THE HAGUE/ZAGREB, June 3 (Hina) - A new discussion was held at the Hague-based U.N. war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Tuesday about the prosecution's request to access Serbian and Montenegrin archives and the
handover of documents. The discussion was marked by an exchange of strong accusations by both the prosecution and representatives from Belgrade.
THE HAGUE/ZAGREB, June 3 (Hina) - A new discussion was held at the
Hague-based U.N. war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) on Tuesday about the prosecution's request to access Serbian
and Montenegrin archives and the handover of documents. The
discussion was marked by an exchange of strong accusations by both
the prosecution and representatives from Belgrade. #L#
A representative of the prosecution, Geoffrey Nice, accused the
Serbia and Montenegro government of being uncooperative and
obstructive, recalling that at the first discussion on March 10, a
panel of judges of the ICTY gave Serbia and Montenegro two months to
reply to a priority list of 100 documents important for the trial of
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
Among the documents, requested by the prosecution, are minutes from
sessions of the Supreme Defence Council (VSO), materials of the
Joint Chiefs-of-Staff and of the Council for Harmonising State
Policy, minutes from Yugoslav government sessions and documents
from Vukovar hospital, Nice said.
According to him, not one document of the requested 100 had been
submitted. Rather, the ICTY got some 15 documents from the interior
ministry, he said.
ICTY investigators were last weekend granted insight into 300 pages
of minutes from VSO sessions, but not into transcripts of 70 VSO
sessions held between 1991 and 2000, which Nice said were of
enormous importance for proving Milosevic's influence on the VSO
and the further course of his trial.
A representative of the Serbia and Montenegro government, Vladimir
Djeric, categorically dismissed accusations of lack of cooperation
as incorrect. He said the prosecution was using an unacceptable
tone of voice and inflammatory words in the absence of legal
arguments.
Saying that on March 10 Serbia and Montenegro gave the prosecution
documents on the basis of seven requests, Djeric assessed
cooperation was being conducted and was developing and the other
requests were being processed.
Nice voiced fear and concern because of answers and protests from
Belgrade to the prosecution's requests. He cited an example from
late 2002 when Yugoslavia tried to negate the existence of the Joint
Chiefs-of-Staff and claimed to be unable to find the requested
financial documentation. He urged the trial chamber to issue a
subpoena for the submission of documents and search of archives.
Djeric said Serbia and Montenegro was using its rights in line with
the ICTY Statute and Regulations and added the government and ICTY
prosecution were in dispute over some legal issues.
It is up to the tribunal, not the prosecution, to interpret the
Statute and Regulations in an authoritative manner, Djeric said. He
called on the trial chamber to make its final ruling because, he
said, the prosecution's accusations were dramatically damaging
Serbia and Montenegro's international position.
He completely dismissed the request for looking over his country's
archives, stressing that according to the ICTY Statute and
Regulations, the prosecution had no right to go over archives.
Djeric said the prosecution was constantly changing its legal
arguments for the requests to access the archives, pointing out
that quoted chapters of the Regulations did not provide a
foundation for searching the archives.
The ICTY has been carrying out its mandate for ten years without
ever searching archives, Djeric said, citing decisions from
Blaskic and Kordic cases which back the rejection of the
prosecution's request.
Djeric said that based on Article 18 of the Regulations, which
authorised the prosecution to conduct an on-scene investigation,
related to the scene of the crime, and since a crime had not been
committed in archives, such an authority did not exist.
Belgrade is, however, prepared to, together with the prosecution,
establish the modalities of limited access to archives.
Nice said Serbia and Montenegro was using the issue of archives as a
kind of diversion from the chief request, and added it was absurd
that archives could not be reached in the trial to one's head of
state.
The prosecution's representative brushed off Djeric's comment on
archives not being a scene of crime, saying a gun found at a crime
scene was no different from a command in the archives for the same
gun to be used.
The trial chamber will consider the arguments and issue its written
conclusion subsequently, judge Richard May said.
(hina) lml