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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 28 August 2002
Time: 15:00

Good afternoon,

Since we haven't met for quite some time there are a number of court documents that I should alert you to, which I will now run through with you chronologically. You will be able to pick up copies of the documents that I mention after the briefing.

On 2 August 2002, Trial Chamber I, Judge Liu presiding, handed down a "Decision on the Defence Motion for the Provisional Release of the Accused", rejecting Pasko Ljubicic's 15 April Motion for provisional release.

Also on 2 August in the Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic, we received "General Dragoljub Ojdanic's Brief on Appeal". It is a lengthy document and so will only be available on request.

Again on 2 August, in the same case we received the "Defence Preliminary Motion".

On 6 August, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic, we received the "Prosecution's Response to 'General Ojdanic's Motion to Require Full Compliance with Rule 66(A)(i) and for Unsealing of Ex Parte Materials'".

On 7 August, in the Milosevic case, we received the "Prosecution's Motion for Leave to Call Kevin Curtis".

On 8 August, again in the Milosevic case, we received the "Partly Confidential Prosecution's Fifth Report Concerning Disclosure".

On 15 August, in the Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic, we received the "Prosecution's Filing of Death Certificate for Vlajko Stojiljkovic".

On 16 August, we received the "Brief Amici Curiae on Behalf of Various Media Entities and in Support of Jonathan Randal's Appeal of Trial Chamber's 'Decision on Motion to Set Aside Confidential Subpoena to Give Evidence'".

In addition, we received the Prosecution's response to that Amici Curiae Brief yesterday, 27 August and should have copies for you after this briefing.

On 16 August, the Deputy Registrar, Bruno Cathala, issued a Decision "to withdraw the assignment of Mr. Gert-Jan Knoops, attorney at law from Amsterdam, as counsel, and to assign Mr. Strahinja Kastratovic, attorney at law from Belgrade, as counsel to the accused", Milan Martic.

On 21 August, in the Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, we received "Appeal Brief of the Defence". It is a lengthy document that will only be available on request.

On 22 August, in the same case we received the "Public Redacted Version of Appeal Brief of the Prosecution". Again, it is a lengthy document that will only be available on request.

On 23 August, in the Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mladjo Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac, we received the "Appellant Miroslav Kvocka's Brief in Reply". This is also extremely lengthy and will be available on request.

On 23 August, we received a "Motion for Provisional Release of Miroslav Kvocka" filed with the Appeals Chamber.

On 26 August, a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, Judge Meron presiding, handed down a "Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal", which relates to Mile Mrksic's 30 July 2002 Request for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal against the Trial Chamber's Decision rejecting his Application for provisional release on 24 July 2002. In the Decision, the Bench grants the Application.

On 27 August, a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, Judge Hunt presiding, handed down a "Decision on Application by Obrenovic for Leave to Appeal", which relates to Dragan Obrenovic's Application for Leave to Appeal the Trial Chamber's Decision rejecting his Application for provisional release, which was filed on 30 July 2002. The Bench granted leave to appeal.

Again on 27 August, a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, Judge Hunt presiding, handed a "Decision on Application by Blagojevic for Leave to Appeal", which relates to Vidoje Blagojevic's Application for Leave to Appeal the Trial Chamber's Decision rejecting his Application for provisional release, which was filed on 24 July 2002. Again the Bench granted leave to appeal.

On 27 August we received a scheduling order for a further initial appearance in the Prosecutor v. Pasko Ljubicic to be held on 26 September 2002. This follows some amendments made to his indictment. This will be followed by a status conference.

I have some new documents from the Outreach Programme to announce:

First, an volume of updated case information sheets in BCS. And second, a collection of all the key basic legal documents in Albanian.

And finally, some sad news. Rebecca has left the Press Unit to join the Outreach Programme. I mention this merely to kindly request that you don't harass her for documents as she passes through the lobby. I hope to be able to announce her successor in the near future.

Jean-Jacques Joris, Advisor to the Prosecutor, made no statement.

