YouSaid · the spoken record

Judge Meron

lines on the record: 419
first: 2003-10-08
most recent: 2018-12-11
sittings or episodes: 21
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“The Tribunal is engaged in a number of initiatives designed to expedite the process of preparing for eventual referral of cases from the ICTY to Croatia and to Serbia and Montenegro. For example, the Tribunal organized an extensive programme of six training seminars for Croatian judges and prosecutors who are likely to take part in the trial of war crimes cases. That programme, organized on the initiative of the Minister of Justice of Croatia, consisted of seminars conducted by the Tribunal's officials, held in the late spring and the summer of 2004 and repeated in the autumn.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“Substantial additional support is still required, however, as the Security Council recognized in calling for further financial support in paragraph 10 of resolution 1534 (2004). The States of the former Yugoslavia are in varying stages of readiness to accept transfers of cases from the Tribunal. A special chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina's State Court will soon be ready to accept transferred cases of lower and intermediate level officials. Officials from the Tribunal have provided substantial support to the Office of the High Representative with respect to creating the special chamber. The Bosnian authorities expect that the chamber will be operational by January 2005, and the Tribunal is prepared to begin transferring appropriate cases as soon as practicable.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“Using the 11 bis process to integrate Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro into the process of bringing offenders to justice will have benefits that go well beyond a reduction of the Tribunal's caseload and promotion of the completion strategy. Involving those national Governments in the process will bring reconciliation and justice to the region, as well as promote the development of a commitment to the rule of law. National courts can play this role, however, only if trials are not used for political purposes and if they meet international standards of due process and fair trial. To that end, other members of the international community have begun lending support to the fledgling Sarajevo tribunal.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“The Prosecutor has already begun to file motions for the transfer of cases to domestic jurisdictions under rule 11 bis. To date, she has filed six motions involving 10 accused, requesting that seven be transferred to the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, two to Croatia and one to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. A Trial Chamber has been tasked to review those requests for 11 bis transfer, and, when it ultimately deems some or all of those requests to be appropriate, the resulting transfers will be of real assistance in keeping the Tribunal on schedule for compliance with the completion strategy.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“Accordingly, the adoption of rule 11 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence gave Trial Chambers the power to refer an indictment to the authorities of a State in which the crime was committed, in which the accused was arrested or which has jurisdiction, and which is willing and adequately prepared to accept the case. In determining whether to refer an indictment, a Trial Chamber must consider the gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused, in accordance with the Security Council's intention that the Tribunal retain jurisdiction over the highest level defendants and the most serious crimes. Trial Chambers may not, of course, refer cases to jurisdictions in which the accused might not be accorded a fair trial or in which the death penalty is a possible consequence of the trial.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“While many factors are important in determining the Tribunal's ability to adhere to the schedule detailed in the completion strategy, several factors stand out as particularly important: the Tribunal's ability to refer cases to competent national jurisdictions for trial; improved cooperation with the Tribunal by States in the former Yugoslavia; and a continued focus of Tribunal resources on the most senior-level accused. First, I will address the issue of the Tribunal's ability to refer cases to competent national jurisdictions for trial. Transferring some of the docket out of The Hague has the potential to reduce the Tribunal's workload in a meaningful way.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“The Tribunal's three Trial Chambers continue to operate at full capacity, handling six cases simultaneously. Currently, four trials are being heard. Two other cases are currently in the judgement-writing stage, with the first due to be rendered before the end of December 2004, the second in January 2005. The Brdjanin Trial Chamber rendered its judgement on 1 September 2004. The Tribunal has thus completed, or is holding in the first instance, proceedings involving 60 accused in 24 trials and 15 separate guilty-plea proceedings.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“Judge Meron: It is a great honour to address this body in presenting the second report of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1534 (2004). I am particularly pleased, Sir, to speak here today under your presidency. It has now been slightly more than six months since I delivered to the Council, as specified by resolution 1534 (2004), assessments by me and by the Prosecutor of the Tribunal's progress towards the implementation of the completion strategy. Let me turn first to the docket statistics. Since its establishment the Tribunal has completed trials in 18 cases involving 36 accused. A further 17 accused have pleaded guilty, three of whom entered pleas mid-trial.”
