|
Please
note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.
ICTY
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 13 March 2002
Time: 14:00 p.m.
REGISTRY
AND CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Firstly,
I have copies of the Office of Internal Oversight Services Report into allegations
of possible fee-splitting at both this Tribunal and the Rwanda Tribunal which
was released in New York on Monday.
In
the Milosevic case we have received a number of documents, which I’ll run through
now:
We
have copies of the Prosecution’s Notice of Filing of Expert Report of Patrick
Ball and the report itself, entitled "Killings and Refugee Flow in Kosovo,
March - June 1999". Both documents were filed on 15 February. On 6 March,
we received the Prosecution’s Notice of Additional Filing of Addendum to Expert
Report of Patrick Ball.
In
addition, we have copies of the Prosecution’s Submission of the Expert Report
of Andras Riedlmayer and the report itself, entitled "The Destruction of
Cultural Heritage in Kosovo, 1998-1999: A Post-war Survey". Both documents
were filed on 28 February 2002.
On 11 March, we
received the Prosecution’s Additional Response to "Amici Curiae
Brief on Rule 92 bis Procedure" and Motion for Admission of Statements
Pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
In
terms of other court documents:
On
12 March we received the Order Regarding the Provisional Release Request (21
January) of the Accused Dragan Jokic (Srebrenica). Pre-Trial Judge Schomburg
ordered the "prosecution to file its response to the Provisional Release
Motion by Wednesday 20 March 2002" and ordered the "defence
counsel for the accused Jokic, and the accused Jokic himself if he so wishes,
respecting his right to remain silent, [to] be prepared to reply orally to the
prosecution’s response…during his further initial appearance scheduled for Thursday
21 March 2002".
We
also received a number of documents in the run up to the start of the Defence
case in Naletilic and Martinovic or ‘Tuta’ and ‘Stela’ case. They are a Decision
on the Defense’s Motion for Preliminary Protective Measures, filed on 12 March,
and an Order in Respect of Pre-Defence Filings, also filed on 12 March.
In
the Krajisnik and Plavsic case, we received on 11 March an Order Setting Timetable
for Pre-trial Briefs. The Pre-trial Judge, Judge May, ordered that the OTP "shall
file the final version of its pre-trial brief, its list of witnesses and list
of exhibits…by 2 May 2002; and The Defence for the two accused shall file their
pre-trial briefs…by 1 September 2002".
In
terms of court scheduling:
Tomorrow,
14 March, there will be the continuation of the closing arguments in the Vasiljevic
trial between 2.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. in Courtroom III.
The
following day, on Friday 15 March, the Judgement in the Krnojelac case will
be rendered by Trial Chamber II between 11 a.m. and midday in Courtroom III.
On
Monday 18 March, there will be a further initial appearance for Dragan Nikolic
at 3 p.m. in Courtroom III.
On
Wednesday 20 March, a pre-Defence conference in the Naletilic and Martinovic
case will be held between 2.15 and 7 p.m. in Courtroom III.
On
Thursday 21 March, there will be a further initial appearance and status conference
in the Obrenovic, Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic case, starting at 2.30 in Courtroom
III.
On
the same day in the Ljubicic case, there will be a status conference at 3 p.m.
in Courtroom II.
And,
finally, there will be a status conference in the Hadzihasanovic, Alagic and
Kubura case on Friday 22 March at 3 p.m. in Courtroom I.
Florence
Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
Asked what
the attitude of the OTP was towards the Rule 92 bis Decision in the
Milosevic case, Hartmann replied that there was no problem for the OTP to
bring witnesses, from whom written statements had been submitted to the Chamber.
It was decided in the Oral Decision that the Prosecution would have to bring
those additional witnesses and that they would be limited to four witnesses
per municipality, including the viva voce witnesses the OTP had already
called.
Hartmann added
that she would explain some of the figures involved. The OTP had 1,300 written
statements in the Kosovo part of the Milosevic case. Around 200 witness
summaries were submitted under Rule 65 ter, which meant that the
OTP had intended to call those witnesses to testify viva voce. The
OTP already limited the number by taking only a part of the whole potential
1,300 witnesses. The OTP submitted a possible 200 witnesses. This number
was cut down to 90 viva voce witnesses during the pre-trial period.
The reason for the introduction of the Rule 92 bis witnesses was
because the OTP did not feel comfortable with the limited amount of witnesses
allowed, in order for them to prove the Prosecution case in the way they
wished.
