note that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
Spokesman for Registry and Chambers, made the following opening statement:
Firstly, you all
will have seen the Judgement rendered on Monday in The Prosecutor v. Naletilic
and Martinovic, in which Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic were sentenced
to 20 and 18 years’ imprisonment respectively. We have additional copies of
the full Judgement for those who did not pick up a copy on Monday. The Judgement,
the statement by the Trial Chamber and the related press release are also all
available on the Tribunal’s website.
Next week, on
Tuesday 8 April there will be the Appeals Chamber Judgement on Sentencing in
The Prosecutor v. Mucic et al at 2:30 p.m in Courtroom I. You are all
of course welcome to attend.
And, as you
should also be aware, there will be no proceedings in the Milosevic trial this
coming Friday or on Monday of next week.
to other developments related to on-going proceedings:
continue as scheduled in the Milosevic, Galic, Simic et al, and Stakic cases.
there will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac in
Courtroom I starting at 2.30 p.m.
On Friday 4
April, there will be a further initial appearance in The Prosecutor v.
Stankovic in Courtroom I starting at 10 a.m.
8 April, there will be a status conference in The Prosecutor v. Banovic,
Fustar and Knezevic in Courtroom I starting at 3 p.m.
Among the decisions
and orders issued by the Chambers since the last briefing, the following are
brought to your attention:
On 27 March,
the Bureau (Judge Meron, President, Judges Pocar, May, Liu and Jorda) issued
its "Decision on Blagojevic’s Motion For Clarification". The full
text will be available after this.
On 27 March
in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic Trial Chamber III (Judge May,
presiding, Judges Robinson and Kwon) issued its "Decision on Prosecution
Motion for the Admission of Transcripts in Lieu of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant
to 92 BIS(D)".
On the same
day and again in the Milosevic case, Trial Chamber III issued its "Decision
on Admissibility of Morten Torkildsen’s Evidence". The Trial Chamber
first Report and Exhibits shall not be admitted save in respect of Attachments
R4(a) R4(b) and R4(c),
- The Prosecution’s
Motion for Admission of the Written Statements of George Georgiou, Mr. Andreas
Iacovou and Mr. Yiannakis Tsiartis pursuant to Rule 92bis is denied,
- The Second
Report and Exhibits shall be admitted, pursuant to Rule 94bis of the Rules,
save for paragraphs 23, 79 to 83 and Exhibit C4832, and
- The witness
shall be required to attend for cross-examination."
On the same
day, in The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Ojdanic and Sainovic Trial Chamber
III (Judge May, presiding, Judges Robinson and Kwon) issued its "Decision
on Defence Preliminary Motion filed by the Defence for Nikola Sainovic",
in which it dismissed the Motion.
On 28 March,
in the case The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, the Bureau (Judge Meron,
President, Judges Pocar, May, Schomburg and Liu) issued its "Decision
on Galic’s Application Pursuant to Rule 15(B)", in which it denied the
Motion. The text of the Decision will be available to those who want it after
On the same
day, Trial Chamber I (Judge Orie, presiding, Judges El Mahdi and Nieto-Navia)
issued its "Scheduling Order for Final Trial Briefs and Closing Arguments",
in which it decided that:
parties shall file their Final Trial Briefs no later than 16 April 2003.
The maximum length of the final trial briefs shall not exceed 300 pages
closing arguments of the parties shall take place on 6, 7, and 8 May 2003,
with the following sitting hours: 9:00-13:45. Each party will be given five
hours to deliver its closing argument; each party will be allotted respectively
30 minutes for its rebuttal or rejoinder argument."
On 31 March,
in the case The Prosecutor v. Blagojevic, Obrenovic, Jokic and Nikolic
Trial Chamber II issued its "Decision on Vidoje Blagojevic’s Motion
for Disqualification of the Trial Chamber and Concomitant Request For Certification
to Appeal" in which it rejected the Motion.
On 1 April,
in The Prosecutor v. Blagojevic, Obrenovic, Jokic and Nikolic the President
of the ICTY, Judge Meron, issued an "Order Assigning Judges to a Case
Before a Trial Chamber", in which he assigned Judges Liu (presiding),
Argibay and Vassylenko to the case.
Spokeswomen for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
reference to the Tuta and Stela Judgement a journalist asked whether there were
more cases in relation to war crimes committed in Mostar and also asked whether
this was the first time the involvement of Croatia in Bosnia and Herzegovina
had been established. Hartmann replied that according to the Judges an international
conflict had taken place. The answer could be found on the list of names and
indictments of those in custody and as far as she knew there was no other case
ongoing regarding Mostar. She continued to answer that some findings in the
Judgement of Tuta and Stela were similar to other findings in other cases, which
had already taken place at the Tribunal: the Blaskic case, Lasva Valley cases.
This was not the first time, but the fourth time that in a case of crimes committed
in Bosnia and Herzegovina the involvement of Croatia had been established. Landale
added that an international armed conflict was also relevant for the Grave Breaches
Belgrade had formally requested an interview with Milosevic, Landale replied
that the last time he checked with the Registry, through whom the request should
be made, it had not.
Asked to comment
on the speculation that "Legija" is ready to talk to the Prosecutor
in exchange for protected status, Hartmann replied that she had no comments.
the criteria’s was in order to become a protected witness, Landale replied that
we all knew that there were protected witnesses at the Tribunal, but said he
did not think that it was helpful to get into speculation at this point.
the Plavsic case had been closed and whether there was more information about
her transfer, Landale replied that the deadline had passed and that neither
party had filed an appeal. It was now a matter for the President, in consultation
with whomever he felt it would be appropriate, to decide where Ms. Plavsic would
serve her sentence.
Asked how long
this process would take, Landale replied that there was not a set period. It
depended on when the negotiations had been finished and whether an agreement
had been reached with one of the states.