2004-11-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5086 (2004) · source
“I urge the members of the Council to continue their support for the Tribunal and to ensure that the Tribunal is given the means necessary to fulfil its promise and its full potential. In return, the Tribunal will continue to take all available steps to carry out its work in a timely and effective manner so that persons alleged to have committed the most serious crimes known to humanity are called to account.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The completion strategy will not become a reality if Member States start to back away from the Tribunal. The Security Council's establishment of the Tribunal recognized the important contribution that the recognition of individual criminal responsibility plays in the preservation of peace and recognized the need for a mechanism for the trial and punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law. That initiative has borne fruit not just through the Tribunal's holding of fair and transparent war crimes trials in its own cases, but also through the legacy of procedural and substantive jurisprudence that is already providing guidance to the ICTR and to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and that will no doubt likewise guide the International Criminal Court and future national war crimes trials.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“It certainly appears that some in the former Yugoslavia think that, by hiding from arrest, they can wait out the Tribunal until it goes away. The completion strategy rests on the assumption that the Tribunal will continue to receive the financial and political support of Member States that is needed to carry out its work. It does not matter how productive or efficient the Tribunal becomes if it cannot recruit and retain staff, if judges sitting on lengthy trials must be replaced, or if many senior accused remain at large. No amount of structural reform or hard work on the part of the Tribunal will solve those problems. Rather, the international community must reaffirm its commitment to the Tribunal's work and to the elimination of impunity for violations of humanitarian law by removing those obstacles from the Tribunal's path.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“As I have stated to the Council before, the Tribunal's mission cannot be said to be complete until those three fugitives have been tried before the Tribunal. Mechanical pursuit of the completion strategy must not lead to impunity for those accused. I View the completion strategy as entirely compatible with the Security Council's aim in setting up the Tribunal in the first place: it is a practical manifestation of the international community's commitment to delivering justice credibly and effectively to the region, thereby contributing to reconciliation. I am concerned, however, that the completion strategy has led to the View that the Tribunal now has a fixed termination date and therefore no longer needs the support of the international community.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I also remind the Council that the mandate of all ad litem judges at the Tribunal will expire on 11 June 2005. Since ad litem judges cannot be re-elected under the present Statute, the Council will have to take some action to address the situation. I will discuss this matter further with the Secretary-General and the Security Council in the autumn. The final point that deserves mention in the category of measures yet to be taken in furtherance of the completion strategy is improved cooperation by Member States. The failure of the States of the former Yugoslavia to arrest and transfer Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina to the Tribunal is a major impediment to the successful completion of the Tribunal's mandate.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“On 17 June, I met with the Secretary-General and, at the unanimous request of the judges of the Tribunal, requested that he consider that the election be held in mid-November 2004 rather than in March 2005 as prior practice would indicate. The advantage of bringing the election forward to a date one year before the beginning of the new mandate is that it would enable the assignment of longer cases to panels of judges who have been re-elected for the new mandate, thus reducing the danger of disruption of a case. I am happy to report that the Secretary-General has accepted that suggestion and will send out letters to Governments in July inviting nominations. I call on Governments to submit their nominations as soon as practicable, taking into account, to the extent possible, the stability of the Tribunal.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I have previously raised with the Council, both through a letter dated 13 January 2004 (S/2004/53, annex) and through additional documents submitted to the Council's informal working group on the ICTY and ICTR, that disruption of the work of the Tribunal would be unavoidable if, as past practice indicates, some judges were not re-elected to the new mandate beginning on 17 November 2005. The Security Council has not taken any action on this matter, and I respect its prerogatives. I hope that disruptions in the work of the Tribunal can be avoided, as they would if all currently sitting judges were re-elected; but such an outcome, of course, cannot be guaranteed. Given that it appears that the judicial election will take place, it is important that it be scheduled in a way that will minimize any effect on the Tribunal's work.