Time: 12:30 p.m.
Registry and Chambers
Nenad Golčevski, Acting Spokesperson for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
I will begin with an update in the case of Goran Hadžić. On 21 May 2015, the Chamber granted Hadžić’s request from 28 April for provisional release. Hadžić was first granted provisional release in April for health and humanitarian reasons and returned to the Tribunal in early May for a further medical examination.
In the case of Ratko Mladić, the trial is currently in a month-long recess running from 22 May until 22 June, in order for the Defence to prepare for the re-opening of the Prosecution’s case. This will relate to evidence from the mass grave discovered in Tomašica, near Prijedor, Bonsia and Herzegovina. The trial will reconvene on Monday, 22 June at 9:30 in Courtroom I with the Prosecution’s statement.
Turning to the Prlić and others case, the redacted Appeals Chamber decision denying Valentin Čorić’s motion for provisional release was filed on 14 May. The Chamber found that the appellant failed to establish the existence of special circumstances that are required for provisional release.
Finally, the Stanišić and Župljanin Trial Chamber judgement is now available in French and may be found on the Tribunal’s website.
Several questions were asked by journalists regarding the Serbian Radical Party’s statement that Voijslav Šešelj’s provisional release has been revoked in a confidential decision issued by the Tribunal, including if the decision existed and if the Tribunal was aware of the negative impact it has on the Tribunal’s perception in the region. Golčevski said he had no information or official comment on the matter.
Asked if there were any legal ramifications within the Tribunal regarding the two month lapse of time between the Appeal’s Chamber’s order inviting the Trial Chamber to immediately decide on the revocation of Šešelj’s provisional release, Golčevski said the Trial Chamber convened and issued a filing asking for additional information regarding the health of the accused.
Asked if the word “immediately” as used by the Appeals Chamber in its order to the Trial Chamber could be defined legally by the Tribunal, Golčevski stated that he could not comment on that matter.
Asked if in the Trial Chamber’s response to the Appeals Chamber order was a stay of the decision also requested by the Chamber, Golčevski answered that it did not.
Asked if there was any indication when the Appeals hearing would be held in the Stanišić and Župljanin case, Golčevski said at the moment there was no information available and that a scheduling order would be issued by the Chamber in due course.
A journalist pointed out that according to the latest completion strategy report in December the expected date for the Stanišić and Simatović Appeals hearing had already passed. Asked if there was an indication as to when the hearing would take place, Golčevski said as soon as a scheduling order was issued by the Chamber it would immediately be distributed to the public.