| Pleasenote that this is not a verbatim transcript of the Press Briefing. It is merely
 a summary.
 
 ICTY WeeklyPress Briefing
 
 Date: 7 April 1999
 
 Time: 11:30 a.m.
 
 REGISTRY ANDCHAMBERS
 
 Today, Jim Landale, the ICTY Spokesman, made the following announcements:
 
 Hopefully youwill have all received the copies of the press release that we sent out yesterday
 on the order by Trial Chamber I for the appearance of a number of witnesses
 in the Blaskic case before closing arguments (press
 release 393). Copies of that press release are available for those who want
 them.
 
 Also as a reminder,the Kordic and Cerkez trial will begin next Monday, 12 April in Courtroom III.
 We have copies of the Prosecution pre-trial brief in that case and also in the
 Simic and Others case available for you after this.
 
 Finally, on Monday5 April, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, received
 the American Bar Associations Leadership Award at the Supreme Court in
 Washington. We have copies of the speech President McDonald gave at the event
 for those interested.
 
   
 QUESTIONS:
   
   Asked if therewould be any legal obstacles if indictments had been issued against the people
 called to appear as witnesses, Mr Blewitt, Deputy Prosecutor, referred to
 the Tadic case. A number of defence witnesses had been afraid of being arrested
 and had therefore testified by video link or had been given safe passage by
 order of the Trial Chamber. He added that this indicated that no one had immunity
 and that if a person came to the Tribunal and was the subject of an indictment,
 he could possibly be arrested.
   Asked whetherthe Tribunal had received any response to the order to appear as witnesses,
 Landale answered that he was not aware of any response or problems having
 been raised as a result of this order.
   Asked if thiswas the first time that witnesses were ordered to appear, Landale answered
 that this had also occurred in the Kupreskic case, but that then the witnesses
 were kept confidential.
   Asked whatthe legal consequence would be if a witness did not comply with the order
 to appear, Landale answered that he was not aware of any problems and that
 in the past, General Morillon had indicated his willingness to appear before
 the Tribunal as a witness, if asked.
   Asked whatthe investigators were doing to investigate war crimes committed in Kosovo,
 Blewitt replied that he could not go beyond what the Prosecutor had said last
 week that there were people dispatched to the region to work with others in
 the field in order to gather evidence and documents. Blewitt said that they
 were working to identify key witnesses among refugees who had seen atrocities
 being committed in Kosovo. He added that separate requests had been made to
 the United States, Great Britain, NATO and other organisations in order to
 receive evidence but said that more could be done.
   Asked how manypeople were in the field, Blewitt answered that the Prosecutor had said that
 she did not want to divulge the presence in the field, but he did say that
 people from other teams were being put on the Kosovo team in order to provide
 assistance.
   Asked whattype of crimes were being committed, Blewitt answered that there had been
 reports of mass executions, summary executions, allegations of systematic
 rape, looting, theft of personal property, destruction of villages, identity
 papers taken to prevent return and deportations. He added that all of this
 together amounts to persecution as a crime against humanity and that all of
 these alleged crimes fell within the Tribunals jurisdiction, but that
 the material needed to be analysed before it could be established as being
 evidence.
   Asked if therewas any political suggestion to pressure the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP)
 into issuing and indictment against Milosevic or against any other high political
 official in Yugoslavia, Blewitt answered that there had been no pressure,
 but that discussions were ongoing with countries involved in the NATO exercise
 about the possibilities. He added that an indictment was evidence driven and
 that if the evidence was there that was going to support a charge, the OTP
 would not hesitate to bring an indictment and they would have no regard to
 the position of political leaders.
   Asked if therehad been a reaction to the announcement of Arkan being indicted, Blewitt replied
 that the FRY embassy had ceased to have any dealings with the OTP and that
 for two weeks now, they had refused to accept any documents. He added that
 the OTP had contact with Mr. Raznjatovics lawyer who had indicated that
 he was going to file an affadavit with the Registry.
   Asked if makingArkans indictment public had the intended result, Blewitt answered that
 this was impossible to answer and that only time would tell.
   Asked whatit meant for arrest warrants (in relation to Arkan) if the FRY Embassy had
 ceased dealings with the ICTY, Blewitt answered that the arrest warrant had
 been forwarded to Mr Raznjatovics lawyer who had acknowledged the existence
 of the warrant.
   Asked whathad prompted the FRY Embassys refusal, Blewitt answered that he assumed
 it had been the NATO airstrikes, but that there had been no official comment
 from the Embassy. He added that the OTP had been told about the refusal to
 receive documents from the ICTY over the phone.
   Asked how thecontact with Arkans lawyer had occurred, Blewitt answered that the lawyer
 had contacted the OTP last Thursday.
   Asked if NATOas a source of evidence as well as monitors in the field was different compared
 to the past, Blewitt answered that it was a variation of the theme and that,
 for example, UNPROFOR had provided evidence as well. Regarding evidence being
 provided by NATO, Blewitt added that it would be wrong to say the OTP had
 not received any evidence, but that it had not received what it expected,
 having heard those public statements coming from the United States, the United
 Kingdom and NATO.
   Asked if therewas a possibility of holding people criminally responsible for unfounded propaganda,
 Blewitt answered that in itself this was not possible, but that you had to
 look at the purpose behind the propaganda. An example of this was seen in
 Rwanda. He added that if propaganda was used for example to incite genocide,
 that could constitute a criminal offence.
 ***** 
 |