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I have personally approached Governments urging them to make payment and will appear together with my colleague and friend President Mose before members of the General Assembly's Fifth and Sixth Committees in a meeting kindly organized by the Government of the Netherlands, which is our host country. If payment is not made promptly, and if the freeze therefore continues in place, suspensions in cases will likely become inevitable. The second point concerns the election of permanent judges of the Tribunal.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Should the arrears and the freeze continue, it is only a question of time before serious slowdowns occur. In a court of law, where defendants have the right to their day in court and to a speedy trial, such resource-driven delays are unacceptable. I therefore appeal to all Member States that owe outstanding amounts - and especially to the Governments which are responsible for the bulk of the arrears - to heed the repeated calls of the Secretary- General for immediate payment of these assessments. Payments by smaller contributors are equally important: although the amounts involved in most cases are so low as to be virtually painless for the Governments concerned, they add up significantly. Their non-payment sends a distressing signal of indifference by the membership towards international justice.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I appeal to the Council, as the policy-making organ that decided that international justice and the rule of law must be upheld and that some of the worst crimes since the Second World War should not be allowed to go unpunished, to examine this situation and take whatever measures are necessary for us to continue our work and accomplish the goals of the completion strategy. The international community cannot, on the one hand, expect the Tribunal to complete its work in an efficient and effective manner while, on the other hand, withholding the resources necessary to ensure that the Tribunal is able to function. Indeed, the inability to recruit qualified personnel - even to replace staff members who leave - is a serious threat not only to the completion strategy but to the very ability of the Tribunal to continue its daily work.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Unless we are able to replace staff members who occupy critical posts that are necessary to the conduct of cases, we will be forced to delay, suspend or stop trials. That would be disastrous in terms of the Tribunal's ability to remain on track with respect to the completion strategy, and it would convey the wrong message to the international community, especially the region of the former Yugoslavia. A lack of adequate funds for the Tribunal to conduct its trials would be taken as a lack of commitment on the part of the international community to the rule of law and to international justice. The Security Council established the Tribunal with a View to ending impunity and to bringing alleged criminals to justice. Our work is now imperilled.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Three measures deserve special mention: staffing, election of judges and cooperation by Member States. The completion strategy poses a particular staffing challenge - namely, that the Tribunal must ensure that it can work at full speed until the very end of its existence. The recruitment and retention of qualified and highly motivated staff are essential yet very difficult, given that other institutions can offer more senior positions and longer-term career opportunities. That problem has been exacerbated by arrears in payment of assessments by Member States, which led the Secretariat to impose a recruitment freeze on the Tribunal in May 2004. The current financial shortfall in contributions from Member States has resulted in an unacceptable and disruptive effect on the work of the Tribunal.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Such arrivals would make completion of all trial work by the end of 2008 impossible, although there may be some relief to the docket through guilty pleas or referrals to national jurisdictions. All of those predictions are necessarily tentative. It is possible that several cases might be deemed appropriate for transfer to domestic jurisdictions or that several high-level accused will choose to plead guilty. Absent such outcomes, however, the Tribunal will not be able to accommodate any additional trials beyond those of the accused who are currently in custody or on provisional release within the deadlines of the completion strategy. I now wish to turn to the most important measures that, I believe, need to be taken in order to enable the Tribunal to maintain and improve upon its current level of productivity.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“However, if any additional senior-level accused - whether they are already indicted fugitives or newly indicted accused - surrender to or are transferred to the Tribunal, it may not be possible to hold separate trials of those individuals within the 2008 deadline. Currently, there are eight indictments outstanding that have not resulted in an arrest or surrender. Those indictments involve 18 accused, including Karadzic and Mladic. My understanding is that the Prosecutor, Ms. Carla Del Ponte, may submit up to six additional indictments involving 11 suspects. It is therefore possible that additional senior-level accused - who, under existing Security Council guidelines, would not be suitable candidates for referral to national jurisdictions for trial - will arrive at the Tribunal in the future.