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

Date: 19.04.2006
Time: 12:00

Registry and Chambers:

Christian Chartier, Senior Information Officer, made the following statement:

Good Afternoon,

I would like to kick off with two judicial announcements:

The Appeals Chamber has set a date to deliver its Judgement in the Naletilic and Martinovic case: that will be on Wednesday 3 May, which is in two weeks time, at 2.15pm.

The other announcement is that the President of the Tribunal, Judge Fausto Pocar, on 11 April, granted early release to Amir Kubura. This decision was taken following a Defence request based on the fact that Amir Kubura had served most of the time of the sentence of 2,5 (two and a half) years imposed on him by Trial Chamber II on 15 March. The President’s Decision was made, among other factors, after consultation with the Judges of the Trial Chamber and the Bureau.

To remain on the Hadzihasanovic and Kubura case:

The Prosecution filed yesterday a notice of appeal against the Judgement of 15 March. In addition to claiming that the sentences against both accused were "manifestly inadequate," the Prosecution contends that Amir Kubura was wrongly acquitted of wanton destruction in Vares and also that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that he had sufficiently discharged his duties to punish subordinates by taking against them disciplinary measures; the Prosecution says that this duty can only be discharged through the prosecution and punishment of subordinates.

The Defence for Enver Hadzihasanovic also filed yesterday a Notice of Appeal, raising eight grounds of appeal related to fairness of the trial, investigation methodology, the discharge by the Accused of his superior’s duties, the consideration given by the TC to certain witnesses and the denial of a Defence Motion in 2003 on additional resources for the Defence. The latter requests the Appeals Chamber to reverse the Trial Chamber’s Judgement, to find the accused not guilty and to release him immediately.

These Notices of appeal follow on the Notice of appeal filed earlier, on 13 April, by the Defence for Amir Kubura. The Defence claims that the accused was wrongly found guilty of not taking measures to punish plundering and that the sentence imposed upon him is "manifestly excessive." The Defence seeks a full acquittal or, in the alternative, a reduction of sentence.

Let me continue by singling out a number of Chamber’s filings received since the last briefing:

Last week, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Fausto Pocar, dismissed an appeal lodged by Vojislav Seselj against decisions by the Registrar placing a ban on visits from Tomislav Nikolic to the accused. These decisions had been made on the basis that Nikolic had been found in breach of the undertaking signed by visitors by revealing to the media the name of a potential witness as well as details about the state of health of accused persons. The President found that the Registrar had not acted improperly; accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.

On 12 April, last Wednesday, Trial Chamber III sitting on the Stanisic and Simatovic case, issued a decision ordering the Prosecution to file by 15 May a revised indictment clarifying that the new charges brought against the accused in December 2005 with regard to the Srebrenica events "pertain only to the murder of six Bosnian Muslim prisoners." Also a paragraph of the existing indictment, namely paragraph 68, must be revised as it makes a reference to Srebrenica under counts which, according to the prosecution itself, do not refer to Srebrenica.

In terms of the courtroom schedule, the week ahead will be extremely busy:

This week’s sessions in the trial of Momcilo Krajisnik have been cancelled, and the trial will resume next Tuesday, 25 April at 9:00 in courtroom I. It will continue for the rest of the week.

Before that, the trial of Milan Martic, former President of the war-time Croatian Serb entity, will resume next Monday at 9:00 in courtroom II.

The Vukovar trial against Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin, former Yugoslav Army high-ranking officers, continues next Monday and Tuesday at 14:15 in courtroom I. The hearing will continue next Wednesday in courtroom III at 9:00.

Next Tuesday, an important pre-trial conference will take place at 14:15 in courtroom III. It is related to the Prlic et al. case, which involves six former high ranking political and military officials of the so-called "Croatian Community (and later Republic) of Herceg-Bosna", charged with the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and other non-Croats who lived in the area. This multiple accused trial, the biggest held so far at the Tribunal, is scheduled to commence the following day at 14:15, also in courtroom III. In view of the beginning of the trial, the six accused, who have been on provisional release since September 2004, have been ordered to return to the Detention Unit no later than Monday 24 April.

Office of the Prosecutor:

Anton Nikiforov, Advisor to the Prosecutor and acting Spokesperson of the Office of the Prosecutor, made the following statement:

There is no any specific announcement to make today, but there are a couple of clarifications in regards to a few cases. First, responding to some speculations in the Serbian media regarding the order of the Trial Chamber of 12 April 2006, in the Stanisic/Simatovic case from last week, I would like to clarify that no charges in regard to Srebrenica were withdrawn from the indictment and the accused were not acquitted of any charges as alleged in the media. The Prosecution was requested to clarify a couple of charges of the Second amended indictment in regard to the killing of six Bosnian Muslims shown in the Scorpions video and charges in relation to deportation. I bring your attention to paragraph 24 of the Order, where it is clearly stated that ‘any inconsistency between the Prosecution’s evidence… is a matter which should be presented and argued during trial… Whether the Prosecution is able to link the very discrete case concerning the murder the six Bosnian Muslim prisoners to the alleged joint criminal enterprise is a matter for trial.’

