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

In the Milosevic case we have received a number of documents, which I’ll run through now:

On 5 March, the amici curiae Second Brief on the Provision of Adequate Facilities to Allow the Accused to Prepare his Defence.

On 5 March, the amici curiae Brief on Cross-examination by the Accused in Person Including the "Tu Quoque" Principle.

On 5 March, Trial Chamber Decision on the Prosecution’s Request for Further Time to Contact Witnesses.

On 6 March, the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Provisional Release.

On 6 March, the Prosecution Brief Concerning the Scope of Cross-examination and the "Tu Quoque" Defence.

On 6 March, Trial Chamber’s Order to the Registrar to Provide Report Concerning the Practical Facilities Available to the Accused.

Copies of all of those documents are available on request.

In terms of other court documents:

The French version of the Blagojevic, Obrenovic and Jokic amended indictment is now available.

In the Krajisnik and Plavsic case, on 4 March we received the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Consolidated Indictment. We have copies of the new indictment for you.

On 4 March, we received a Decision in the Stakic case granting the Prosecution’s Request for Leave to Amend the Indictment. Copies of the new third amended indictment are available.

In terms of court scheduling:

The Judgement in the Krnojelac case will be rendered by Trial Chamber II, Judge Hunt presiding, next Friday 15 March at 11 am in Courtroom III.

Tomorrow, Friday 8 March, there will be a status conference in Kvocka, Radic, Kos, Zigic and Prcac case at 2 p.m. Courtroom I.

Following that, at 3 p.m., there will be a status conference in the Krajisnik and Plavsic case in the same courtroom.

There will be a motion hearing in the Strugar case on 12 March at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom II.

Finally, as some of you would have heard yesterday, the closing arguments in the Vasiljevic case will resume tomorrow, Friday 8 March, at 3 p.m. in Courtroom III.

Questions:

• Asked whether there was anything important on the agenda in the Krajisnik and Plavsic status conference tomorrow and whether Mrs. Plavsic was due to be present, Landale replied that Plavsic would not be present to his knowledge. As far as he knew it was due to be a rather straightforward hearing. He added that if he heard anything he would inform the media.

• Asked whether Mira Markovic had applied for the right to sit in the public gallery of Courtroom I to follow the Milosevic hearing, Landale replied that she had not to his knowledge.

• Asked whether she needed to apply, Landale replied that she would have to ask the Tribunal so that the necessary arrangements could be made. He added that the Tribunal would also have to talk to the Dutch authorities.

• A journalist commented that it had become apparent that Mr. Milosevic disclosed the identity of protected witnesses to those people who help in his defence and that those people disclosed the information to the public and the press. Asked whether the Tribunal would take any action concerning this, for example starting up a procedure for contempt of court, Landale replied that if the Tribunal had credible evidence that people beyond the group who were helping Mr. Milosevic with his defence had been given the names of protected witnesses, or that they had been made public at any stage, the Trial Chamber could take measures to investigate this breach of a protective order. This could result in the initiation of contempt procedures under Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and evidence, he concluded.

• Asked whether there was a limitation in numbers of people this covered and could it be thousands of people, Landale replied that it could not be thousands of people, but anyone helping Milosevic who had knowledge of the identity of someone protected by a court order would have had to be informed by the accused that that person was a protected witness and that they would then be subject to a court order.

• Asked what the position of Mr. Milosevic’s ‘associates’ was and whether they received privileges of any kind or whether they were just people he was in contact with, Landale replied that they received no privileges in terms of privileged communication.

• Asked whether this meant that no telephone conversations with them were privileged, Landale replied that every telephone conversation, every fax received or sent and every document received was monitored. Mr. Milosevic was entitled to privileged communication with two legal advisors, Ramsey Clark and John Livingston. He was also entitled to privileged communication with the Dutch lawyer Mr. Nico Steijnen, specifically with regard to the proceedings before the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.

• Asked whether, since the beginning of the trial, he had only met with the lawyers from Belgrade, Landale replied that as far as he knew Milosevic had only met with Mr. Tomanovic and Mr. Ognjanovic.

• Asked whether they would come within the reach of contempt of court rule, Landale replied that they would.

• Asked if they would have to have identified them by their full names to fall under the rule, Landale replied that they did not have to specifically. He added that this would be up to the Judges to decide.

• Asked whether Milosevic would be allowed to communicate the names of protected witnesses to those helping him with his defence, even when they were not bound by the rules that would normally apply to defence counsel and to investigators helping defence counsel (for those people there was an ethical code). Landale replied that there were two separate things to deal with in this question. Firstly the code of ethics which they had not signed up to because they were not official defence counsel. This made no difference because they were still bound by a protective order, as anyone was, if they happened to find out the identity of any protected person they could not make that known to the public.

  Landale added that if the associates were given the identities by Mr. Milosevic to help prepare his case and his cross-examination, he was authorised to do that. However, the people who helped him to do that were bound by the orders of the court. Landale added that Milosevic had every right to investigate the credibility of someone who was going to testify against him in court and he had every right to investigate and challenge their testimony. The people who helped him in doing that were bound by the orders of the court, he added.

• Asked whether the order applied to the world media, Landale replied that it did. In domestic systems if the Judges announced that there would be a media ban on disclosing the identity, for example, of a rape victim that was usually applied to the media and respected until a time in which a judgement had been rendered. If the judgement was such that it allowed the identity to be revealed then the media could report. It was no different at the Tribunal. The same sorts of laws and rules applied.

• Asked whether there was a formal investigation ongoing into whether there was contempt of court, Landale replied that there was not as far as he knew.

*****