| 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, Firstly, you will have seen that in the Milosevic trial this morning, the Trial Chamber charged witness Kosta Bulatovic with contempt of court pursuant to Rule 77 for contumaciously refusing to answer questions put to him by the Prosecution. I will not make any further specific comment on the ongoing contempt proceedings as they are to resume in half an hour. Last Friday, 15 April, the Tribunal’s Outreach Programme was pleased to welcome a delegation from Srebrenica. The visit was sponsored by IKV (the Dutch NGO, "Inter-Church Peace Council") and was part of a broader visit to town and city councils of The Netherlands. Five people, including the Deputy Mayor and four young people working on establishing a youth centre in Srebrenica met with senior ICTY staff and attended a court session. As I mentioned last week, the trial of Beqa Beqaj on charges of contempt, attempted contempt, and incitement to contempt of the Tribunal will commence this Monday 25 April at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom I. There will be a pre-trial conference this Friday 22 April at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom III. The appeal hearing in The Prosecutor v. Milan Babic has been scheduled for this Monday 25 April 2005, starting at 10 a.m. in Courtroom III. The appeal hearing in The Prosecutor v. Miodrag Jokic has been scheduled for the following day, 26 April, starting at 9.30 a.m. in Courtroom III. The further initial appearance of Drago Nikolic has been scheduled for this afternoon at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom III. There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo tomorrow at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom III. Office of the Prosecutor: Florence Hartmann for the Office of the Prosecutor made the following statement: I wish to recall that at the invitation of Luxembourg, the Chief Prosecutor will be attending the EU working group meeting set to evaluate Croatia's cooperation with the ICTY, in Luxembourg on April 26, 2005. Following the article in today's Globus about the Croatian State Prosecutor, Mladen Bajic, let me stress that we have trust in Bajic, we believe he is a good professional and we have developed excellent judicial cooperation with him. We never said that he knows where Gotovina is. The article is wrong and even the date mentioned is wrong. Questions: A journalist asked whether the unspecified Decision in the Meakic case listed in the documents list (attached to this Press Briefing) was a Decision on the 11bis referral case. Landale answered that this was not the case and that there had not yet been any Decisions in any of the 11bis referral cases. A journalist asked for more information on other contempt cases that had been raised before the Tribunal. In response, Landale stated that his office had, that morning, been working on a non-official background paper on the issue of contempt cases at the Tribunal, which he would be happy to share with interested journalists in the course of the day. Landale added that approximately nine people had been accused of contempt at the Tribunal. In response to a question as to whether Haradinaj was back in the Detention Unit following his provisional release, Landale responded that he was. In response to a further question, Landale stated as far as he was aware, Haradinaj had complied with the conditions of his provisional release. A journalist asked whether the Tribunal would participate in any of the upcoming "manifestations" taking place in Belgrade, one of which would mark the 10th anniversary of the "liberation" of Srebrenica and another which was due to remember the Armenian, Greek, Serbian, Jewish and Roma victims of genocide. Landale stated that, as far as he knew, there was no intention on the part of the President, the Judges or the Registrar to participate in any way in a conference on the so-called "liberation" of Srebrenica. He added that the Tribunal would view any marking of the fall of the Srebrenica enclave without full recognition of the genocide that was perpetrated after its fall and without due recognition of the thousands of victims, as a disgrace and not something that the Tribunal would associate itself with. He added that any remembrance ceremony for genocide, especially in Belgrade, should give due recognition to the genocide following the fall of Srebrenica and to the thousands of victims and their families. A journalist asked for reaction to a statement by Mr. Milan Bulajic of the ‘Foundation on Research of Genocide’ in Belgrade, that, having studied documentation produced by the UN, and the ‘Serbian and Muslim armies’, he concluded that