-- By Tiphaine Dickson, Attorney The Hague, December 14th, 2003

“...the Accused has, as noted above, previously either directly contacted the media or has used his privilege to communicate with others who have in turn provided messages through the media in contradiction of the Rules of Detention, which have resulted in a widespread media attention and coverage of the fact that an indictee for genocide, crimes against humanity and war-crimes such as the Accused is facilitating, with ease, the ongoing Serbian parliamentary elections campaign”

This unsubstantiated allegation is designed to suggest that Slobodan Milosevic is guilty of the crimes he is “alleged” to have committed, and therefore should not have the right to “facilitate”­one does not easily grasp the meaning of the expression-- the Serbian electoral campaign. The ICTY may very well disapprove of the fact that Slobodan Milosevic is participating in the democratic process of his country­as is his right, as a Serbian citizen, President of the Socialist Party, and former President of his country­three times elected by his people. However, an institution that proclaims to carry out a judicial function, under international law, no less, must act according to the law. The gag order imposed on President Milosevic is contrary to legal principle and international human rights instruments. Its political justification raises concerns that the ICTY does not possess the independence required to be a court of law.

Equality of Arms

The Registrar's decision violates the basic principle of equality of arms. “Equality of arms” is an international legal concept equivalent to “due process”, and a fundamental fair trial guarantee.

At the ICTY, the Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registry facilitates, finances and otherwise supports joint press briefings of the ICTY's Spokesman for Registry and Chambers with Office of the Prosecutor's spokeswoman. Summaries of these press conferences are made available on the ICTY's website at http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm <http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm> .

Article 21 of the ICTY Statute sets out the minimum rights of accused persons. These rights encompass the principle of the equality of arms.

The principle of equality of arms, in the context of a trial, is to be interpreted as meaning that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis ± vis the opposing party.

The Registrar's ban puts President Milosevic at "a substantial disadvantage vis-±-vis the opposing party" as, simply put, the "opposing party" maintains a channel of communication with the media, which it uses to present its case, and does so with the assistance and support of the Registry.

Equality of arms is violated when the Registrar simultaneously bans visits to an accused, based on the prohibition on contact with the media, while facilitating joint press briefings of the Tribunal and Prosecutor's spokespeople. The imbalance is striking.

That the Registrar would seek to impair the Socialist Party of Serbia’s electoral campaign and would punish Slobodan Milosevic by depriving him of visits and telephone communications immediately before the testimony of a US Presidential candidate-- whose public relations contacts have been provided to the press by the same Registrar­is so outrageously foreign to judicial practice that it reveals the ICTY’s inability to perform a judicial function in accordance to international legal standards.

The Registrar's decision violates freedom of expression and interferes with the Serbian democratic process

Some security considerations can legitimately justify the non-disclosure of certain information to the media by visitors such as the details of floor plans of Detention Unit, for instance. Security considerations are a pattern throughout legislation governing visits to detention units under international and domestic law.

In contrast, the Registrar's decision constitutes a blanket prohibition of contact with the media. No security considerations have been asserted in support of the ban, which is tantamount to a gag order.

The ICTY is held to apply and respect the provisions of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

The accused is presumed innocent by Article 21 of the ICTY Statute until proof has established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused preserves his freedom of expression.

Visitors to the accused also enjoy the right to freedom of expression, a fundamental right set out in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has recognized the public's right to receive information from the press as a component of freedom of expression. On interlocutory appeal in Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision to issue a subpoena to journalist Jonathan Randall. The Appeals Chamber held:

As has been noted, the right to freedom of expression includes not merely the right of journalists and media organizations freely to communicate information. It also incorporates a right of members of the public to receive information. As the European Court of Human Rights put it in its decision in Fresso and Roire v. France: “Not only does the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest: the public also has a right to receive them.”

Brdjanin described the vital role of war correspondents in the work of the Tribunal, and concluded:

The Appeals Chamber will not unnecessarily hamper the work of professions that perform a public interest.

The British House of Lords, in Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Simms (A.P.) Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte O'Brien overturned the British Home Secretary's ban on verbal interviews between convicted prisoners serving sentences and the media.

The O'Brien case establishes that convicted prisoners have the right to conduct interviews with the media and discuss the unfairness of their trials. Lord Steyn stated:

The prisoners are in prison because they are presumed to have been properly convicted. They wish to challenge the safety of their convictions. In principle it is not easy to conceive of a more important function which free speech might fulfil.