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“It may also be possible to try the fugitive Ante Gotovina within that period, provided he is transferred to The Hague before 2006 and tried together with two other co-accused. There would be capacity to hold additional trials if persons currently in custody or on provisional release decide to plead guilty or are referred to domestic jurisdictions for trials under rule 11 bis. Since rule 11 bis referrals can be ordered by a Trial Chamber only after consideration of the facts of each particular case, it is not appropriate for me to offer predictions as to how many cases are likely to be so referred. However, as an example, if five cases of persons currently in custody or on provisional release are referred to national jurisdictions, it should be possible to hold an additional major - I emphasize major - trial before the end of 2008.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Since my last address to the Council, three new indictments have been submitted and unsealed, and a fourth previously submitted indictment has been unsealed. One of those indictments has resulted in a guilty plea, while another concerns four high-level Serbian officials who are still at large. The remaining two indictments, however, have resulted in the arrival of eight senior accused at The Hague. At present, 33 accused in 17 cases are in the Tribunal's custody or on provisional release. I am pleased to report that the Tribunal is still in a position to try all of the accused currently in custody or on provisional release before the end of 2008, including the eight new accused who recently arrived at The Hague.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I would now like to discuss the current prognosis with regard to the completion strategy and additional measures to be taken to enable the Tribunal to meet its deadlines. When I last addressed the Council, in October, I stated that the Tribunal would be able to complete the trials of all individuals then in the custody of the Tribunal or on provisional release within the 2008 deadline. The estimate at the time was also that it might be possible to try two high-priority fugitives - Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic - within the 2008 deadline, provided they were tried together and brought into custody in 2005. However, it was estimated that an additional year beyond the end of 2008 would be needed to try all indictees who were still at large as of October 2003.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“We must be careful to ensure that our dedication to completing the Tribunal's mandate on time does not detract from the Tribunal's basic purposes, which are to administer justice even-handedly and to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the region. To depart from the Tribunal's mission to try those most responsible for alleged violations of international humanitarian law risks undermining the Security Council's decision to establish the Tribunal and does a disservice to the cause of international justice. A rigid and mechanistic pursuit of the completion strategy should be avoided, as it would lead to the espousal of trials that fall short of the guarantees of international human rights of which the United Nations is - and should be - protective and proud.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Furthermore, trials of senior accused in the former Yugoslavia would place tremendous stress on the still-fragile socio-political environment there. Questions would also be raised by victims, who routinely insist that the most senior accused be tried at The Hague. There would also be serious problems of witness protection, which are already a concern in the courts of the former Yugoslavia but would be exacerbated in the trial of a high-level defendant. When I discussed that matter with senior officials during my visit to Sarajevo last week, I was told that the national judicial system and the prosecutorial authorities are currently not able to accommodate trials of senior Tribunal indictees.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Much as I am committed to the goals of the completion strategy, I have serious reservations about the potential referral of cases involving senior indictees for trial in the courts of the former Yugoslavia. The entire rationale for the establishment of our Tribunal was to ensure trials for those most responsible for the heinous acts of savagery committed during the Yugoslav conflict. I do not see a rationale for distinguishing between some senior accused and other senior accused, as opposed to the Council's eminently rational distinction between senior accused and accused of intermediate or lower rank. I am concerned that selecting some senior accused for trial in domestic jurisdictions would inevitably raise questions regarding equality of treatment and the fairness of trials.