness A, a Bosnian Muslim woman, who was tortured, raped and sexually abused on a number of occasions by Bralo and others. Copies of the indictment will be available after this briefing.

On Saturday, 9 October 2004, and the Tribunal’s Outreach Programme and The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Republika Srpska held a conference in Foča, Bosnia and Herzegovina, entitled “ICTY Cases in Relation to War Crimes Committed in Foca”.

The event enabled the Tribunal to provide key audiences in Foca with a detailed and comprehensive picture of the Tribunal’s activities in relation to allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law in Foca during the 1992-1995 armed conflict. The conference was attended by more than 100 people, including a number of Bosniak victims’ associations and, contrary to some media reports, a number of local residents from Foča, including the Deputy Mayor, representatives from the local police, judicial authorities and veterans associations.

Senior ICTY officials who were involved in Foca-related cases described the investigations conducted, outlined the strategy of the Office of the Prosecutor and the evidence presented during trials, as well as the facts established.

The conference was the second in a series entitled "Bridging the Gap Between the ICTY and Communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina" in which the Tribunal deals directly with the immediate communities most affected by the crimes at the heart of ICTY cases.

In all the presentations, ICTY representatives echoed Bosnian public sentiment in calling on local authorities to conduct their own investigations and to bring additional charges where evidence exists regarding the many crimes committed in the Foca region.

The next event is scheduled to take place during the course of November 2004 concerning the so-called "Celebici" case.

We received word yesterday that the trial in The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu will commence on 15 November 2004 at 2.15 p.m. The pre-trial conference will be held on the same day at 10 a.m.

Next week, aside from the continuation of the Milosevic, Krajisnik and Oric trials, the defence case in The Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura will commence on Monday 18 October at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom I.

In addition, there will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic on Wednesday 20 October at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom II.

With regard to court documents, a list of the most recent court documents will be available to you after this.

Office of the Prosecution:

Florence Hartmann for the Office of the Prosecutor made the following statement:

Following the publication of press articles stating that there is no evidence linking Milosevic to the genocide committed in Srebrenica, I wish to recall first and foremost that this is a matter under consideration in an ongoing trial and it should be left to the judges' determination rather than being the object of speculation. Although no final conclusion can be drawn before the completion of the trial, and before the Defense has completed its case, substantial evidence linking Milosevic to the worst atrocities committed in Bosnia has been submitted during the trial, and the Trial Chamber has apparently found that evidence sufficient at this stage to warrant the continuation of the trial on 66 counts in the indictment against Milosevic, including the charge of genocide (as indicated in the June 16, 2004 Decision on the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Article 98 bis of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence). However, once again, let me stress that this is a preliminary finding by the Trial Chamber, subject to the presumption of innocence of the accused and rendered before the presentation of the Defence case. The charge of genocide, as the rest of the charges against Milosevic, is being considered in the ongoing trial, and should be left to the Judges' determination.

At this stage, and as a preliminary disposition, the Trial Chamber holds in the above mentioned document on page 134 – paragraph 323, that there is sufficient evidence that

The Chamber’s dispositions are detailed in the 142 pages document. I would encourage the public to consult the document through our website http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm and I would underline the findings related to genocide, noting once again that they are preliminary and rendered pursuant Rule 98 bis by the Trial Chamber, before the presentation of the Defence case.

Page 91 – Finding

246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in fact committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including the evidence set out in paragraphs 238 -245. The scale and pattern of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are all factors that point to genocide.

P.103-104 – Finding

288. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from the evidence, including evidence referred to in paragraphs 250-287 and 304-308, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was a participant in the joint criminal enterprise, found by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 246 to include the Bosnian Serb leadership, and that he shared with its participants the aim and intention to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, Judge Kwon dissenting.

a Trial Chamber could infer that he not only knew of the genocidal plan of the joint criminal enterprise, but also that he shared with its members the intent to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group in that part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina which it was planned to include in the Serbian state.

(The question being : Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied that the Accused was a participant in the joint criminal enterprise and that he shared the required intent of its participants?)

289. The Trial Chamber concludes that there is sufficient evidence that genocide was committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi and, Judge Kwon dissenting, that there is sufficient evidence that the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise, which included the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group.

Page 106. Finding and Answer to the Second Question

(The question being : Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to commit a particular crime and it was reasonably foreseeable to him that, as a consequence of the commission of that crime, a different crime, namely genocide, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, would be committed by other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, and it was committed?)

293. Although this basis of liability is alternative to the liability of the Accused as a perpetrator sharing the intent of the other members of the joint criminal enterprise (First Question), the Trial Chamber will not make a final determination as to the one or the other basis at this stage, that is, whether to acquit the Accused at this stage of one or the other basis of liability. The reason is that a determination as to the Accused’s liability depends to a certain extent on issues of fact and the weight to be attached to certain items of evidence, which calls for an assessment of the credibility and reliability of that evidence. These issues do not arise for determination until the judgment phase.

(The questions being : Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused aided and abetted in the commission of the crime of genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi?

Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was complicit in the commission of the crime of genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi? )

298. On the basis of the evidence set out above in relation to the First Question, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit in the commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge of the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention was the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group.