O'Brien acknowledged the reality of miscarriages of justice, and the crucial role of the media in exposing them.

President Slobodan Milosevic asserts his innocence, and steadfastly refuses to recognize the ICTY as a court. He is innocent, until proven otherwise, and has every right to deny the legitimacy of this institution. By banning contact with the media, the Registrar has violated the rights of Mr. Milosevic, of his visitors, and of the public at large. Serbian democracy is also the target of this measure. The Socialist Party of Serbia has legally elected Slobodan Milosevic as President of the party and can, in full conformity with Serbian law, present him as a candidate. The ICTY has inexplicably decided to obstruct the Socialist party, and has demonstrated its political­not judicial­preoccupations. This measure has been carried out in the name of the Tribunal’s mandate to “restore peace in the former Yugoslavia”. The measure is unconscionable, and the consequences for Serbia­and for the future of international law­are catastrophic.

The ICTY may not enjoy President Milosevic's criticism. Nonetheless, the public benefits of permitting him to communicate with the media far outweigh whatever embarrassment might be visited upon the ICTY. As Lord Steyn stated it:

Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Mr. Justice Holmes (echoing John Stuart Mill), "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.": Abraham v. United States 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919), per Holmes J. (dissent). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country: see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnett, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed., (1996), 1078-1086

The House of Lords contemplated the right of convicted criminals to conduct interviews with the media. Neither Mr. Milosevic nor his visitors have been convicted of any crimes, yet the Registrar's decision strips them of rights enjoyed by convicted persons in the United Kingdom.

Freedom of expression before the ICTY

In the matter of Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber recognized freedom of expression as a fundamental right which could be restricted only for the protection of a public interest.

The Registrar justifies the gag order by suggesting that the press coverage of President Milosevic’s participation in the Serbian election campaign would frustrate the ICTY’s mandate:

CONSIDERING that the facilities provided by the Detention Unit are intended for the well- being of the Accused and not for purposes that frustrate the Tribunal’s function to assist in establishing peace and security in the former Yugoslavia and that the fact that a detainee at the Detention Unit has communicated with the aid of facilities provided by the Detention Unit to participate in an ongoing Serbian parliamentary elections campaign is such an occasion that is likely to frustrate the Tribunal’s mandate;

The public can be forgiven for assuming that a tribunal’s function is to render justice and hold fair trials, not to “assist in establishing peace and security”. And even if it were not entirely inappropriate and frankly dangerous for a judicial institution to carry out the function of a gendarme, one still cannot follow the Registrar’s reasoning. How is it that Slobodan Milosevic’s participation in the Serbian elections­or rather the fact that his participation may produce “deleterious coverage” by the media­“is likely to frustrate the Tribunal’s mandate”?

The gag order obviously violates Mr. Milosevic’s rights, the rights of his party, and the rights of the people of Serbia. But the rights of the media and general public are being violated as well.

Transparency is required of any judicial institution. The law is further perverted and debased when employed to obstruct the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation-- in particular when the justification for such an intervention is based on the promotion of “peace and security”.

The gag order violates the fundamental, universally recognized principle of presumption of innocence

Only a blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence can justify the violation of President Milosevic's fundamental right to freedom of expression, in addition to the violation of the rights of his potential visitors.

In effect, a ban on visits and telephone conversations following alleged communication with the media for political purposes supposes that President Milosevic is guilty and that his visitors are guilty by association. The ban assumes that Mr. Milosevic will tell his visitors bad things­political things-- which in turn will be reported in the media.

The ban also appears to prevent information favorable to Mr. Milosevic from being published in the media, which could only be justified if his guilt were assumed.

In any event, the Registrar's decision suggests that the public cannot be trusted with any information that could be received in the course of a visit with Mr. Milosevic.

The Registrar's decision violates Rule 5 of the Rules of Detention, which states:

All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be treated as such at all times.

The gag order is tantamount to ordering the isolation of President Milosevic

The governing principle with respect to detention has been set out above: All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be treated as such at all times.

This principle is at the heart of the rule providing for detainees right to visitors of their choice, subject to security considerations. This general rule is consistent with UN protocols on detention.