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“expressed in resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004), between the most senior leaders suspected of being most responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, who are to be tried at The Hague, and the accused of intermediate and lower rank, who are potential candidates for trial in the former Yugoslavia or in other competent national jurisdictions. That approach of the Council is principled and faithful to the established mission of the Tribunal as it has been historically understood. There may be a temptation, in the light of the completion strategy deadlines, to consider the referral of cases involving even high-level accused to national jurisdictions.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The Tribunal recently hosted a visit, organized by the United Nations Development Programme, by seven judges of the newly established Department for War Crimes at the Belgrade District Court, designed to transfer knowledge and experience from Tribunal personnel to the members of the Court. In addition to the requirement of a fair trial, rule 11 bis continues to require the Trial Chamber to consider the gravity of the crimes alleged and the level of responsibility of the accused before referring a case to a national jurisdiction. Those requirements reflect the Security Council's sensible distinction.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Moreover, as indicated in my letter to the President of the Security Council of 4 May (S/2004/353) and the Prosecutor's report dated 29 April, contained in the annex to that letter, the Government of Serbia and Montenegro has failed to cooperate with the Tribunal in several other important ways. The OSCE Mission to Serbia and Montenegro, which monitored several war crimes proceedings before domestic courts throughout 2003, concluded that the national judiciary lacks the full capacity to conduct war crimes trials in accordance with universally recognized standards. Nevertheless, the Tribunal remains committed to assisting the Government of Serbia and Montenegro in laying the groundwork for fair and effective war crimes trials in the courts of Serbia and Montenegro.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Therefore, while progress is still needed, there is cause for optimism with regard to the potential transfer of cases to certain courts in Croatia that have received - or will have received - special training and resources for the trial of war crimes cases. The likelihood of referring cases to the courts of Serbia and Montenegro is diminished by the poor record of cooperation between that State and the Tribunal in recent months. The Government of Serbia and Montenegro appears to have taken little or no action with regard to four high-ranking fugitives who were indicted by the Tribunal last fall and have remained at large for over six months. The Government has also failed to respond to requests by our Registrar for explanation of its default in arresting individuals subject to Tribunal arrest warrants.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The OSCE Mission to Croatia likewise reported "improving conditions for the conduct of domestic war crime trials" and noted "growing recognition among the public of the importance of even-handed prosecution of war crimes". The OSCE Mission also stated that "there is no reason to believe that the Croatian judiciary would not be able to handle a limited number of cases in a fair and efficient way, particularly if assigned to those judges and prosecutors who have already received special training and resources". On that front, the Tribunal has been engaged in several expertise-sharing initiatives with Croatian authorities with a View to preparing the national judicial system for the referral of cases from the ICTY.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Although the failure to arrest the fugitive Ante Gotovina is still a matter of grave concern, I View the progress that has been made in Croatia's relationship with the Tribunal with great satisfaction. As I stated to the Rapporteur Group for Democratic Stability of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 May 2004, "Croatian authorities have recognized the need to enhance the capabilities of their national judiciary for purposes of handling cases which may be referred to its courts by the Tribunal." The European Commission has similarly recognized that the Croatian authorities appear determined to improve conditions for prosecution of alleged war criminals in domestic courts.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The Mission to Croatia of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has monitored several war crimes trials in Croatian courts throughout 2002, 2003 and the early months of 2004, reported that there are still significant concerns about the capacity and impartiality of parts of the Croatian judiciary. In a report dated 22 June 2004, the OSCE mission to Croatia reported that its observations through trial monitoring "suggest that there is a considerable lack of impartiality among parts of the judiciary". A second report issued the same day stated that "the national origin of defendants and possibly even more importantly that of Victims continued to affect war crime proceedings in 2003". However, let me emphasize that the overall cooperation of Croatia with the Tribunal has improved significantly.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“However, with regard to detention facilities, which are essential for the transfer of accused from The Hague and thus for the holding of trials, the prospects are less reassuring. While the Office of the High Representative is pursuing various options to obtain temporary detention facilities meeting international standards, that will require the support of the international community. At the moment, there are still doubts that credible war crimes trials can take place in the domestic jurisdictions of Croatia or Serbia and Montenegro. With regard to Croatia, the European Commission recently concluded that a single standard of criminal responsibility is not yet applied equally to all accused charged with war crimes before Croatian courts.