Legacy website of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Since the ICTY’s closure on 31 December 2017, the Mechanism maintains this website as part of its mission to preserve and promote the legacy of the UN International Criminal Tribunals.

 Visit the Mechanism's website.

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing - 13th May 2004

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing 17 December 2003

note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
a summary.

Weekly Press Briefing

Date: 17.12.2003

Time: 12.30 p.m.


Landale, Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:


I would like to report how pleased the President of the Tribunal, Judge Theodor
Meron, is that the Tribunal has been able, before the Christmas break, to start
the Strugar trial. This means that there are now five trials ongoing along with
the Appeals Chamber continuing on an unprecedented rhythm of appeals hearings,
particularly last week and this week in the Blaskic case, resulting in all three
courtrooms of the ICTY being utilised twice a day for different proceedings.

regard to General Clark’s testimony, as you should be aware we intend to broadcast
it this Friday starting at 9 a.m. I also have with me the technical details
for media wishing to use to ICTY/ICTR satellite system to view General Clark’s

If you
have any technical questions on how to view the broadcast, please do not hesitate
to contact my office.

With regard
to the court schedule and in addition to the ongoing trials

In The
Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic
, the Sentencing Judgement will be rendered
on 18 December at 2.15 p.m. in Courtroom III.

There will
be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic on 18 December
at 2.30 p.m.

There will
be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic on
18 December at 4 p.m. in Courtroom III.

this is the last regular press briefing before the court recess. The next scheduled
briefing will be on 14 January 2004, however the press office will be manned
throughout the holiday period and we will of course let you know if any extraordinary
media events need to be scheduled.

Hartmann, Spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.


Asked whether
General Clark’s testimony would be shown continuously or whether there would
be scheduled breaks, Landale replied that the plan was to have a ten minute
break every hour and a half. He added that he was trying to find out, when it
got to the lunch period, what sort of break would be appropriate and what was
being envisaged by the technical people. He would update the media on this in
due course, he said.

Asked whether,
during the court recess, someone would be reachable on the press office number,
Landale replied that the press office would be manned apart from on Christmas,
Boxing and New Year’s day. He added that he would be away from 20 to 27 December
but apart from that he would be available.

whether anything had been decided regarding the transcript of General Clark’s
testimony and when it would be made available to the media, Landale replied
that there had not yet been a final decision. He added that there was a possibility
that the transcripts would be made available on the ICTY internet site on Thursday.
This was dependent upon various technical details being solved. The Press Office
would advise the media if that would be the case, he concluded.

to confirm that there would be no embargo on the broadcast, Landale replied
that this was the case. He added that there would be in the region of seven
to eight hours of footage, maybe a bit longer and that from 9 a.m. it would
likely take up most of the day.

to clarify General Clark’s status as both a Rule 70 and 89(f) witness, Hartmann
replied that the conditions imposed by the US Government were imposed on the
basis of and in the framework of Rule 70. Rule 89(f) is related to his written
statement which was evidence.

journalist stated that the media had received the statements of Markovic and
others during their testimonies. Asked why the media could not receive Clark’s
statement and what criteria was used for deciding whether or not to release
a statement, Hartmann replied that because of the way General Clark had testified,
his written statement would be released with his testimony. The disclosure of
his testimony was under the control, according to the Rules, of the Registry.
When the testimony was released all the elements associated with the testimony
would be released. This included his written statement, if it had been admitted
as evidence.

A journalist
stated that General Clark said yesterday that his testimony would be redacted
today and that it would be able to be broadcast tomorrow. The journalist went
on to state that it was impossible for journalists working at the Tribunal to
spend the whole day Friday watching the testimony and to then to have to write
during the weekend to eventually publish articles on Monday. It was against
the interests of the Tribunal, he concluded.

replied that she fully understood the journalist’s concerns but that the Registry
had control over the disclosure according to the Tribunal’s Rules. The testimony
would be disclosed when the Registry announced it would and that the OTP could
do nothing. She added that she was the wrong person to respond to this question
as the OTP had no control over disclosure.

journalist said that this was a Prosecution witness. Hartmann agreed that he
was a Prosecution witness, but that he was testifying under circumstances which
were granted by the Chamber and to which had been attached certain technical
decisions which put the disclosure of his testimony, even though he was a OTP
witness, under the control of the Registry. If Landale announced that it would
be disclosed on Friday then it would be disclosed on Friday. The OTP had no
control over this.

added that this was firstly, as Florence had indicated, pursuant to a Rule 70
ruling. The United States had allowed Clark to testify according to Rule 70
as long as certain protective measures were in place. This request was made
through the OTP and granted by the Trial Chamber. The reason it was being broadcast
on Friday was because of the way it had been recorded. There were certain technical
aspects that had to be sorted out for it to be broadcast with any possible redactions
made. That was a longer process that the media might realise. It was a technical
and detailed process, Landale said. This was the time period they were left
with, he concluded.