Amnesty International provides the following justification for the principle of free access to visitors:

The rights of detainees to communicate with others and to receive visits are fundamental safeguards against human rights abuses such as torture, ill-treatment and "disappearances".

Detained and imprisoned people must be allowed to communicate with the outside world, subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions.

Mr. Milosevic has been deprived of visits from his wife and immediate family since March 2003. In August, the Registrar banned visits from members of the Serbian Socialist Party and "associated entities". The present order constitues a wide ranging ban on all visits, with very limited exceptions: legal counsel, and consular representation.

The Registrar's decision is tantamount to imposing isolation on Mr. Milosevic. It is unwarranted, arbitrary and capricious. Its effect­the violation of a candidate’s right to political expression­which candidate was legally named by a legitimate political party­in the context of democratic elections­is a blow to the idea of international justice, as envisaged by the framers of the UN Charter, for whom the sovereignty of states, the right of peoples to self-determination, and the refusal to carry out international relations by the use of force or the threat of force were to be valued above all else. That those ideals be perverted in the name of justice itself can only emperil international law.

------------------------------------------------------------------

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

Sofia - New York - Moscow - Belgrade, 12 December 2003

URGENT!

ICTY/US/NATO Criminal Attack on Truth, Freedom, Judiciary, Human Rights and Free Democratic Will of the Serbian People

President Milosevic Cut from All Contacts with the Outside World; War Criminal Wesley Clark to Testify in Secrecy; Total US Takeover of ICTY; According to the Polls, the Opposition Will Win the Serbian Elections; Demonstrations at The Hague and ICDSM Press Conferences in The Hague and New York

PROTEST IMMEDIATELY!

ADDRESS ICTY, UN, GOVERNMENTS!

Today, recently US-imposed “Deputy Registrar” of ICTY David Tolbert, who effectively runs the Registry in presence of alive Hans Holthuis (The Netherlands), the Registrar, have made an illegal decision to ban all phone contacts and visits of President Milosevic with any person, except “his immediate family” and “recognized legal representatives (if any)”. A similar decision was made today in the case of Dr Vojislav Seselj. Alleged reason: Serbian elections!

http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/031211.htm <http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/031211.htm>

Sloboda has already challenged illegal grounds for such restrictions in its letter to Tolbert’s imminent boss, also recently appointed ICTY President Theodor Meron (USA). In spite he was obliged, Meron never responded to the Sloboda motion.

http://www.sloboda.org.yu/engleski/request.html

This is happening when polls and media reports show clear advantage of the opposition forces in the pre-election campaign in Serbia. Major event of this campaign was, of course, the fact that the left-patriotic ticket of the Socialist Party of Serbia is led by President Milosevic. His address to the Head Committee of SPS produced and is still producing a major impact on the people. So the reaction of the ICTY, the major weapon of the occupation of Serbia is an expected expression of fear.

http://www.sloboda.org.yu/engleski/SMelections.htm

Anyhow, this illegal and outrageous sign of desperation of war criminals’ puppets at The Hague, must not be tolerated!

This is happening just two days before “the testimony” of the convicted (by the Belgrade District Court) war criminal general Wesley Clark. The conditions (full secrecy and possibility that US government redacts the transcript!) for his testimony imposed by US Government is a completely open admission that ICTY has no independence and that it is run neither by its “judges” nor by the UN Security Council, but by the US Government.

http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/p802-e.htm

http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/PA149-e.htm

(note that the ICTY is putting President Milosevic into total isolation, advertising (!) at the same time, phone number of the General Clark’s PR representative! The number is: + 44 7974 982591)

What do they have to hide? The dirtiest part of the contemporary American history ­ the role of Clinton/Albright/Clark clique in building Al Qaeda, KLA and World terrorism; worst, cruelest and merciless war crimes in Yugoslavia.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html

Wesley Clark has to start his two-days “testimony” on Monday, 15 December 2003 at 9 a.m. in the ICTY at The Hague.

Since 8 a.m. a demonstrations will be held in front of the Tribunal.

Same morning, at 9 a.m. an ICDSM press conference will take part in the nearby Bel Air hotel. ICDSM attorney, Ms. Tiphaine Dickson (Quebec/Canada) will appear. Read a call for these events below.

A press conference is also expected to take place on 16 December in New York or Washington.

Let us not allow that ideals of the Peoples of the World, which founded UN organization be insulted by war criminals who use ICTY as a cover!

