The Office of the Prosecutor does not contest the fact that it let it be known that it would not object to “reasonable protective measures” for the documents it requested from Belgrade. The OTP notes that the “application for the protective measures whose sole justification would be shielding the applicant from the responsibility before other court cannot be considered reasonable and would not be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence”. Will the OTP seek the revocation of the protective measures for the documents originating from the Supreme Defense Council?


OTP spokesperson Olga Kavran confirmed at the press briefing today that “there was correspondence” with the Belgrade authorities regarding the delivery of documents relevant for the trial of Slobodan Milosevic and other cases before the Tribunal. According to her, “this procedure was not new and unusual, as the OTP has contacts with many governments to request legal assistance”.

Kavran confirmed that in one such “correspondences” the OTP had let Belgrade know it would not oppose the application for “reasonable protective measures” for some of the documents it requested. She added that “the position of the Office of the Prosecution has been that an application for protective measures whose sole justification would be shielding of the applicant from the responsibility before another court cannot be considered reasonable”. Such an application would be contrary to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Emphasizing the fact that only the judges have the power to grant protective measures, the OTP spokesperson today refused to confirm that the Trial Chamber hearing Slobodan Milosevic’s case granted the protective measures for the documents originating from the Supreme Defense Council. Those documents allegedly point to involvement of Serbia in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina. If this decision was delivered, it is “under seal”: it is confidential. The OTP “is actively considering all available options in these circumstances”.

The Office of the Prosecution may ask that the Trial Chamber’s decision granting protective measures be “unsealed”, provided that there is such a decision, and seek the revocation of the confidential status for the documents, if it was granted.

Sharing