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 - 7th Mar 2002

ICTY Press Briefing - 7 March 2002

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

ICTY Weekly Press

Date: 07 March 2002

Time: 14:15 p.m.


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

In the Milosevic
case we have received a number of documents, which I’ll run through now:

On 5 March, the
amici curiae Second Brief on the Provision of Adequate Facilities to
Allow the Accused to Prepare his Defence.

On 5 March, the
amici curiae Brief on Cross-examination by the Accused in Person Including
the "Tu Quoque" Principle.

On 5 March, Trial
Chamber Decision on the Prosecution’s Request for Further Time to Contact

On 6 March, the
Trial Chamber’s Decision on Provisional Release.

On 6 March, the
Prosecution Brief Concerning the Scope of Cross-examination and the "Tu Quoque"

On 6 March, Trial
Chamber’s Order to the Registrar to Provide Report Concerning the Practical
Facilities Available to the Accused.

Copies of all
of those documents are available on request.

In terms of other
court documents:

The French version
of the Blagojevic, Obrenovic and Jokic amended indictment is now available.

In the Krajisnik
and Plavsic case, on 4 March we received the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the
Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Consolidated Indictment. We have
copies of the new indictment for you.

On 4 March, we
received a Decision in the Stakic case granting the Prosecution’s Request for
Leave to Amend the Indictment. Copies of the new third amended indictment are

In terms of court

The Judgement
in the Krnojelac case will be rendered by Trial Chamber II, Judge Hunt presiding,
next Friday 15 March at 11 am in Courtroom III.

Tomorrow, Friday
8 March, there will be a status conference in Kvocka, Radic, Kos, Zigic and
Prcac case at 2 p.m. Courtroom I.

Following that,
at 3 p.m., there will be a status conference in the Krajisnik and Plavsic case
in the same courtroom.

There will be
a motion hearing in the Strugar case on 12 March at 2.30 p.m. in Courtroom II.

Finally, as some
of you would have heard yesterday, the closing arguments in the Vasiljevic case
will resume tomorrow, Friday 8 March, at 3 p.m. in Courtroom III.


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



Asked whether
there was anything important on the agenda in the Krajisnik and Plavsic status
conference tomorrow and whether Mrs. Plavsic was due to be present, Landale
replied that Plavsic would not be present to his knowledge. As far as he knew
it was due to be a rather straightforward hearing. He added that if he heard
anything he would inform the media.

Asked whether
Mira Markovic had applied for the right to sit in the public gallery of Courtroom
I to follow the Milosevic hearing, Landale replied that she had not to his

Asked whether
she needed to apply, Landale replied that she would have to ask the Tribunal
so that the necessary arrangements could be made. He added that the Tribunal
would also have to talk to the Dutch authorities.

A journalist
commented that it had become apparent that Mr. Milosevic disclosed the identity
of protected witnesses to those people who help in his defence and that those
people disclosed the information to the public and the press. Asked whether
the Tribunal would take any action concerning this, for example starting up
a procedure for contempt of court, Landale replied that if the Tribunal had
credible evidence that people beyond the group who were helping Mr. Milosevic
with his defence had been given the names of protected witnesses, or that
they had been made public at any stage, the Trial Chamber could take measures
to investigate this breach of a protective order. This could result in the
initiation of contempt procedures under Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure
and evidence, he concluded.

Asked whether
there was a limitation in numbers of people this covered and could it be thousands
of people, Landale replied that it could not be thousands of people, but anyone
helping Milosevic who had knowledge of the identity of someone protected by
a court order would have had to be informed by the accused that that person
was a protected witness and that they would then be subject to a court order.

Asked what
the position of Mr. Milosevic’s ‘associates’ was and whether they received
privileges of any kind or whether they were just people he was in contact
with, Landale replied that they received no privileges in terms of privileged

Asked whether
this meant that no telephone conversations with them were privileged, Landale
replied that every telephone conversation, every fax received or sent and
every document received was monitored. Mr. Milosevic was entitled to privileged
communication with two legal advisors, Ramsey Clark and John Livingston. He
was also entitled to privileged communication with the Dutch lawyer Mr. Nico
Steijnen, specifically with regard to the proceedings before the European
Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Asked whether,
since the beginning of the trial, he had only met with the lawyers from Belgrade,
Landale replied that as far as he knew Milosevic had only met with Mr. Tomanovic
and Mr. Ognjanovic.

Asked whether
they would come within the reach of contempt of court rule, Landale replied
that they would.

Asked if they
would have to have identified them by their full names to fall under the rule,
Landale replied that they did not have to specifically. He added that this
would be up to the Judges to decide.

Asked whether
Milosevic would be allowed to communicate the names of protected witnesses
to those helping him with his defence, even when they were not bound by the
rules that would normally apply to defence counsel and to investigators helping
defence counsel (for those people there was an ethical code). Landale replied
that there were two separate things to deal with in this question. Firstly
the code of ethics which they had not signed up to because they were not official
defence counsel. This made no difference because they were still bound by
a protective order, as anyone was, if they happened to find out the identity
of any protected person they could not make that known to the public.

Landale added
that if the associates were given the identities by Mr. Milosevic to help
prepare his case and his cross-examination, he was authorised to do that.
However, the people who helped him to do that were bound by the orders of
the court. Landale added that Milosevic had every right to investigate the
credibility of someone who was going to testify against him in court and
he had every right to investigate and challenge their testimony. The people
who helped him in doing that were bound by the orders of the court, he added.

Asked whether
the order applied to the world media, Landale replied that it did. In domestic
systems if the Judges announced that there would be a media ban on disclosing
the identity, for example, of a rape victim that was usually applied to the
media and respected until a time in which a judgement had been rendered. If
the judgement was such that it allowed the identity to be revealed then the
media could report. It was no different at the Tribunal. The same sorts of
laws and rules applied.

Asked whether
there was a formal investigation ongoing into whether there was contempt of
court, Landale replied that there was not as far as he knew.