React immediately and address your appeals to ICTY, UN, your governments and the public!

Take part in the planed protest actions and organize your own!

Vladimir Krsljanin,

on behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address of the Tribunal:

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Churchillplein 1
2517JW The Hague
Netherlands

Fax: +31 70 512 8637

The other useful contacts one can find at:

http://www.icdsm.org/addresses.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices

1. ICTY: Decision to ban all phone contacts and visits to President Milosevic

2. ICTY: Press Release on phone contacts and visits ban

3. ICTY: Press Release on conditions of Wesley Clark’s testimony

4. ICTY: Press Advisory on Wesley Clark’s testimony

5. ICDSM: Demonstrations and the Press Conference at The Hague

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ICTY: Decision to ban all phone contacts and visits to President Milosevic

Case No. IT-02-54

Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic

DECISION

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,

CONSIDERING Resolution 827 of 25 May 1993 ("Resolution 827"), the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations decided to " […] establish an international tribunal for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia […]" to "[…] contribute to the restoration of peace and to this end to adopt the Statute of the International Tribunal" ("Tribunal");

CONSIDERING the Statute of the Tribunal adopted by the aforesaid Security Council Resolution on 25 May 1993, as subsequently amended;

CONSIDERING the "Rules Governing the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal before the Tribunal or otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal" ("Rules of Detention") as adopted by the Tribunal on 5 May 1994, as subsequently amended;

CONSIDERING Rule 2 of the Rules of Detention which provides that the United Nations "shall retain the ultimate responsibility and liability for all aspects of detention pursuant to these Rules of Detention" and that all detainees shall be "subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Tribunal at all times that they are so detained, even though physically absent from the detention unit, until final release or transfer to another institution";

CONSIDERING that whilst the Rules of Detention ensure the continued application and protection of individual rights of persons in detention, the application of its provisions relating to communication and visits also require that the interests of the administration of justice and the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute be considered;

CONSIDERING THEREFORE that the Rules of Detention envisage that a balanced weighing of a detainee’s individual rights with that of the institutional duties and obligations of the Tribunal may be called for in certain situations where conflicting interests become apparent;

RECALLING that by Resolution 827, the Security Council expressed "its grave alarm of continuing reports of widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia and especially in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including reports of mass killings, massive, organized, and systematic detention and rape of women, and the continuance of the practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’, including for the acquisition and holding of territory" and determined "to put and end to such crimes and to take effective measures to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for them";

RECALLING ALSO that by Resolution 827, the Security Council determined that the establishment of the Tribunal and the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia;

NOTING that Article 29 of the Statute of the Tribunal require States to "co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing violations of international humanitarian law";

NOTING that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic (the "Accused") is presently being tried at the Tribunal for acts allegedly committed while he held high political office in the former Yugoslavia;

NOTING that the Accused is a candidate in Serbian parliamentary elections scheduled to be held on 28 December 2003;

NOTING PARTICULARLY that the Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit ("Detention Unit") has received reports that the Accused has recently made statements to his political party and supporters, using communication facilities provided by the Detention Unit and with the intention of having these statements subsequently being reported in the media1 <http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/#1> ;

CONSIDERING that Rule 63(B) of the Rules of Detention provides that "[t]he Registrar may refuse to allow a person to visit a detainee if he has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported to the media" in accordance with the proper administration of justice and that it follows from this Rule and the principle on which it is founded, that communication between a detainee and others may be prohibited if there are reasons to believe that such communications would lead to a detainee’s statements appearing in the media, particularly if the effect of such statements is to undermine the Tribunal’s mandate to assist in the restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia;

CONSIDERING that the Accused has, as noted above, previously either directly contacted the media or has used his privilege to communicate with others who have in turn provided messages through the media in contradiction of the Rules of Detention, which have resulted in a widespread media attention and coverage of the fact that an indictee for genocide, crimes against humanity and war-crimes such as the Accused is facilitating, with ease, the ongoing Serbian parliamentary elections campaign;

CONSIDERING that the facilities provided by the Detention Unit are intended for the well- being of the Accused and not for purposes that frustrate the Tribunal’s function to assist in establishing peace and security in the former Yugoslavia and that the fact that a detainee at the Detention Unit has communicated with the aid of facilities provided by the Detention Unit to participate in an ongoing Serbian parliamentary elections campaign is such an occasion that is likely to frustrate the Tribunal’s mandate;

