The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj - Case No. IT-03-67-AR73.2

“Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal Concerning the Denial of a Request for a Visit to an Accused in the Detention Unit”

29 January 2004
Appeals Chamber (Judges Meron [Presiding], Pocar, Shahabuddeen, Güney and Weinberg de Roca)

Procedural Background

· On 12 January 2004, Vojislav Seselj (“Accused”) lodged an interlocutory appeal against a decision by Trial Chamber II¹ in which his Request of 9 September 2003 (“Request”) to receive a visit from Bishop Filaret of Milesevo had been denied.²

· On 22 January 2004, the Prosecution filed its Response.³

Decision

The Appeals Chamber dismissed the interlocutory appeal and instructed the Accused that any request he may have with regard to visits must be addressed by the Registrar.

Reasoning

Competent authority for visits to detainees

The Appeals Chamber referred to Regulation 32 of the United Nations Detention Unit Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications with Detainees (IT/98/Rev.3) dated July 1999⁴, pursuant to which “[a]ll visitors, other than counsel or a representative of the Tribunal, shall first apply to the Registrar for permission to visit a named detainee”. It also referred to Rule 63(A) and (B) of the Rules Governing the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal before the Tribunal or otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal (IT/38/Rev.8) dated 22 November 1999 (“Rules Governing Detention”)⁵, which provides respectively that detainees “shall be entitled to receive visits from family, friends and others, subject only to the provisions of Rule 66 and to such restrictions and supervision as the Commanding Officer, in consultation with the Registrar, may impose” and that “[t]he Registrar may refuse to allow a person to visit a detainee if he has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported in the media”.⁶ The Appeals Chamber held:

“[…] the matter of determining which visits an accused is allowed to receive while at the Detention Unit falls within the competence of the Registry (of which the Commanding Officer of the Detention Unit is also an officer) and not of the Chambers”.

The Appeals Chamber noted that neither the Accused nor Bishop Filaret had addressed a request to the Registrar.

________________________________________
1. Seselj, IT-03-67-PT, Decision on Motion Number 19, 30 September 2003. The Trial Chamber considered that the right of an accused to access a representative of his own religion is “not an unlimited one and certainly does not encompass the right of an accused to select himself the representative of the Orthodox Christian Church, but rather that he is entitled to establish contacts with ‘the ministers or spiritual advisers of the host prison’”.
2. Seselj, IT-03-67-PT, Motion Number 27, 14 January 2004.
3. Seselj, IT-03-67-AR73.2, Prosecution’s Response to the Accused’s Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s “Decision on Motion Number 19”, 22 January 2004.
4. This document is available on the Tribunal website at www.un.org/icty under “Basic Documents/Detention”.
5. Ibid.
6. Regarding the communication restrictions imposed on the Accused Vojislav Seselj, see the 8 January 2004 and 6 February 2004 Decisions of the Registrar, available on the Tribunal website under “Indictments and Proceedings/Seselj/Registry Decisions”. See also Press Release No. 814e of 9 January 2004 and Press Release No. 822e of 10 February 2004 (available on the website of the Tribunal under “Latest Developments”).