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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 19 June 2002
Time: 11:30 a.m.

REGISTRY AND CHAMBERS
Christian Chartier, Head of the Public Information Services, made the following statement:

Beginning with court proceedings:

  • The date was set earlier today for the initial appearance of Ranko Cesic. His appearance will take place on Thursday 20 June at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom 1 before Judge Orie.

  • In the case The Prosecutor against Slobodan Milosevic, the accused’s health situation is reviewed every day. Information concerning the recommencement of the trial will be made public as soon as it is available. On this subject, I have just been informed that there will be no hearing tomorrow in this case.

  • Another development related to the Milosevic case is that yesterday, the Trial Chamber issued an Order scheduling a hearing on the contempt proceedings instituted against witness K12. This hearing will take place on Monday 24 June at 1 p.m, and will be attended by the witness, his counsel and the Prosecution. This is an ex parte hearing and the accused does not have to be present. The Order states that this hearing is ‘to clarify the position on contempt with respect to witness K12 and to hear any submissions’.

On an institutional note :

  • The visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina by the President and the Prosecutor, along with the Deputy Registrar, is proceeding very well. As you have seen from various press reports, a number of meetings have taken place, with the High Representative and with the State Presidency among others. Further meetings will take place prior to the completion of the visit on Friday.

  • I would also like to mention that last week our colleagues from Outreach hosted visits from two groups from the former Yugoslavia:

The first, in coordination with the Interchurch Peace Council (IKV) from the Netherlands, was composed of representatives from the "Citizen's Pact", a civil initiative established as a counterpart to the Stability Pact in South East Europe.

The second group, brought to the Tribunal by VNG International (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) consisted of 19 mayors of municipalities and other civil servants from both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Turning to court documents:

Firstly, with regard to cases before a Trial Chamber:

  • Yesterday, in the case The Prosecutor against Slobodan Milosevic, the Trial Chamber issued an Order for ‘the immediate cessation of violations of protective measures for witnesses’.

This Order follows the publication on 25 May 2002 in the newspaper Nacional of an article disclosing the identity of protected witness K5 while it is clear from this publication that the authors of the article were perfectly aware that K5 was a protected witness. Such a publication is in breach of a protective order previously issued by the Chamber and those responsible may be found in contempt of the Tribunal.

The Chamber accordingly ordered that the publication of identifying information related to protected witnesses shall cease immediately. Noting that ‘Articles 1(2) and 32 of "The Law on Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" with the International Tribunal, specifically provides for legal assistance by the competent State organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and requests that the competent State organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including the Republic of Serbia) investigate the matter, take all necessary measures to stop the publication of such confidential information and, within a month, provide the Trial Chamber with a report on the investigation and measures taken. The Order goes on as follows: ‘The Chamber calls upon the authorites of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including the Republic of Serbia) and upon the Prosecutor to provide the Trial Chamber with any information regarding the identity of those potentially responsible for the disclosure of the identity of witness K5 in violation of protective measures ordered by the Trial Chamber’. Finally the Order affirms that ‘ any publication of such information shall expose its author(s) and those responsible to be found in contempt of the Tribunal’. A copy of this important order will be made available after the Briefing.

  • In the case The Prosecutor against Sefer Halilovic, the Prosecution submitted its Pre-trial brief, witness list and exhibit list on 17 June.

  • In the case The Prosecutor against Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic, Defence lawyers for Momcilo Krajisnik filed a Motion to dismiss or for alternative relief, on 17 June.

  • In the case The Prosecutor against Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, on 13 June, lawyers for Jonathan Randal filed an application for certification from the Trial Chamber to appeal against the Decision dismissing their Motion to set aside the subpoena to give evidence.

With regard to the cases in front of the Appeals Chamber:

  • In the case The Prosecutor against Tihomir Blaskic, a ‘Public redacted version of the Prosecution’s respondents brief’ became public on14 June.

  • and the defence for Dario Kordic filed a Supplement to the Appellant’s Brief, on 12 June 2002.

As usual, copies of most of the documents that have been mentioned have been prepared, however, I must warn you that some of those documents are extremely lengthy and that the copying work will take some time.

Questions:

  • Asked to confirm that Mr. Milosevic would not have to be present at the ex parte hearing concerning witness K12, Christian Chartier replied that this was the case.

  • Asked whether someone from the OTP would be present, Christian Chartier replied that the Order stated that the hearing would be attended by witness K12, his defence counsel and by the Prosecution.

  • Asked whether it was known who his defence counsel was, Christian Chartier replied that he did not know. He added that he would attempt to find out.

  • Asked whether it could be assumed that this hearing would be held in private session, Christian Chartier replied that this was a fair assumption. Although the Order did not state it, it was also his interpretation of the Order.

  • Asked whether, as was being stated in the Italian media, Di Stefano had been indicted by the Tribunal, Christian Chartier replied that this name, to his knowledge did not appear on the list of public indictees. Whether he was on a sealed indictment he did not know. This was a name that had been mentioned many times over the past years with regards to various stories, he concluded.

  • A journalist commented on the fact that previously the Prosecution had revealed that 7 people were on sealed indictments, asked how many sealed indictment there were at the moment, Christian Chartier replied that this information was now outdated. He could not say how many were outstanding. This was a subject for the OTP. What he could say was that this number was limited, he concluded.

  • Asked to confirm that there was a possibility that new sealed indictments could be produced, Christian Chartier replied that this was the case. This was an avenue, which was open to the OTP according to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. He was not aware that the Prosecutor would have decided not to use it anymore. Whether this had happened, whether she had done so, whether there were sealed Indictments and how many, he did not know.

  • Asked to clarify whether Mr. Kastratovic had been ‘ousted’ by the Tribunal as Mr. Martic’s defence lawyer, Christian Chartier replied that he was not aware that any defence lawyer had been assigned to Mr. Martic. One was assigned for his initial appearance, which was standard procedure, but following all initial appearances an Order was filed stating that a particular lawyer had been assigned to the particular case. He was not informed of such an Order with regard to Mr. Martic. So the wording that Kastratovic had been ‘ousted’ was not accurate, he concluded.

  • Asked whether an accused had the right to choose who defended them, Christian Chartier replied that the procedure was somehow different. The Tribunal held a list of defence lawyers who could be assigned to defendants. On top of this list the Tribunal was more than happy to assign defence lawyers indicated to the Tribunal by an accused. It was not, however, because, an accused said that he wanted a particular lawyer that they would necessarily be assigned. There were a number of conditions to be met. He added that he would be happy to check, but off the top of his head he did not believe that a defence lawyer had been officially assigned to Mr. Martic. This was still a pending procedure. Saying that this person had been ‘ousted’ was not accurate, because no one had yet been appointed.

  • Asked to comment on a Decision by the Yugoslav National Council for Cooperation to hand over the ‘Stanisic documents’ to the OTP, Christian Chartier replied that he could not speak on behalf of the OTP. He added that he had seen this news in various reports this morning. He did not understand the articles to have said that a decision had been made on the subject, but this was his own interpretation. He had no further comment.

  • Asked if he could make a comment on the 35 new Indictments the Prosecutor had allegedly discussed yesterday, Christian Chartier replied that he could not.

*****