no genocide was perpetrated in Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS). Landale responded that any statement Mr. Bulajic allegedly made about there being no genocide after the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica flew in the face of the findings at the Tribunal, both by a Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber. In addition, Landale noted that in the largest trial held at the Tribunal on the issue of Srebrenica, the Krstic trial, General Krstic himself, during his defence, did not challenge the fact that thousands of unarmed Bosnian men and boys had been murdered. Mr. Bulajic’s statement had therefore no relation whatsoever to the truth. Landale added that he hoped there was now only a dwindling minority of individuals who could stand up and say there had not been a genocide perpetrated after the fall of Srebrenica. Landale added that as far as he knew, the Tribunal had not received invitations to either of these events and that there was no intention of attending, getting involved, supporting or endorsing in any way such "manifestations" without recognition of the victims of Srebrenica. Hartmann added that the OTP and the Chief Prosecutor shared this position and condemned denial such as the report negating the genocide in Srebrenica published on a front page of a newspaper in Belgrade. She stated that all Judgements made by the Tribunal, both from the Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, were available to everyone to see. She hoped that other condemnations of such a denial would be made in Serbia. Documents: The Prosecutor v. Mico Stanisic 19 April 2005 – Defence Motion For Provisional Release. The Prosecutor v. Tolimir et al 19 April 2005 – Prosecution’s Response To Request For Provisional Release For Accused Milan Gvero. 18 April 2005 – Corrigendum To Prosecution Notice Of Compliance Of Rule 66 (A)(ii). The Prosecutor v. Savo Todovic 18 April 2005 – Guarantee By Republika Srpska. The Prosecutor v. Vinko Padurevic 18 April 2005 – Guarantee By Republika Srpska. The Prosecutor v. Mrksic et al 19 April 2005 – Decision On Application For Leave To Appeal. The Prosecutor v. Pavkovic et al 18 April 2005 – Decision On Defence Request For Extension Of Time For The Response On The Prosecution Motion For Joinder. 19 April 2005 – Defence Request For Modification Of Decision On Defence Request For Provisional Release. The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic 19 April 2005 – Order For Further Medical Report On Health Of The Accused. The Prosecutor v. Prlic et al 18 April 2005 – Jadranko Prlic’s Response To Prosecutor’s Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts And Request For Extention Of Time To Specifically Address Each Of The Proposed Adjudicated Facts Listed By The Prosecution To Be Judicially Noticed. 18 April 2005 – Valentin Coric"s Response To Prosecutor’s Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts And Request For Extention Of Time To Specifically Address Each Of The Proposed Adjudicated Facts Listed By The Prosecution To Be Judicially Noticed. 18 April 2005 – Slobodan Praljak’s Response To Prosecutor’s Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts And Request For Extention Of Time To Specifically Address Each Of The Proposed Adjudicated Facts Listed By The Prosecution To Be Judicially Noticed. 18 April 2005 – Bruno Stojic’s Response To Prosecutor’s Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts And Request For Extention Of Time To Specifically Address Each Of The Proposed Adjudicated Facts Listed By The Prosecution To Be Judicially Noticed. 18 April 2005 – Berislav Pusic’s Response To Prosecutor’s Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts And Request For Extention Of Time To Specifically Address Each Of The Proposed Adjudicated Facts Listed By The Prosecution To Be Judicially Noticed. The Prosecutor v. Mejakic et al 18 April 2005 – Decision. The Prosecutor v. Milan Martic 18 April 2005 – Prosecution Response To Defense Motion For Recognizing As Validity Done The Filing Of Defence Submissions Concerning The Evidence Of Prosecution’s Expert Witness Renaud Theunens: Request For Leave To File Reply To Defense Notice Pursuant To Rule 94 bis of April 14 2005. The Prosecutor v. Beqa Beqaj 18 April 2005 – Prosecutor’s Response To Defence’s Motion To Re-Examine The Order terminating The Provisional Release Of Beqa Beqaj. The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al 19 April 2005 – General Ojdanic’s Ex parte Request To NATO And The States Pursuant To Trial Chamber’s Decision Of 23 March 2005. The Prosecutor v. Pasko Ljubicic 12 April 2005 – Prosecution’s Further Submissions Concerning Provisional Release. ***** |