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“As far as the War Crimes Chamber in Sarajevo is concerned, I am confident that it will fully meet international due process standards. I am very grateful to the members of the donor community that attended the donors' conference held at the Tribunal at The Hague on 30 October 2003. I am also grateful to the Security Council for recognizing, in resolution 1534 (2004), that further support for the Chamber is essential to its success. During my visit to Sarajevo last week, I held talks on this subject with the High Representative, Lord Ashdown, his Senior Deputy, Ambassador Fassier, and the President of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judge Raguz. I was informed that despite some delays in implementation, courtroom facilities will be available to begin trials in January 2005.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I believe that it is not helpful to consider transferring a case before the national jurisdiction is truly capable of living up to international standards for trial and for detention. A decision by a Trial Chamber to remove an indictee from the Tribunal's docket in such circumstances could present serious human rights problems for the accused, who would then be in a state of "legal limbo". The accused would have left behind his day in court at The Hague but could not yet be transferred to the custody of national authorities. Any such initiatives, prematurely taken, could conflict with international norms of due process and human rights. The Tribunal is committed to supporting the achievement of credible and fair war crimes trials in all States of the former Yugoslavia.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The most important condition is the presence of domestic institutions willing and prepared to try cases involving allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law in a manner that is credible, fair, and in accordance with international legal norms. Tribunals established by the United Nations can transfer cases only if they are assured that international standards are met, not only in terms of the conduct of trials, but also in terms of the condition of detention facilities and the treatment of detainees. It has been reported that thought is being given to requesting a Trial Chamber to decide motions to transfer cases under rule 11 bis even before such conditions have been met, and thus before the accused can, in fact, be transferred to the custody of another State.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“That change makes explicit a requirement that was implicit in the prior version of the rule, and ensures that cases will not be referred to jurisdictions that do not observe the minimum guarantees of procedural fairness and international human rights. The rule 11 bis amendments also reflect similar initiatives taken in rule 11 bis of the ICTR. As the Council recognized in resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004), the ability to refer cases of intermediate and lower-rank accused to domestic jurisdictions, including the planned War Crimes Chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an essential prerequisite to the fulfilment of the completion strategy. But the referral of cases depends on the presence of propitious conditions, many of which are outside the Tribunal's control.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“That amendment expands the range of nations that could potentially receive cases from the Tribunal beyond States of the region. This is particularly important should some courts in the former Yugoslavia continue to suffer from deficiencies in their ability to conduct trials in accordance with fundamental fairness and due process. The second change amends the criteria to be considered by the Trial Chamber in deciding whether to refer a case to a domestic jurisdiction. The rule now provides that the Trial Chamber may order a referral only after being satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial and that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“I refer to an amendment to rule 11 bis of the rules of procedure and evidence, which is the rule that authorizes a Trial Chamber, either proprio mota or upon a motion by the Prosecutor, to refer the case of an individual already indicted by the Tribunal to a competent national jurisdiction. The Judges of the Tribunal, by a unanimous vote, have amended that rule in two important ways. The first amendment concerns the domestic jurisdictions to which cases involving indicted persons may be transferred. The rule formerly permitted a Trial Chamber to refer a case only to the State in which the accused was arrested or in whose territory the alleged crime was committed. The rule now contains a third option: referral to a State having jurisdiction and being willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Fourthly, the Appeals Chamber is reducing the length of its appeals judgements and limiting repetition by invoking its own accumulated jurisprudence on questions that have been previously resolved. And fifthly, the Working Group on Scheduling of Cases, which I established, continues to assist in forecasting the resources and measures needed to achieve the completion strategy and in ensuring that new cases are ready for trial whenever a pending case is concluded. One additional measure was taken earlier this month that is therefore not reflected in my assessments dated 21 May.