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 - 7th Nov 2001

ICTY Press Briefing - 7 November 2001

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

ICTY Weekly
Press Briefing

Date: 7 November 2001

Time: 11:30 a.m.


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

we have copies of the order signed by Judge Nieto-Navia on 2 November 2001 to
vacate a non-disclosure order on an indictment against Dragomir Milosevic. This
follows a request by the Prosecutor to vacate the order that was filed the same
day. We hope to have copies of that indictment for you once it has passed through
the obligatory checks and processing within the Registry.

30 October, a decision was handed down by Trial Chamber I in the Stakic case
on his motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There has been a
notice of appeal filed on that decision. Copies of both those documents will
be available after this.

have also received the pre-trial defence brief in the Galic case. Copies are
available on request.

a reminder that the Sentencing Judgement in the Sikirica and others case will
be rendered next Tuesday, 13 November at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom III. You are
all of course welcome to attend.



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



Asked to
elaborate on the contents of the Dragomir Milosevic indictment, Landale replied
that he could not as the indictment had not been made public yet. He did say,
however, as it indicated on the order, that Dragomir Milosevic was jointly
charged with Stanislav Galic.

Asked whether
this meant that he would be charged with crimes committed in Sarajevo, Landale
replied that this could be assumed, however, for actual details it would be
necessary to look at the indictment once it had been released.

for the OTP’s reaction to the evidence of the Bosnian Serb authorities against
Mr. Izetbegovic, Hartmann replied that the OTP had not received any letter
or documents from Banja Luka at this time.

Asked what
documents the OTP was expecting to receive from them and whether it had been
their initiative to request that they be sent, Hartmann replied that she could
not answer this question. The OTP had not yet received anything. She added
that she had read in the press that something had been sent. This was presented
as an indictment against Mr. Izetbegovic. The OTP had not received this nor
had it been informed by its offices that anything was on its way. On other
occasions things had been announced to the press much earlier than they had
been sent to the Tribunal.

Asked to
confirm whether reports made by the Bosnian authorities, that the Prosecutor
had informed them that she would indict Mr. Izetbegovic, were true, Hartmann
replied that this was media speculation and she had no comment to make on
media speculation.

Asked whether
the OTP planned to appeal the Kvocka Judgement, Hartmann replied that the
decision had not yet been taken. The OTP was studying all the details of the
Judgement, but still did not know whether it would appeal.

Asked whether
the accused Mr. Ljubicic had made any contact with the Tribunal, following
reports that he was prepared to surrender voluntarily, Landale replied as
far as he was aware Ljubicic had not made any contact.

Hartmann added
that the OTP was informed through official channels and also by Mr. Ljubicic’s
lawyer that he was contemplating voluntary surrender, but this information
had not come directly through the OTP’s offices in the region. She added that
the OTP would wait for him to be at the Tribunal before commenting. Ljubicic
was under an arrest warrant and voluntary surrender was one of the options.
He could choose to do this or the authorities competent to arrest him should
do so.

Asked whether
the Tribunal knew where he was, whether in Croatia or Bosnia, Hartmann replied
that the OTP did not know. The OTP was informed through Croatia, of his possible
wishes. This did not mean that he was in Croatia. His lawyer could be anywhere.
Hartmann did not have any indication as to his whereabouts.