 

299. Although complicity and aiding and abetting are possible alternatives to the liability of the Accused as a principal, the Trial Chamber will not, for the reason stated in paragraph 293 in relation to the third category of joint criminal enterprise, make a determination at this stage as to the one or the other.

Page 111. Finding and Answer to Fifth Question

(The question being : Is there evidence upon which a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused knew or had reason to know that persons subordinate to him were about to commit or had committed genocide, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslims as a group in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi, and he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide or punish the perpetrators thereof?)

309. On the basis of this evidence as well as other evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was a superior to certain persons whom he knew or had reason to know were about to commit or had committed genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi, and he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide, or punish the perpetrators thereof.

Questions:

Asked whether, as announced by the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case, the one week break in November would be a Tribunal recess, Landale replied that he understood there would only be a one week break in the Milosevic case.

A journalist asked to which court the Indictment in the Stankovic case under Rule 11bis should be referred to. Hartmann replied that the request was made by the Office of the Prosecutor to refer the case to Bosnia and Herzegovina where the crimes allegedly had taken place. She added that the decision would be made by the Chamber.

Asked, in relation to the Prosecutor’s visit to Belgrade during which the Belgrade Government repeatedly mentioned that there was a case that the Prosecution Office had given to them, to elaborate on this case, Hartmann replied that indeed this was an investigation case within the Office of the Prosecutor and not an Indictment which, following the UN Security Council resolution in 2003 and in line with the Completion Strategy, the Office of the Prosecutor could not continue and had to transfer to local Prosecutors in order for them to complete the case and issue an indictment. Asked whether more details about the case could be given, Hartmann replied that she could not discuss on an on-going investigation and that this was henceforth up to the local judicial authorities to do so.

A journalist asked whether we could assume that the Miroslav Bralo Indictment would be subject to the Rule 11bis. Hartmann answered that she did not want to assume anything and that for the moment they asked for the arrest of Miroslav Bralo.

Asked whether Mirsolav Bralo was one of the perpetrators mentioned in the Furundzija case, Landale replied that was indeed the case.

A journalist asked for a comment on a statement made yesterday by a Defence witness in the Milosevic trial that Mladic was in Sarajevo. Hartmann replied that according their information Mladic was in Serbia, as mentioned by the Prosecutor in Luxembourg before the EU Foreign Ministers on October 11, and that no one among the officials she met in Belgrade on October 4, denied that Mladic was in Serbia.

Asked whether a new time-limit had been set for Croatia for the arrest of Gotovina, Hartmann replied that the rules required that a warrant of arrest should be enforced as soon as possible. She added that Croatia is aware that unless Gotovina is apprehended before the next ICTY report to the UNSC, there might be a reevaluation of the assessment of full cooperation provided by the Croatian authorities.

A journalist stated that during her address to the EU Foreign Ministers the Prosecutor had said that as a result of unbearable financial pressure on the Tribunal she had lost almost 50% of senior legal staff and over 40% senior investigators. Asked if this was accurate. Hartmann replied that it was correct and that these figures came from the speech that she gave and which has been made public. She added to say that not only were they accurate, but also problematic due to the freeze on recruitment that simply prevented the tribunal to replace those who left.

Asked whether this freeze was in place for the whole Tribunal or only for the Office of the Prosecutor, Landale replied that it was for the whole Tribunal.

Press Briefing documents

The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic

5 October 2004 – Prosecution Motion to Strike Ground of Appeal (3) from Assigned Counsel "Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel". (5pgs)

8 October 2004 – Defence Reply to Prosecution Motion to Strike Ground of Appeal (3) from Assigned Counsel "Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel". (7pgs)

The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic

5 October 2004 – Order Appointing a Trial Chamber for the Purposes of Determining whether the Indictment should be referred to another Court under Rule 11bis. (2pgs)

5 October 2004 – Order Transferring a Motion Pursuant to Rule 11bis. (2pgs)

The Prosecutor v. Mejakic, Gruban, Fustar and Knezevic

6 October 2004 – Decision on Appeal by the Prosecution to Resolve Conflict of Interest Regarding Attorney Jovan Simic. (6pgs)

The Prosecutor v. Stojan Zupljanin

5 October 2004 – Ordonnance Autorisant la Modification de l’Acte d’Accusation Modifie en Application de l’Article 19 du Statut 50 (A)(i)(b) du Reglement. (4pgs)

The Prosecutor v. Stanisic and Simatovic

8 October 2004 – Prosecution’s Appeal Against "Decision on Provisional Release". (19pgs)

8 October 2004 – Prosecution Application Under Rule 115 to Present Additional Evidence in its Appeal Against Provisional Release. (26pgs)

The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu

11 October 2004 – Order Assigning a Case to a Trial Chamber (1pg)

The Prosecutor v. Ljubisa Beara

11 October 2004 – Order Assigning a Case to a Trial Chamber (1pg)

The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic

6 October 2004 – Corrigenda to Prosecution’s Closing Brief

*****

See also the latest ADC-ICTY press briefing.