Site Internet consacré à l’héritage du Tribunal pénal international pour l’ex-Yougoslavie

Depuis la fermeture du TPIY le 31 décembre 2017, le Mécanisme alimente ce site Internet dans le cadre de sa mission visant à préserver et promouvoir l’héritage des Tribunaux pénaux internationaux.

 Consultez le site Internet du Mécanisme.

ICTY Weekly Press Briefing - 19th Jun 2002

ICTY Press Briefing - 2 May 2001

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

Weekly Press Briefing

Date: 19 June 2002

Time: 11:30 a.m.


Chartier, Head of the Public Information Services, made the following statement:

with court proceedings

The date was
set earlier today for the initial appearance of Ranko Cesic. His appearance
will take place on Thursday 20 June at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom 1 before
Judge Orie.

In the case
The Prosecutor against Slobodan Milosevic, the accused’s health situation
is reviewed every day. Information concerning the recommencement of the trial
will be made public as soon as it is available. On this subject, I have just
been informed that there will be no hearing tomorrow in this case.

Another development
related to the Milosevic case is that yesterday, the Trial Chamber issued
an Order scheduling a hearing on the contempt proceedings instituted against
witness K12. This hearing will take place on Monday 24 June at 1 p.m, and
will be attended by the witness, his counsel and the Prosecution. This is
an ex parte hearing and the accused does not have to be present. The
Order states that this hearing is ‘to clarify the position on contempt
with respect to witness K12 and to hear any submissions’

an institutional note :

The visit to
Bosnia and Herzegovina by the President and the Prosecutor, along with the
Deputy Registrar, is proceeding very well. As you have seen from various press
reports, a number of meetings have taken place, with the High Representative
and with the State Presidency among others. Further meetings will take place
prior to the completion of the visit on Friday.

I would also
like to mention that last week our colleagues from Outreach hosted visits
from two groups from the former Yugoslavia:

The first, in
coordination with the Interchurch Peace Council (IKV) from the Netherlands,
was composed of representatives from the "Citizen's Pact", a civil initiative
established as a counterpart to the Stability Pact in South East Europe.

The second group,
brought to the Tribunal by VNG International (Association of Netherlands Municipalities)
consisted of 19 mayors of municipalities and other civil servants from both
entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

to court documents:

with regard to cases before a Trial Chamber:

in the case The Prosecutor against Slobodan Milosevic, the Trial Chamber
issued an Order for ‘the immediate cessation of violations of protective
measures for witnesses’

Order follows the publication on 25 May 2002 in the newspaper Nacional of
an article disclosing the identity of protected witness K5 while it is clear
from this publication that the authors of the article were perfectly aware
that K5 was a protected witness. Such a publication is in breach of a protective
order previously issued by the Chamber and those responsible may be found
in contempt of the Tribunal.

Chamber accordingly ordered that the publication of identifying information
related to protected witnesses shall cease immediately. Noting that ‘Articles
1(2) and 32 of "The Law on Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"
with the International Tribunal, specifically provides for legal assistance
by the competent State organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
requests that the competent State organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(including the Republic of Serbia) investigate the matter, take all necessary
measures to stop the publication of such confidential information and, within
a month, provide the Trial Chamber with a report on the investigation and
measures taken.
The Order goes on as follows: ‘The Chamber calls upon
the authorites of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including the Republic
of Serbia) and upon the Prosecutor to provide the Trial Chamber with any information
regarding the identity of those potentially responsible for the disclosure
of the identity of witness K5 in violation of protective measures ordered
by the Trial Chamber’.
Finally the Order affirms that ‘ any publication
of such information shall expose its author(s) and those responsible to be
found in contempt of the Tribunal’
. A copy of this important order
will be made available after the Briefing.

In the case
The Prosecutor against Sefer Halilovic, the Prosecution submitted its
Pre-trial brief, witness list and exhibit list on 17 June.

