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