CONSIDERING that in balancing between the rights and entitlements to communication and visits of the Accused with that of the Tribunal to effectively perform its mandate and functions, the particular circumstances of the detainee necessitates the imposition of measures which are imperative for the avoidance of potentially deleterious media coverage resulting from unrestricted communication entitlements and visits for the time being;

DECIDES pursuant to Rules 60 and 63 of the Rules of Detention, for a period of thirty (30) days following this Decision, which decision shall then be reviewed, to:

(i) Prohibit communication, via telephone between the Accused with any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to telephone communication with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular representatives on condition that this facility shall not be used in any manner to contact the media;

(ii) All authorised telephone conversations, except for communications with recognised legal representatives (if any) and diplomatic or consular representatives, shall be monitored, in accordance with current Detention Unit practices;

(iii) Prohibit all visits between the Accused with any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to visits with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular representatives;

(iv) All authorised visits shall be supervised by the Commanding Officer of the Detention Unit or an official he designates.

(v) The aforesaid restrictions will not apply to written communications wherein the current practices shall be maintained and the Detention Unit’s regulations concerning the import and export of mail shall be adhered to.

David Tolbert
Deputy Registrar

Dated this eleventh day of December 2003
At The Hague
The Netherlands

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Commanding Officer of the Detention Unit confirmed that a speech made by Mr. Slobodan Milo evi from his cell at the Detention Unit was broadcast on 3 Dec 2003 and subsequently reported in the newspapers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ICTY: Press Release on phone contacts and visits ban

Press Release . Communiqu de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)

REGISTRY

GREFFE

The Hague, 12 December 2003
JL/P.I.S./810e

REGISTRY IMPOSES COMMUNICATION RESTRICTIONS ON DETAINEES WITH REGARD TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING IN THE MEDIA FROM THE TRIBUNAL’S DETENTION UNIT

On 11 December 2003, the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal, David Tolbert, issued two Decisions concerning the rights of detainees in the Tribunal’s Detention Unit to use communications privileges for the purpose of political campaigning in the media. The Decisions were specifically taken with a view to two Accused, Slobodan Milosevic and Vojislav Seselj. Both Accused were notified today, 12 December 2003.

Before issuing the Decisions, the Deputy Registrar took into account, among other things, the following:

Rule 2 of the Rules of Detention, which provides that the United Nations "shall retain the ultimate responsibility and liability for all aspects of detention";

that the Accused are candidates in the Serbian parliamentary elections scheduled to be held on 28 December 2003;

that the Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit has received reports that the Accused had recently made statements to their political parties and supporters, using communication facilities provided by the Detention Unit and with the intention of having these statements subsequently being reported in the media;

that Rule 63(B) of the Rules of Detention provides that "[t]he Registrar may refuse to allow a person to visit a detainee if he has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported to the media" in accordance with the proper administration of justice and that it follows from this Rule and the principle on which it is founded, that communication between a detainee and others may be prohibited if there are reasons to believe that such communications would lead to a detainee’s statements appearing in the media, particularly if the effect of such statements is to undermine the Tribunal’s mandate to assist in the restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia;

that the facilities provided by the Detention Unit are intended for the well-being of the Accused and not for purposes that frustrate the Tribunal’s function to assist in establishing peace and security in the former Yugoslavia and that the fact that a detainee at the Detention Unit has communicated with the aid of facilities provided by the Detention Unit to participate in an ongoing Serbian parliamentary election campaign is such an occasion that is likely to frustrate the Tribunal’s mandate;

The Deputy Registrar decided, pursuant to Rules 60 and 63 of the Rules of Detention, for a period of 30 days following the Decisions, to:

"Prohibit communication, via telephone between the Accused with any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to telephone communication with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular representatives on condition that this facility shall not be used in any manner to contact the media;
All authorised telephone conversations, except for communications with recognised legal representatives (if any) and diplomatic or consular representatives, shall be monitored;
Prohibit all visits between the Accused with any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to visits with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular representatives;
All authorised visits shall be supervised at the discretion of the Commanding Officer of the Detention Unit or an official he designates."

