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

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 5 June 2002
Time: 11:00 a.m.

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

The Appeals Judgement in the Kunarac and others case, or the so-called ‘Foca’ case, will be rendered next Wednesday 12 June at 4.30 p.m.

In terms of court documents:

On 29 May in the Hadzihasanovic and others case, the presiding Judge of Trial Chamber II, Judge Schomburg, issued a request to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to provide the Trial Chamber with details on Mehmed Alagic’s recent conviction and sentence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judge Schomburg stated that "the Trial Chamber needs to be appraised of developments of the legal proceedings against Mehmed Alagic in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to be able to monitor the conditions of his provisional release". A copy of the request will be available after this.

On 30 May, we received the fifth amended Indictment in the Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric. Copies are available after this.

The President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda, on 30 May 2002 issued a Decision rejecting a request, made in a letter on 4 March 2002, by Zdravko Mucic for release. In his letter, Mucic had argued that he has already spent two-thirds of his nine year sentence, handed down by Trial Chamber II on 16 November 1998, in detention. The full text of that Decision in French will be available after the briefing.

On 31 May 2002, Judge Schomburg, the presiding Judge of Trial Chamber II, issued an "Order on Mile Mrksic’s Motion for Provisional Release", which ordered:

1. the Head of the UN Detention Unit to report to the Trial Chamber on the medical treatment, conditions and facilities, including any special dietary needs actually requested by the accused at the UN Detention Unit and report on the measures taken to make the same available to him, and particularly whether in the UN Detention Unit the accused can be provided with all the medical attention he may need, no later that 15 days after the receipt of this order;

2. a copy of the report of the Head of the UN Detention Unit shall be filed with the Registry no later than one day from the date that the report becomes due;

3. a medical examination of Mile Mrksic shall be carried out as soon as feasible, and the Trial Chamber instructs the Registrar to entrust this task to experts whose names appear on a list previously drawn up by the Registry;

4. a copy of the medical reports resulting from the examination of the expert approved by the Registry shall be filed with the Registry no later than 15 days of conducting the examination;

5. the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecutor") in the light of the nature of the Motion, is to file its general response to the Motion, if any, by Wednesday, 5 June 2002 and, if regarded necessary, to the expected medical reports no later than three day after the receipt of those.

This follows Mrskic’s Motion for Provisional Release which was filed on 23 May 2002, "requesting provisional release on humanitarian grounds relating to his health".

Following that, on 3 June, Judge Agius, the Pre-trial Judge in the case, issued an "Order on Mile Mrksic’s Motion for an Urgent Request for Hearing on Provisional Release", which was filed on 30 May 2002, stating that "the Chamber will rule upon the Motion after receiving copies of the report of the Head of the UN Detention Unit and the Medical Report, and after hearing any further submissions if necessary".

On 3 June, the Deputy Registrar, Bruno Cathala, issued a Decision withdrawing the assignment of Mr. Xavier de Roux as lead counsel for Mr. Momir Talic and assigning him as a legal consultant, and assigning Mr. Slobodan Zecevic as lead counsel for the accused. In coming to his Decision, the Deputy Registrar considered, among other factors:

"that the accused has submitted a request to the Registrar to withdraw the assignment of Mr. de Roux as lead counsel, and to assign Mr. Slobodan Zecevic as lead counsel";

"that due to other commitments, Mr. de Roux has been unable to attend all trial hearings";

"that it is in the interests of justice that an accused be represented by a lead counsel who is available to attend court hearings regularly"; and,

"that Mr. Zecevic satisfies the requirements to be listed on the Rule 45 list of counsel who are eligible to be considered for assignment of counsel".

A copy of that Decision will be available after this.

Finally, the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in the Milosevic case will be available in PDF format on our website later today. We are endeavoring to provide you with paper copies, however due to the length of the document, that is taking some time. I will make sure that as soon as we receive copies we will distribute them to you.

Asked to comment on the contempt proceedings against witness K12 in the Milosevic trial, what the legal procedure was, and what the legal punishment would be, Landale replied that he could not add much to what was said by Judge May yesterday in court. Witness K12 had been found in contempt. The OTP had been directed to investigate the matter. Defence counsel had been appointed to witness K12 to represent him in this matter and in 28 days from yesterday, there would be a hearing (the specific date would be set in due course) to hear from the OTP, and to hear any submissions that the defence counsel for K12 might wish to bring to the attention of the Judges. Any punishment, if deemed appropriate by the Trial Chamber, would then be handed down.

Asked what the penalty would be, Landale replied that it was a matter for the Judges to decide, however, according to Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the maximum penalty that could be imposed was anything up to a 100,000 Euro fine, seven years’ imprisonment, or both.

Asked whether witness K12 was being detained, Landale replied that he could not discuss these sorts of details due to the protective measures that had been accorded to the witness.

Asked when William Walker would testify, Landale replied that next week had been mentioned in court.

Asked whether a date had been set, Hartmann replied that the OTP would not give a specific date because it depended on the witnesses who were appearing before him. He was expected some time next week, she concluded.

Asked for a comment on the ‘pressure’ witness K12 said he had been put under by the Prosecutor, which he mentioned in court yesterday, Landale replied that all he could do was state what the situation was. This was a Prosecution witness who had been afforded protective measures, including the use of pixelation to obscure his face, and the ability to testify in closed session. Witness K12 was unwilling to answer questions and unwilling to give any explanation as to why he was unable or unwilling to do so. He was warned by the Presiding Judge that he could be found in contempt and in the end this was exactly what had happened, he said.

Asked to clarify the statement ‘the witness was unwilling to give an explanation’ as to why he would not answer, Landale replied that witness K12 was given the opportunity to explain and did not do so.

Asked whether Mr. Nice was surprised by the behavior of witness K12 and the fact that he had refused to testify both the days, Hartmann replied that witness K12 was supposed to give his testimony and to answer the questions asked. He was brought to The Hague to testify in court, she concluded.

Asked whether witness K12 had given any hint of what might happen before he entered the courtroom, Hartmann replied that she could not give any details on that issue.

*****