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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 11 September 2002
Time: 14:30

Good afternoon,

I have few announcements to begin with:

On Saturday 14 September, the Association of Defence Counsel practicing before the ICTY (ADC-ICTY) will hold its first general assembly. At 2 p.m. the ADC-ICTY will be publicly and officially established. This afternoon session will be attended by the President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, the Registrar, Mr. Hans Holthuis, and the Vice-President of the Dutch Bar Association. The meeting will take place in the Washington Room at the Hotel Bel-Air and media representatives are welcome. There’s a possibility, subject to availability, that the first President of the ADC-ICTY will participate in next week press briefing.

On Monday 9 September, the Assembly of State Parties to the Statute of the ICC appointed the Deputy Registrar of the ICTY, Mr. Bruno Cathala, to the position of Director of Common Services of the International Criminal Court. As such, Bruno Cathala will be responsible for all the logistical and practical arrangements to get the court up and running as quickly as possible, to staff it and to organise it. Bruno Cathala has been with the ICTY since May 2001. Prior to joining the Tribunal, he had been a member of the French judiciary since 1982.

As you are all aware, today, in the Milosevic case, the Prosecution finished presenting its case in chief with regard to Kosovo. The Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina part of the case will begin with opening statements from the parties on 26 September. The two-week pause is to enable the parties and the Trial Chamber to actively prepare for the next phase of the trial.

I have a few court documents to run through with you:

On 29 August, in the Prosecutor v. Zoran Marinic, we received the "Prosecution Motion to Withdraw Indictment Against Zoran Marinic".

With regard to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on 5 September, we received the "Prosecutor’s Motion to President to Assign Trial Chamber to Prosecutor’s Deferral Request".

Then yesterday, 10 September, we received the "Decision on the Application of the Prosecutor for an Interim Order and Scheduling Order". In this Decision, Trial Chamber I, Judge Liu presiding, rejected the "Prosecutor’s application for an interim order to stop the commencement of the cardinal proceedings against two individuals, today, on 11 September 2002 in the Republic of Macedonia". However, the Trial Chamber stated that, "the Prosecutor’s Request for Deferral and Motion for Order to the Republic of Macedonia shall be addressed in full at a hearing to be held on 25 September 2002, at 14:15 hours, in courtroom II". Further, the Trial Chamber ordered that an "authorised Representative of the Republic of Macedonia shall be authorised to participate in the hearing", and that " the Decision of the Chamber regarding the Prosecutor’s Request for Deferral and Motion for Order of the Republic of Macedonia shall be rendered after the hearing". Finally, the Trial Chamber invited "an authorised Representative of the Republic of Macedonia to appear before the Chamber to explain the position of the Republic of Macedonia with regard to the Prosecutor’s request".

On 5 September, in the Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura, we received Trial Chamber II’s "Decision on Motion of Mehmed Alagic to Vary the Conditions of Provisional Release".

Also on 5 September and in the same case, we received a "Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal" from a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, Judge Pocar presiding. This follows the "Rule 65(D) Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Motion of Amir Kubura to Vary the Conditions of his Provisional Release" filed by Kubura on 2 August 2002 and the "Rule 65(D) Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Motion for Change of Provisional Release Conditions" filed by Enver Hadzihasanovic on 2 August 2002. The Bench rejected the Applications.

On 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, we received the English translation of a scheduling order of 4 September 2002, in which the Appeals Chamber ordered that a hearing of Jonathan Randal’s appeal against the "Decision on Motion to set aside confidential subpoena to give evidence" take place on 3 October 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom III. Time will be divided as follows:

40 minutes for the presentation of arguments of the Appellant

40 minutes for the presentation of arguments of the amici curiae

40 minutes for the response of the Prosecutor

10 minutes for the response of Radoslav Brjanin

10 minutes for the reply of the amici curiae

10 minutes for the reply of the Appellant

Also on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Dusko Knezevic, we received a "Decision on Accused’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decision as to Assignment of Counsel", in which the Trial Chamber denied the application.

Also on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Simic, we received a "Decision on Motion for Provisional Release", denying the Motion.

Again on 6 September, in the Prosecutor v. Gojko Jankovic, we received from Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, an "Order for Transmission of Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender" and a "Warrant of Arrest Order for Surrender".

