note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing.
It is merely a summary.
ICTY Weekly Press Briefing
REGISTRY AND CHAMBERS
Jim Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following
With regard to the court schedule and in
addition to the ongoing trials
The Appeal Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Mitar
Vasiljevic will be rendered this afternoon at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom
III. You are all of course welcome to attend.
A couple of other reminders:
There will be a further appearance for all three
accused in the Limaj et al case this Friday, 27 February at 2.30
p.m. in Courtroom I.
On 16 February, the Appeals Chamber ordered that
the hearing on appeal in The Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Radic, Zigic
and Prcac commence on 23 March 2004.
There will be a status conference in The Prosecutor
v. Sefer Halilovic before the Pre-Appeal Judge on 7 April, starting
at 3 p.m.
Office of the Prosecutor:
Florence Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the
Office of the Prosecutor, announced that the Prosecution was seeking
to close its case in the Milosevic trial. Hartmann stated that the
Prosecution had filed a Notification, as well as a Motion asking
the Trial Chamber to contemplate the possibility of admitting several
documents which were pending.
Landale added that as soon as public copies of
the filing were available they would be distributed, hopefully,
in the course of the afternoon. Landale stated that on the basis
of the filing by the Prosecution, he expected the Trial Chamber
to issue a scheduling order in the coming days setting out the next
steps for the Milosevic case.
Asked if this decision presented by the Prosecution
meant that no further witnesses would be called, Hartmann confirmed
that the closure of the case meant no more hearings and no more
witnesses. She added that the decision should be taken by the Chamber
which meant the last day was 12 February 2004.
Asked when the decision to close the Prosecution case would take
place, Landale stated that the Trial Chamber would have received
today the filing by the Prosecution and would act on that basis.
Landale added that he was confident that it would be relatively
Asked for a reason why the Prosecution wanted to close the Milosevic
case before all of the evidence was presented, Hartmann replied
that it was in the Prosecution’s Motion that would be available
in the afternoon. Hartmann added that she could say one thing without
going into the details and that was that there was a specific situation
that the Prosecution did not want to be used to delay the case,
and the Prosecution suggested the proposal due to the fact that
the case was almost at the end.
Hartmann stated that the Prosecution had some written documents
that would be submitted to the Chamber as such, and that the Prosecution
would make the effort to renounce to the witnesses. Hartmann added
that the goal of the Prosecution was to make it as efficient as
possible without any delay. This did not mean there would be any
delays, even if the two days were not renounced. The Prosecution
looked at the situation and it was an option, and therefore they
chose that option.
A journalist pointed out the fact that it was possible for the
Trial Chamber to sit two more days with only two Judges. Hartmann
insisted on the fact that everyone was focusing on the absence of
one Judge, and there were Rules in the Procedures which were dealing
with that issue. There were other elements like the repeated absence
of the accused, and the Prosecution made a decision based upon all
of these elements.
Asked what these developments would mean for the beginning of the
defence case and was the accused still ill, and, if so, when would
the working days begin for him, Landale replied that the doctor
had advised that yesterday and today that the accused would not
be in court due to his ill-health. Landale said that he was unaware
of any changes today. Landale said that most of the questions would
be answered by what the Trial Chamber handed down in terms of any
orders regarding scheduling. Hopefully, this would answer such questions,
Asked what the position of the Tribunal was on the repeated statement
made by Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica that the cooperation
with the Tribunal would not be the priority of his new government,
Landale replied that the Tribunal found these comments very unfortunate
and regrettable. The Tribunal had noted the response to these comments
from various quarters such as the European Union and the US Government,
and the Tribunal would reiterate once again that the obligations
to cooperate with the Tribunal were abundantly clear under international
law and that was what was expected to happen.
Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic:
18 February 2004 "Order Pursuant to Rule 98 to
Call As a Court Witness Carl Bildt".
20 February 2004 "Prosecution’s Comprehensive Report
Concerning its Compliance to Date with Rule 68".
23 February 2004 "Supplement to report of Serbia
and Montenegro Pursuant to Rulings Nos. 11 and 12 of the "Thirteenth
Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54 bis of Prosecution
and Serbia and Montenegro" Dated 17 December 2003".
Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljevic:
18 February 2004 "Scheduling Order".
Prosecutor v. Kvocka and Others:
18 February 2004 "Order Replacing a Judge in a
Case Before the Appeals Chamber".
Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic:
23 February 2004 "Decision on Prosecution’s Urgent
Motion regarding Defects in Milomir Stakic’s Brief on Appeal".
Prosecutor v. Blagojevic/Jokic:
23 February 2004 "Prosecution’s Motion for the Admission of Documents
Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj:
23 February 2004 "Prosecution’s Additional Response
to the Accused’s "Objection to the Indictment"".
Prosecutor v. Ivica Rajic:
23 February 2004 "Defence Motion on the Form of
the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 72".
Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu:
20 February 2004 "Application for Certification
from Trial Chamber to Appeal ‘Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to
Amend the Amended Indictment’".
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdanin :
20 February 2004 "Motion by Amicus Curiae
Prosecutor for Leave to Submit Additional Prosecution Exhibit in
Case in Chief".
24 February 2004 "Decision on Motion by Amicus
Curiae Prosecutor for Leave to Submit Additional Prosecution Exhibit
in Case in Chief".