Asked about
the idea of giving the transcripts to the media the day before, Landale reiterated
that there was a possibility that this could happen on Thursday afternoon, dependent
upon whether the technical aspects for that to happen were sorted out in time.

whether it would be clear to those watching when there was a redacted portion
and whether it would it be stated, Landale replied that it might be in the transcript.
He would check regarding the broadcast.

A journalist
said that the OTP had been trying to get Holbrook to testify and asked whether
there was any news on this. Hartmann said that the OTP did not usually speak
about the witnesses still to come but added that there were 17 days left before
closing of the Prosecution presentation of evidence in this case.

Asked, for
those 17 days, how many witnesses were still to come and whether all of the
witnesses the OTP wanted to come were available, Hartmann replied that they
were. There were many things to be prepared according to the Orders of the Chamber
and according to the rights of the Defence. It was necessary first to present
the list of witnesses. She could not, she added be certain that there would
be no changes, but the list of witnesses was prepared. She added that did not
know whether the list had been presented to the Chamber yet but that the number
of witnesses on the list was under that authorised by the Chamber, it was around
25 to 30 witnesses.

whether a record was going to be kept of the redactions made to Clark’s testimony
and whether the media would know on Friday how many seconds, minutes or hours
had been cut out, Landale replied that he was trying to find this out. He would
give that information to the media if he was able and permitted to do so.


Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic:

11 December 2003 "Amici
Curiae Reply To Prosecution Submission Of An Addendum To The Expert Report Of
Philip Coo Dated 8 December 2003".

16 December 2003 "Final
Decision On Prosecution Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts".

16 December 2003 "Preliminary
Decision On The Admissibility Of Intercepted Communications"

v. Sefer Halilovic:

15 December
2003 "Defence Motion Concerning Conditions Of Detention During Trial".

16 December
2003 "Decision On Defence Motion For Particulars".

v. Momcilo Krajisnik:

15 December
2003 "Prosecution’s Third Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts".

v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic

12 December 2003 "Prosecution’s
Addendum To Its Response To Ojdanic’s Third Application For Provisional Release".

16 December 2003 "Decision
On General Ojdanic Third Application For Provisional Release".

v. Pavle Strugar:

12 December
2003 "Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief Pursuant To Rule 65 ter (E) (i)".

12 December
2003 "Decision On The Defence’s Request For Certification To Appeal The
Trial Chamber’s Decision Dated 26 November 2003 On The Prosecutor’s Motion For
Separate Trial And Order To Schedule A Pre-Trial Conference And The Start Of
The Trial Against Pavle Strugar".

15 December
2003 "Order Assigning Judges To A Case Before A Trial Chamber".

v. Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura:

15 December
2003 "Decision On Defence Motion For Access To Eumm Archives".

v. Vidoje Blagojevic

07 November
2003 "Public And Redacted Reasons For Decision On Appeal By Vidoje Blagojevic
To Replace His Defence Team".

v. Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic, and Veselin Sljivancanin

15 December
2003 "Order Assigning A Judge To A Case Before A Trial Chamber".

v. Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric

15 December
2003 "Order Assigning Judges To A Case Before The Appelas Chamber".

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic
and Mario Cerkez

12 December 2003 "Decision
On Mario Cerkez’s Request For Provisional Release".

Prosecutor v. Zeljko Meakic,
Momcilo Gruban, Dusan Fustar, Dusko Knezevic

12 December 2003 "Defence
Pre-Trial Brief".

Prosecutor v. Dragan Obrenovic

12 December 2003 "Order
Lifting Confidentiality".

Prosecutor v. Ranko Cesic

09 December 2003 "Defence
Response To Prosecutor’s Further Supplementary Information Relating To Sentencing".

Prosecutor v. Radislav Brdanin

10 December 2003 "Prosecution’s
Appeal From Trial Chamber’s Decision On Motion For Acquittal Pursuant To Rule
98 bis".

Prosecutor v. Ljubomir Borovcanin,
Milan Lukic, Dragomir Milosevic, Sredoje Lukic, Vinko Pandurevic, Vujadin Popovic,
Savo Todovic, Dragan Zelenovic, Stojan Zupljanin, Gojko Jankovic, Goran Borovnica,
Ljubisa Beara

10 December 2003 "Motion
For Issue Of Warrants Of Arrest And Orders For Surrender And For Orders Regarding
Their Transmission With Annex A And Confidential And Ex Parte Annex B".