*****

See full texts of the Decisions by the Deputy Registrar (Milosevic Case <http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/031211.htm> / Seselj Case <http://www.un.org/icty/seselj/trialc/decision-e/031211.htm> )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. ICTY: Press Release on conditions of Wesley Clark’s testimony

Press Release . Communiqu de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)

TRIAL CHAMBER
CHAMBRE DE 1 RE INSTANCE

The Hague, 19 November 2003
JL/P.I.S./802-e

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK TO TESTIFY IN THE MILOSEVIC TRIAL ON 15 AND 16 DECEMBER 2003

NO PUBLIC ACCESS ON THOSE DATES

RECORDING OF TESTIMONY TO BE MADE PUBLIC AFTER 48 HOURS

On 17 November 2003, Trial Chamber III issued an Order for General Wesley Clark to testify in the Milosevic trial on 15 December 2003 and to be available to complete his testimony the following day.

The Trial Chamber also made public an earlier confidential Decision, dated 30 October 2003, setting out the conditions under which General Clark is to give his testimony. In this Decision, the Trial Chamber granted the addition of General Clark to the Prosecution’s witness list, as well as extensive protective measures imposed by the Government of the United States of America (US Government) under Rule 70 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE).

Background:

The US Government has agreed to allow General Clark to testify in the Milosevic trial pursuant to Rule 70 of the RPE and as such, it is entitled to seek certain protective measures with respect to his testimony. These protective measures were requested through the Office of the Prosecutor.

The Trial Chamber is bound by an Appeals Chamber Decision (Prosecutor v. Milosevic, "Decision on the Interpretation and Application of Rule 70" of 23 October, 2002) which grants the information provider (US Government) a right to impose certain conditions upon the testimony of a witness provided by it under Rule 70 of the RPE.

The protective measures requested by the US Government are sought to protect its national interests and the Trial Chamber has granted these protective measures on this basis.

On 30 October 2003 The Trial Chamber ordered as follows:

1. "General Wesley Clark ("the witness") may be added to the Prosecution witness list;

the witness’s testimony shall be treated as information provided pursuant to and protected by Rule 70 (C) and (D);
two representatives of the US Government may be present in court during the testimony of the witness;
the evidence of the witness shall be given in open session subject to the protective measures set out below;
the evidence contained in paragraphs 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67 and 85 of the summary attached to the Motion as ex parte Annex A may be given in private session in order to protect the national interests of the US and request may be made for additional evidence to be so given on the same ground;
the public gallery be closed during the course of the witness’s testimony;
the broadcast of the testimony be delayed for a period of 48 hours to enable the US Government to review the transcript and make representations as to whether evidence given in open session should be redacted in order to protect the national interests of the US, and shall be delayed for a period thereafter to enable the Trial Chamber to consider and determine any redactions requested, and, if ordered, for the redactions to be made to the tape of the testimony prior to its release;
the scope of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witness be limited to the content of the summary attached to the Motion as ex parte Annex A;
The Accused or Amici Curiae may seek to have the scope of examination expanded by prior agreement of the US Government (obtained directly from that Government or through the representation of the Office of the Prosecutor), once the summary of the evidence-in-chief to be given is disclosed to them; and
The Prosecution shall disclose the summary contained in ex parte Annex A forthwith".

An advisory alerting journalists to the media arrangements that will be in place for them to view recordings of General Clark’s testimony after 16 December 2003 will be issued in due course.

*****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. ICTY: Press Advisory on Wesley Clark’s testimony

Press Advisory . Avis pour information
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)

The Hague, 11 December 2003
CVO/P.I.S./PA149

MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TESTIMONY OF GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

No Public Access to Milosevic Trial on 15 and 16 December During Testimony of General Wesley Clark

Please be reminded that following an Order from Trial Chamber III issued on 17 November 2003 (see Press Release 802e) there will be no public access to Courtroom I in the Milosevic trial on 15 and 16 December 2003 for the testimony of General Wesley Clark. The broadcast of the testimony of General Clark will be delayed and shown on Friday 19 December 2003 starting at 9.00 a.m.

However as other proceedings will be ongoing the following rules will apply:

Cameras or photographers will not be allowed into the Tribunal building;
All interviews on camera are to be conducted outside of the Tribunal building;
Media without cameras will be given access to the lobby of the Tribunal where they can make use of the media rooms.