It was necessary
to remember that, although the events in Kosovo could be seen as having
taken a short period of time (taking in to account all of the charges against
Milosevic), it should be made clear that 800,000 people were forcibly deported.
The OTP had exhumed more than 4,000 bodies, but had not exhumed half of
the assessed mass graves in Kosovo. There were also bodies in Serbia and
at least (the OTP did not have final figures) 8,000 dead in Kosovo. Ninety
witnesses was not a "very extensive number" as stated in the oral
Decision.
The OTP would
bring those additional witnesses and would be permitted to ask introductory
questions. These would be limited. The OTP was not working on the basis
of municipalities. There were 29 municipalities prior to the war in Kosovo.
After the war there were 30. The OTP was not dealing with all the municipalities
in Kosovo, but dealing with those where deportations and killing sites,
relating to the charges in the indictment, were located. Although, sometimes
very difficult, it was necessary to follow the Order.
Asked when
Paddy Ashdown would testify, Hartmann replied that she did not know. She added
that it had not been said in court. He was obviously one of the next witnesses
as this was stated. She knew no more than this, she concluded.
Asked whether,
due to the Decision, the OTP would now face problems with witnesses who were
only willing to testify on paper, Hartmann replied that everyone gave a written
statement. It was normally during the pre-trial period that the witnesses
the OTP wished to call were selected. The OTP would have to bring them. They
accepted their statements would be submitted in court. It was something the
OTP had to provide. The OTP would possibly not be able to finish in July as
was expected, however, the Oral Decision mentioned that the time could be
extended. In cases when the OTP had two viva voce witnesses from the
same municipality, some statements would have to be withdrawn because there
would be only two written statements left. It was hard in such a huge case
dealing with 800,000 deported persons and so many people killed to have only
90 witnesses.
A journalist
stated that potential witnesses such as Lilic had declared in public that
they would be prepared to give written statements as a contribution to the
Milosevic trial, but would not be prepared to come to The Hague. Asked whether,
following the Oral Decision, the OTP had been in contact with any of these
witnesses and whether she foresaw any problems, Hartmann replied that she
could not answer these kinds of questions.
Asked whether,
out of the 23 witness statements the Prosecutor intended to tender, the number
would now be effected following the Decision, and whether some of the statements
would be lost to the OTP because of the four per municipality rule, Hartmann
replied that in some cases the OTP had over four witnesses per municipality.
This could be seen in the indictments. Statistically the OTP was now listening
now there was sometimes concentration of crimes, different types of violations
of international humanitarian law concentrated in some specific part. Some
can be in the same municipality and other municipalities were not mentioned
at all in the indictment.
Asked whether
after yesterday’s Decision there were going to be 23 witnesses brought to
The Hague, as all of these proposed witnesses fell within the four per municipality,
Hartmann replied that the OTP would have to drop 92 bis witnesses.
Asked whether
they would be from the 23, Hartmann replied that she did not know whether
it would be from these 23.
Asked whether
in principle that was the effect, Hartmann replied that in some cases there
were already two viva voce called. In some municipalities there were
more that four witnesses proposed.
Asked whether
she felt that the OTP had been treated unfairly, as they did not know this
Rule before the trial began, Hartmann replied that she would not qualify things
like that. She added that there were rules and this kind of discussion in
all trials, it was not specific to this trial.
She added that
maybe it was the first time that this interpretation of Rule 92 bis
was used, but in other trials other articles could have been used for the
first time. There were rules and the OTP had to comply with them. The only
issue was that it was very difficult to make a case with a very limited number
of witnesses. The OTP hoped that if it was necessary, if some elements remained
unclear, the OTP would be able to bring more witnesses at a later stage. The
OTP would comply with the Rules but as said in the pre-trial period, if there
was something necessary, the case would not be dropped because there were
not enough witnesses. The OTP would be able to bring more witnesses. The OTP
had to be efficient, but also to take time to bring all of the evidence relating
to the charges in the indictment.
Asked for some
indication as to whether Rugova would be called to testify, Hartmann replied
that she would not answer any questions about the witnesses to be called.
She added that she was very surprised by such questions coming from people
who covered the Tribunal, as they knew the Rules. The Tribunal did not make
any comments on speculation about witnesses.
She could only
help with what was said earlier in the courtroom. The list of coming witnesses
was a confidential document she did not have, would not have and would not
look at it. It was very difficult. The rules in this trial were that the names
of the witnesses were known when they appeared in court.
*****
|
