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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 03.07.2002
Time: 12:00 p.m.

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

In the Milosevic case:

On 27 June, a scheduling order was rendered following the oral directions given by the Trial Chamber at a hearing on 26 June 2002. Among other things, the Trial Chamber ordered that a pre-trial conference relating to the portions of the case concerning Bosnia and Croatia be held on Thursday 18 July 2002. It had been provisionally set for 12 July 2002, but the Prosecution had some difficulties with that date. The order also states that there will be oral arguments in closed session this Friday on the possible application of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Also on 27 June, we received the "Interlocutory Appeal of the Prosecution Against Decision on Admission of Evidence of Summarizing Witness".

The following day, 28 June, a corrigendum to the Interlocutory Appeal was filed. You can pick up both of those documents after this briefing.

On 28 June, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, appointed the Bench of the Appeals Chamber that will sit on the appeal filed by witness K12 on 14 June 2002. The Bench consists of Judges Jorda (presiding), Shahabuddeen, Hunt, Pocar and Meron.

We have also received the expert report of the Prosecution Military Expert, General Sir Peter De La Billiere, on the subject of military command and control. Copies will be available on request.

With regard to other cases:

On 26 June, we received a scheduling order in the Brdjanin and Talic case ordering a preliminary hearing on the report of the amicus curiae to be held on 10 July 2002 at 2.15 p.m., during which the amicus curiae and the counsel for Ms. Maglov will have the opportunity to make representations. Secondly, if the Prosecution and the accused Brdjanin, personally or through counsel of his choice, would like to submit any observations in relation to the report, they should so request by giving prior notice to this Chamber by 1 July 2002.

This order concerns the earlier "Order requesting investigation into the conduct of co-counsel for defendant Brdjanin issued by this Chamber, pursuant to Rule 77 (c) of the Rules, on 15 April 2002, in which the Chamber directed the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae to investigate the matters outlined in that Order and to report back to the Chamber as to the outcome of that investigation as soon as possible". This order also noted the "Decision of the Registrar of 15 April to suspend the assignment of Ms. Maglov as co-counsel pending the outcome of investigations".

On 28 June, we received a "Decision on Defence Preliminary Motion Concerning the Form of the Indictment" in the Strugar, Jokic and Others case. The Trial Chamber granted the Motion in respect to the Defence’s challenge to the form of the Indictment to the extent set out in the terms of the Decision and ordered the Prosecution to file a new Indictment within 14 days.

On 28 June we received a Decision from the Appeals Chamber in French ordering Jonathan Randal to file his grounds of appeal no later than 4 July. This follows a request for extension of time to file those grounds dated 21 June 2002 and repeated in his motion to appeal, which was filed on 26 June 2002.

On 28 June, we received a scheduling order in the Naletilic and Martinovic case, deciding that there will be a recess between the end of the presentation of Naletilic’s Defence case and the start of Martinovic’s Defence case, which is due to commence on 15 July 2002.

Also on 28 June, we received a scheduling order in the Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura, ordering that a status conference be held on Thursday 18 July 2002 at 9 a.m.

Again on 28 June, we received a scheduling order setting Tuesday 9 July at 1 p.m. as the time and date of a hearing on Momcilo Gruban’s request for provisional release that was filed on 6 June 2002. The Order also invites the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Government of the Republic of Serbia to appear at the hearing.

We have received a number of documents in the Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic, Dragan Obrenovic, Dragan Jokic and Momir Nikolic:

On 2 July we received a "Motion to Dismiss Count 1B – Complicity to Commit Genocide in the Amended Joinder Indictment on the Grounds that it Offends the Principle of Nullum Crimen Sine Lege".

Again on 2 July, we received a "Motion to Dismiss Cumulative Charges of Counts 2, 3, 5, 6 in the Amended Joinder Indictment Based on the Legal Findings in Krstic Regarding Cumulative Convictions".

Also on 2 July, we received "Accused Obrenovic’s Motion on the Form of the Amended Joinder Indictment".

We have copies of the Halilovic Prosecution pre-trial brief. It is a very lengthy document, so copies will only be made on request.

In the Stakic case, I understand from what was said in court yesterday that the Prosecution have been given to 20 September to conclude their case.

Finally, this morning I received a revised scheduling order for the Stakic trial, which you might find of interest.

• Asked to confirm that Randal had until tomorrow at the latest to submit his appeal, and whether it would contain more than was already known, Landale replied that he would have till tomorrow to submit his grounds of appeal. These would contain more than was already known. Until now Randal had only filed a one page document, filing for appeal. This deadline was for the grounds of the appeal and the arguments, he concluded.
• Following the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case, raising the problem of the cost of the amici curiae and inviting them to make submissions on various proposals, a journalist commented on the fact that he had not yet heard Mr. Wladimiroff react in open court to the suggestion by the Judges that there should be just one amicus present for each session in court.
• Asked whether any Decision had been taken in camera about the proposals made and whether any changes had been made concerning the arrangements between them and the court, Landale replied that there had been no developments on this issue.
• Asked whether changes were still being proposed to the amicus curiae, Landale repeated that there were no developments on this subject, it was still pending.
• Asked for an update on the Sainovic and Ojdanic appeal, Landale replied that, before the appeal could go ahead, the Appeals Chamber was waiting for the various relevant documents to translated into French. This was necessary so that the bench of the Appeals Chamber could consider the issue based on the provisional appeal filed by the Prosecution. The request for an extension of time had been rejected, he concluded.
• Asked what form of collaboration there had been between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the ICTY concerning, for example, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Landale replied that in the preparatory phase of the ICC, a number people within the ICTY had lent their experience and expertise to the preparatory commission in order to try and help in the setting up of the ICC.
• Asked in what ways the Tribunal had assisted the ICC, Landale replied that the ICTY had helped in many ways, mainly lending the experiences of what valuable lessons the ICTY had been able to draw from its experience of setting up an adhoc international Tribunal. Perhaps things that the ICTY had done in the past and would not do again and things that the ICTY had done which would be good examples to follow. Collaboration had been on every level, he concluded.
• Asked whether it had been on a technical level, Landale replied that it had.
• Asked whether she could comment on the US threat to block the Bosnia mission and what the implications would be for the OTP if the US were to back out of the Bosnia mission, Hartmann replied that she could not comment on the issue, the OTP was waiting for new developments on the subject.

*****