Questions:

• Asked to sum up the 'Prosecution's response' to the Amici Curiae brief supporting Randal's motion to set aside the confidential subpeona, Landale replied that he would not as it was more appropriate to put this question to a representative of the OTP.
• Asked what would happen if Randal defied the court, Landale replied that this matter was before the Appeals Chamber, who had received the filing from the Amici Curiae and the response from the Prosecution. The Appeals Chamber would now consider those submissions very carefully, before coming to a decision, which would be handed down in due course. He added that there was very little that he could say on the matter while it was being considered by the Judges of the Appeals Chamber as it was a matter of sub judice.
• Asked what the punishment was for contempt of court within the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Landale replied that the punishment for contempt of court was clearly stated in the Rules of the Tribunal. The Rules laid out the maximum penalty, which could be up to seven years imprisonment or a fine of up to 100,000 Euro, or both. He added, however, that contempt of court covered many different offences, including intimidation of witnesses, threatening witnesses and other grave offences. The Judges had it in their power to impose certain penalties, however there was a ceiling on those penalties, which was the maximum that he had just mentioned.
• Asked where, if found guilty, Randal would be jailed, Landale replied that it was far too premature to discuss this sort of issue. It was not sensible or helpful to look too far down this track at this point in time, he added.
• Asked whether the Appeals Chamber was going to verify that the many media outlets named in the Amici Curiae brief continued to support Randal's request, Landale replied that he believed the Judges of the Appeals Chamber would examine every facet of the submissions given to them very carefully.
• A journalist stated that the BBC had specifically said that 'the management had not been officially approached and the BBC had not signed any such document'. Asked whether it had come to the Tribunal's attention that anyone else listed might feel that they should not be associated with the document, Landale replied that this was a matter for the Judges of the Appeals Chamber. He added that when they looked at such matters they investigated all aspects related to them thoroughly.
• Asked whether he had heard of anyone else named in the document who said that they did not belong there, Landale replied that he had heard some discussions on the issue but not much more that that. He reiterated that he was not in a position to discuss it, it was a matter for the Judges of the Appeals Chamber.
• Asked what the Tribunal would do if they found this to be true, Landale replied that he would be getting ahead of himself to predict what the reaction of a panel of the Appeals Chamber would be if a submission given to them was proven to be inaccurate, whether deliberately or mistakenly. If this was true, it was something they would definitely be concerned about, he added.
• A journalist stated that one of the defence counsel in the Brdjanin and Talic case was Deputy Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska Government during the time covered by the Indictment against the defendant. Asked what the criteria was for choosing defence lawyers and what could or would be done by the Tribunal about this situation as, for example, it could cause difficulties for witnesses, Landale replied that he was not aware of the specifics of this case. He added, however, that there should not be any conflicts of interests. Where conflicts had arisen in other cases, this had led to the banning of a defence counsel from appearing or representing someone at the Tribunal. He added that he would look into this case.
• Asked whether, following the fact that the Prosecution had replied to the Amici request, there was a time frame within which the Tribunal had to rule on the Randal issue, Landale replied that it was now up to the Appeals Chamber Judges to come to a decision. He said he felt that they would do so without too much delay, they would not sit on it for months and months, but they would take enough time to consider all of the very important issues involved in the case before coming to a decision.
• Asked whether the Brdjanin and Talic trial had already begun, Landale replied that it had. This appeal was an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal that took place during the course of an ongoing trial. The Brdjanin and Talic case had been ongoing for some time, he added.
• Asked whether the medical report on Milosevic would ever be made a public document, Landale replied that his feeling on this was that it would not. It was a medical report on an individual and therefore something that would remain confidential. The recommendations stemming from the medical report were heard in court today. The ramifications and what action would be taken as a result of the report would be made public in due course, probably before the start of the Croatia/Bosnia part of the trial, as indicated in court by Judge May this morning.
• Asked whether the Tribunal would comment on reports made over the past four weeks that Mr. Holbrooke would testify before the Tribunal, Landale replied that he could not comment.
  
  Joris added that he could not comment either, because, all that had been written in the media on the subject was based on information which had not come from the Tribunal.
• Asked about Holbrooke's reported comments that he had contact and discussions with the OTP on specific issues, Joris replied that Mr. Holbrooke was entitled to make comments.
• Asked to comment on the fact that the Prosecutor herself was reported to have said that it was a possibility that Holbrooke could testify next week, Joris replied that it was a possibility.
• Asked what the results and repercussions were concerning the fee splitting issue in the Zigic case, Landale replied that he would provide the full report and press release on this issue. He added that, in a nutshell, Mr. Zigic's legal aid had been withdrawn after evidence was found that he had sufficient means to pay for his defence.
• Asked whether this meant that he now had no lawyer, Landale replied that he had no lawyer at the moment. He added that it was a rather complex issue because the Tribunal and the Registry had said that Mr. Zigic could afford to pay for his own counsel and therefore that he should find counsel, but that Zigic so far had not shown any willingness to do so. Landale added that he would provide the detailed findings.
• Asked whether there were any other ongoing investigations concerning fee splitting, Landale replied that there were.
• Asked if he could give any details on yesterday's Krstic Status Conference, Landale replied that it lasted 11 minutes and dealt with administrative matters.

*****