The usual security procedures will apply:

All individuals entering the building are subject to security checks of their person and belongings. No one will be permitted access to the building without complying fully with the requirements of the Tribunal's security officers. All members of the press have to present their press card and photographic identification.

Public Broadcast of the Testimony of General Clark on Friday 19 December 2003

Please be advised that on Friday 19 December 2003 at 9 a.m. the testimony given by General Wesley Clark on 15 and 16 December 2003 will be publicly broadcast. Please note that the testimony will be broadcast with the normal courtroom breaks (after every 1 hours there will be a 10 minute break).

Media coming to the Tribunal can view the broadcast from inside the ICTY building:

On the screens in the public gallery of Courtroom I (in English, French and BCS available through headphones).
On the large screen in the press briefing room of the Tribunal (in English language only).

Media wishing to record the proceedings from inside the ICTY building can do this by:

Contacting the Press Office of the Tribunal
Linking up to the feeds in either the audio room (XLR balanced cables needed) or the video feed room (composite video feed). There are 12 feeds available, this may necessitate media assisting each other and "piggybacking".

Outside the ICTY building:

Uplink vans can connect to the break-out box outside of the building. Please note that there are five feeds currently available. An additional break-out box will be added if weather conditions permit adding an extra 10 feeds.

Media unable to come to the Tribunal will be able to:

Log on to the ICTY website at: www.un.org/icty <http://www.un.org/icty> to view the testimony. On the homepage go to Courtroom I, Real Player and click on the language you require.
Contacting the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), who will be broadcasting the testimony directly to its members and on request.

E.B.U. Eurovision:
Contact: Piotr Azia
Tel: +41.22.717.28.46 or 50
E-mail: azia@eurovision.net <mailto:azia@eurovision.net>
Radio representatives can contact E.B.U. Radio News for assistance.

Transcripts of General Clark’s testimony will also be made available on ICTY website.

Contact Details for General Clark’s Public Relations Staff

Media wishing to contact General Clark’s public relations staff over the 15 and 16 December 2003 can reach them on the following number: + 44 7974 982591.

For further information please do not hesitate to call the Press Office:

+31 (70) 512-5343 or 512-5356

*****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. ICDSM: Demonstrations and the Press Conference at The Hague

Yugoslavia Tribunal under complete control of the U.S.
War criminal Gen. Wesley Clark as prosecution witness!
Emergency Call for Protest!!!!!!

On Dec. 15 Wesley Clark will appear before the tribunal in The Hague
(ICTY) as a prosecution witness in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic!

For his role inside NATO, which under his command beginning on March 24,
1999, waged a 78-day bombing campaign, the current U.S. presidential
candidate was once tried and convicted in Belgrade for war crimes.

Now he presents himself as a "witness for the prosecution," which
appears quite striking when one considers how and to what extent the USA
dominates the tribunal. They finally carried it out!

More clearly than ever before now the direct influence of the U.S.
regime comes to the surface. It is the U.S. that literally dictated to
the tribunal the terms under which Wesley Clark will testify. Following
the direct conditions from Washington no public and no media will be
allowed inside. The only people who will observe the proceedings will be
two representatives of the U.S. government. And not only this: the U.S.
government has the authority to decide which parts of the testimony will
remain secret. The other parts will be presented to the U.S. government,
which will then have a time period of 48 hours to censor also this
part!!!

There are thus many reasons to protest before The Hague Tribunal on Dec.
15:

Protest! Protest against the dictatorship of imperialism! Protest against
the attack on international law! Protest against the attempt to punish
the Yugoslav people for resistance against neo-colonialism! Protest
against the appearance of Wesley Clark ­ the butcher of children and main executor of the criminal destruction of Serbia and Yugoslavia!

As the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 15 at 9 a.m., the New Communist
Party of the Netherlands in cooperation with the Dutch ICDSM and representatives of Serbian diaspora has organized a demonstration from 8 a.m. in front of
the tribunal building. Join the demonstration!

At the end there will be at 9 a.m. a press conference of the
International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Molosevic (ICDSM) in
the Hotel Bel Air next to the tribunal. The Canadian lawyer for ICDSM, Ms. Tiphaine
Dickson, will give a press statement and answer the media's questions.

All media representatives are welcome to hear the truth!

www.icdsm.org <http://www.icdsm.org>
www.sloboda.org.yu <http://www.sloboda.org.yu>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)

Home