In the case
The Prosecutor against Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic, Defence
lawyers for Momcilo Krajisnik filed a Motion to dismiss or for alternative
relief, on 17 June.

In the case
The Prosecutor against Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, on 13 June,
lawyers for Jonathan Randal filed an application for certification from the
Trial Chamber to appeal against the Decision dismissing their Motion to set
aside the subpoena to give evidence.

regard to the cases in front of the Appeals Chamber:

In the case
The Prosecutor against Tihomir Blaskic, a ‘Public redacted version
of the Prosecution’s respondents brief’
became public on14 June.

and the defence
for Dario Kordic filed a Supplement to the Appellant’s Brief, on 12 June 2002.

usual, copies of most of the documents that have been mentioned have been prepared,
however, I must warn you that some of those documents are extremely lengthy
and that the copying work will take some time.


Asked to confirm
that Mr. Milosevic would not have to be present at the ex parte hearing
concerning witness K12, Christian Chartier replied that this was the case.

Asked whether
someone from the OTP would be present, Christian Chartier replied that the
Order stated that the hearing would be attended by witness K12, his defence
counsel and by the Prosecution.

Asked whether
it was known who his defence counsel was, Christian Chartier replied that
he did not know. He added that he would attempt to find out.

Asked whether
it could be assumed that this hearing would be held in private session, Christian
Chartier replied that this was a fair assumption. Although the Order did not
state it, it was also his interpretation of the Order.

Asked whether,
as was being stated in the Italian media, Di Stefano had been indicted by
the Tribunal, Christian Chartier replied that this name, to his knowledge
did not appear on the list of public indictees. Whether he was on a sealed
indictment he did not know. This was a name that had been mentioned many times
over the past years with regards to various stories, he concluded.

A journalist
commented on the fact that previously the Prosecution had revealed that 7
people were on sealed indictments, asked how many sealed indictment there
were at the moment, Christian Chartier replied that this information was now
outdated. He could not say how many were outstanding. This was a subject for
the OTP. What he could say was that this number was limited, he concluded.

Asked to confirm
that there was a possibility that new sealed indictments could be produced,
Christian Chartier replied that this was the case. This was an avenue, which
was open to the OTP according to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. He was
not aware that the Prosecutor would have decided not to use it anymore. Whether
this had happened, whether she had done so, whether there were sealed Indictments
and how many, he did not know.

Asked to clarify
whether Mr. Kastratovic had been ‘ousted’ by the Tribunal as Mr. Martic’s
defence lawyer, Christian Chartier replied that he was not aware that any
defence lawyer had been assigned to Mr. Martic. One was assigned for his initial
appearance, which was standard procedure, but following all initial appearances
an Order was filed stating that a particular lawyer had been assigned to the
particular case. He was not informed of such an Order with regard to Mr. Martic.
So the wording that Kastratovic had been ‘ousted’ was not accurate, he concluded.

Asked whether
an accused had the right to choose who defended them, Christian Chartier replied
that the procedure was somehow different. The Tribunal held a list of defence
lawyers who could be assigned to defendants. On top of this list the Tribunal
was more than happy to assign defence lawyers indicated to the Tribunal by
an accused. It was not, however, because, an accused said that he wanted a
particular lawyer that they would necessarily be assigned. There were a number
of conditions to be met. He added that he would be happy to check, but off
the top of his head he did not believe that a defence lawyer had been officially
assigned to Mr. Martic. This was still a pending procedure. Saying that this
person had been ‘ousted’ was not accurate, because no one had yet been appointed.

Asked to comment
on a Decision by the Yugoslav National Council for Cooperation to hand over
the ‘Stanisic documents’ to the OTP, Christian Chartier replied that he could
not speak on behalf of the OTP. He added that he had seen this news in various
reports this morning. He did not understand the articles to have said that
a decision had been made on the subject, but this was his own interpretation.
He had no further comment.

Asked if he
could make a comment on the 35 new Indictments the Prosecutor had allegedly
discussed yesterday, Christian Chartier replied that he could not.