I would like to draw your attention also to the second amended indictment in the Delic case, filed by the Prosecution yesterday, which will be made available to you by the Registry as soon as possible. This Second amended indictment was filed following the orders of the Trial Chamber and is similar to our proposed amended indictment of 31 October 2005. The difference is that some crimes alleged are charged under both Articles 7.1 and 7.3 of the Statute. It contains the additional crime base of Grabovica and Uzdol (litigated in the Halilovic case) and Bugojno (litigated partially in Hadzihasanovic/ Kubura case).

In the Boskovski case, the accused again filed a motion for provisional release which will be opposed by the Prosecution.

Questions:

In response to what was meant by "soon" in terms of receiving the internal reports into the deaths of Milan Babic and Slobodan Milosevic, Chartier responded that "soon" meant just that, adding that every day passing brought us closer to the day the reports would be received.

A journalist asked if there was any further information on the transfer of General Mladic to the Tribunal. Chartier answered that he had not heard of any upcoming transfer. Transfer would imply that the accused had been arrested or had surrendered. Had any of this happened, the Tribunal and the media would have surely heard about it by now.

Nikiforov added that the OTP had received promises from the Serbian authorities that Mladic would be in custody by the end of April and that the Tribunal therefore simply had no option but to wait for the authorities to take action and do their job. The prosecution would wait for the end of April and then make its assessment and its views public.

He further noted that some news reports from the Serbian diaspora were reporting that Mladic was very sick and that the government was simply waiting for him to "end" somewhere and that they would then report that. He had no comment to make on there reports.

Chartier concluded by saying that if the Prosecutor had received such promises, the Tribunal would wish that words be followed by deeds, as quickly as possible. He recalled that Ratko Mladic had been indicted on 25 July 1995 and that he should have been arrested on that day.

In response to a question asking how the "bridging" of the Easter holidays (catholic and orthodox)and the lack of court sittings between the two holidays impacted on the completion strategy, Chartier responded that the Krajisnik trial had originally been scheduled to sit this week but had been cancelled for reasons discussed in court. With regard to other cases, he pointed that a number of factors have resulted in an "unfortunate coincidence of calendar": the Oric case had finished, there was a need in the Mrksic et al case to give the parties more time before re-commencing proceedings and other chambers were preparing for trial. He recalled that next week’s schedule was extremely busy.

He also stated that clearly this was not something the Tribunal was happy about but that such things would not affect the completion strategy. The completion strategy was a framework which set out a number of tasks and time parameters but the reality was that court proceedings could not always proceed as speedily as desirable: sometimes parties had to be given more time, sometimes judges had to consider important documents or motions. He noted that it was therefore too easy to relate everything to the completion strategy. He made it clear that the completion strategy was a target to which the Tribunal was working as efficiently as possible. There was no reason to panic if occasionally there are a number of obstacles. He reiterated that the Tribunal would complete its mandate: a number of high profile trials were set to begin soon including the Prlic et al mentioned earlier and the Srebrenica trial likely to commence after the summer recess. There were many things for the Tribunal to do and enough time in which to do them.

He added that there was no such thing as a perfect planning, neither for the Tribunal nor the media. External factors always had to be taken into consideration. The only perfect scheduling plan was one that had a certain degree of flexibility.

In answer to a query whether all questions raised during the briefing were included in the briefing notes, Chartier answered that the whole briefing was always recorded, transcribed and checked. He pointed out that the briefing notes had never been conceived as a verbatim report of the briefing but were designed to reflect the announcements and discussion which took place. No judgement call was made on the value of a question: the notes posted on the Internet were simply a way to inform those journalists who could not attend the briefing of the core of the matter – to reflect the gist of the discussion. However, he added that a number of factors could result in an oversight being made in the briefing notes. He invited journalists to inform the Media Office should they notice such an oversight and this would be remedied.

A journalist asked Nikiforov if he had any comment to make on the statement made by the High Representative, Schwarz-Schilling today in a BBC interview on the transfer of power to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nikiforov answered that the prosecution had a good meeting with the High Representative immediately after he took the position in which the so-called Bonn powers were discussed. Before, during and after that meeting, the High Representative made it clear that the only situation in which he would still use his powers was in relation to ICTY matters. Nikiforov added that it was perfectly logical for the international community to give more powers to the local government. This was a common and reasonable thing to do. Nikiforov made it clear that the High Representative would use the Bonn powers in relation to the Tribunal if necessary. For example, if the network surrounding Mladic or Karadzic were identified and the local government did not carry out their international obligations towards that Tribunal, the High Representative would make use of the Bonn powers which gave him the authority to tell the local services and government to do their job properly and take action if they did not.

Documents: