BINDING ORDER IN BLASKIC CASE HAS TO BE PRECISE - CROATIA

( Editorial: --> 8755 ) THE HAGUE, April 22 (Hina) - Croatia has asked the office of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Prosecutor to specify the requests contained in the binding order on handing over documents, which was sent to Croatia at the beginning of February. ICTY judges Claude Jorda, Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad and Mohamed Shahabuddeen on Wednesday heard arguments presented by the Republic of Croatia as well as those by the prosecution and defence concerning the binding order, which was issued by the Trial Chamber at the request of the Prosecutor's office in the Tihomir Blaskic case. On January 30 Judge Jorda signed a binding order for Croatia, to which Croatia appealed on February 13. The ICTY Appeals Chamber on February 26 decided for the Trial Chamber to hear the verbal arguments of Croatia's representatives, as well as those by the defence and prosecution. At today's hearing, Croatia was represented by its legal advisers on the issue of binding order, David Rivkin and Lee Casey. Attending the hearing were also Croatian Ambassador to the Netherlands Jaksa Muljacic and Croatian Embassy advisor Orsad Miljanic. Rivkin said the prosecution did not know what it concretely wanted and that the requests concerned a period much longer than the one in the indictment against General Blaskic. The binding order also included the territory of the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the indictment referred only to central Bosnia. Rivkin said the prosecution had to specify its requests so that the search for the requested documents could be easier. The binding order had to contain an explanation of why a certain document was relevant for the trial, Rivkin said asking that Croatia be given enough time to fulfil the requests. When it gets a precise list of documents, Croatia will try to find and deliver them as soon as possible, but before it does that it has to check whether some of the requests refer to the question of national security, Rivkin said. He remarked that the binding order was only a cosmetic change of the subpoena, which the ICTY rejected in September last year. The binding order, just like the subpoena, demands evidence of the location and structure of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) in the period between November 1992 until mid-1993. The binding order is even broader than the subpoena because it requests Croatia's Defence and Interior Ministries to give documents on Croatian Army (HV) military police, evidence of the wounding or death of HV military police officers or intelligence agents in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1991 to 1994, Rivkin said. Prosecutor Mark Harmon remarked that the relevance of the requests should be determined by the Trial Chamber and not Croatia. He explained that the requests were relevant for establishing the existence of an international conflict. In the 15 months since it was requested to hand over these documents, Croatia has sent very little materials, Harmon said. Many requests are precise, for instance those concerning the salaries of four individuals working for the HV, names of persons who were prosecuted for crimes in Ahmici and the Lasva River valley in April 1993, the delivery of weapons to the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna between May 1992 and January 1994, and a report on the death of an HV soldier in Mostar, which was subject to court proceedings etc, Harmon said. We want documents similar to those in the subpoena because they have not been delivered. We don't want to stall the trial but we have to have a complete picture, Harmon said. The Trial Chamber also heard the Prosecutor's evidence on the relevance of requests. A conclusion on the binding order for Croatia is pending. (hina) rm /mb 222015 MET apr 98