Similar documents were received from Judge Schomburg on 6 September in the Prosecutor v. Dragan Zelenovic, the Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic and the Prosecutor v. Savo Todovic. Copies of all of these can be picked up after the briefing.

On 9 September, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, we received an "Order Scheduling a Hearing on the Motion for Provisional Release and Status Conference", ordering that a hearing be held to address the motion on Monday 23 September 2002, at 11:00 hours. This will be followed by a Status Conference.

On 10 September, in the Prosecutor v. Zeljko Meakic, we received an "Order for transmission of Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender" and a "Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender".

Today, in the Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac, we received from the Appeals Chamber, Judge Shahabuddeen presiding, an order of the Appeals Chamber on the motion for provisional release by Miroslav Kvocka and the motion was denied.

The Prosecutor is finishing a three week mission to offices in Arusha and Kigali. She will be back in The Hague next Monday.

• Asked what the Tribunal’s stance was in relation to the Wladimiroff article published in the ‘Haagshe Courant’, Landale replied that the matter was under consideration by the Trial Chamber and as such it was not appropriate for him to make any comment.
• A journalist mentioned ‘hints’ made by Mr. Wladimiroff that the amici curiae may withdraw from the Milosevic case. Asked whether this issue was under discussion, Landale replied that he did not have any specific knowledge of this subject. He believed however, that many of the issues that arose from the article would now be the subject of some conversations for clarification purposes. Further than that he could not make any comment.
• Asked whether this issue was completely in the hands of the Trial Chamber at this stage or whether it was being discussed with the Registry, Landale replied that while the issue was under consideration by the Trial Chamber, (who were considering the article as a whole and various issues which arose from it), it was for them first and foremost to come to any decision, or make any ruling relating to it.
• Asked to comment on the fact that the Prosecution wanted to continue the trial against Mr. Talic, in the light of what was said today in open court about him being terminally ill, Landale replied that this was still subject to consideration by the Trial Chamber in that case. This was made clear by what was said in open session this morning. As a result he could not make any comment until the Chamber had made their position absolutely clear.
• Hartmann added she could also say nothing on this issue.
• Asked whether he felt that the interview with Mr. Wladimiroff would effect the credibility of the Tribunal, Landale once more reiterated that he could not make any comment on this issue as it was under consideration by the Trial Chamber. It would be improper for him to make a comment at this stage.
• Asked for the OTP’s opinion on the first stage of the Milosevic trial, Hartmann replied that the OTP did not comment about ongoing trials. She did say, however, that the OTP felt that it had achieved what it wanted to in this part of the trial. This was of course not the end of the Milosevic trial and also not completely the end of the evidence concerning Kosovo.
• She went on to say that, despite the fact that most of the evidence relating to Kosovo had already been presented and that it would not be possible to present evidence relating purely to Kosovo later in the trial, there were witnesses who would testify on Croatia and Bosnia who could also be asked certain questions relating to Kosovo.
• She added that at the beginning of the Kosovo section of the trial, the OTP had requested not to bring the same witnesses twice. They requested that when certain witnesses were in court to testify on Bosnia and Croatia, they could at the same time be questioned on Kosovo. It would be the decision of the Judges, but it could happen, she said.
• She could not give specific details on this subject because the OTP did not speak about future witnesses. It was not the end of the trial but the end of a chapter and the OTP could have some more specific evidence on Kosovo in testimony related to the next part of the trial.
• Asked when the Tribunal expected confirmation as to whether Lilic would testify in the Milosevic case, Landale replied that he could not comment on this issue.
• In connection to the Wladimiroff article, asked if there had been a precedent set on this subject and in principle whether there were grounds to hold Wladimiroff in contempt of court, Landale replied that as far as the second part of the question was concerned, it was up to the Judges. In answer to the first part of the question in terms of a precedent having been set, this was a unique situation as it was a unique trial. No amici curiae had appeared in other trials in the way that they did in the Milosevic trial.
• Asked whether the Tribunal was aware of and planned to take action against one of the Belgrade dailies which had published the initials of protected witness K41, Landale replied that he was aware of the issue, as was the Trial Chamber.

*****