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“First, the Judges amended rule 28(A) of the rules of procedure and evidence to comply with the requirement of seniority in resolution 1534 (2004). Secondly, Trial Chambers continue to operate at full capacity, with six cases simultaneously in trial or at the judgement-writing stage; thirdly. the Appeals Chamber has made efforts to make interlocutory appeals more effective by allowing such appeals from both the ICTY and ICTR only if the Trial Chamber certifies that the appeal involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial and for which an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The Appeals Chamber has heard six appeals from judgement since October 2003, and the judgements in those cases are currently being drafted. Three further appeal hearings are planned for this year. The number of appeals from judgement and interlocutory appeals before the Appeals Chamber more than doubled between May 2003 and May 2004. The Judges of the Tribunal are committed to sustaining that level of productivity throughout the remainder of the life of the Tribunal. We are taking, or have taken, several additional steps that will help to ensure that the Tribunal's mandate is carried out within the completion strategy deadlines. These steps have been summarized in the assessments submitted to the Council; I do not propose to restate them in detail.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Accordingly, as of today, the Tribunal has either completed or is holding trials or, in the case of guilty pleas, sentencing proceedings involving 59 defendants. There are currently 33 accused in detention or on provisional release who are awaiting trial. The Appeals Chamber, for its own part, has also been productive since it was first seized of an appellate matter in 1995. If we take appeals from the ICTY and the ICTR together, the Appeals Chamber has decided 20 appeals from judgements rendered by Trial Chambers, including two in the first half of this year, together with 236 interlocutory appeals, 17 requests for review, and six contempt proceedings. The Tribunal's current productivity is also very high. The Trial Chambers are now operating at maximum capacity, with six cases currently in trial or at the judgement-writing phase.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“It is now just over nine years since the first accused, Dusko Tadic, was transferred to the Tribunal on 24 April 1995. In that period, the Tribunal has tried 35 accused to final judgement in a total of 17 trials. Seventeen accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced during that period, most recently Milan Babic, who pleaded guilty in January 2004 and whose sentence was rendered this morning at The Hague. A further eight accused are currently being tried in six separate cases before the Trial Chambers. Two of those cases are expected to conclude soon. The trial judgement in the case of Brdanin is being written and is expected to be rendered on 31 August of this year. Final submissions in the case of Strngar are expected to be made in September of this year, which could lead to the rendering of the judgement as early as October.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“In the meantime, the Council, through paragraph 6 of resolution 1534 (2004), asked the Tribunal to provide, by 31 May 2004 and every six months thereafter, "assessments by its President and Prosecutor, setting out in detail the progress made towards implementation of the Completion Strategy of the Tribunal, explaining what measures have been taken to implement the Completion Strategy and what measures remain to be taken, including the transfer of cases involving intermediate and lower rank accused to competent national jurisdictions ...'. I was very pleased to transmit my assessments and those of the Prosecutor to the Council on 21 May 2004, and I am honoured to be able to address the Council on the subject in person today.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“Judge Meron: It is a great honour for me once again to address the Council to present the first report of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1534 (2004). I am particularly pleased to address the Council during the Presidency of Ambassador Baja of the Philippines. It is now slightly over eight months since I addressed the Council to deliver the Tribunal's annual report on 9 October 2003 under article 34 of the Statute of the Tribunal.”
2004-06-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4999 (2004) · source
“The only thing I would like to say about that today is that we have started to study various structural factors that will be required - and about which we will one day brief the Security Council - in order, one day, to change the shape of the Tribunal by, for example, finishing our trials and perhaps establishing another appeals chamber, as there will be an accumulation of appeals. Those are the sorts of long-term issues that I feel it is our responsibility as judges to start thinking about and, eventually, share our ideas and material with the Council.”
2003-10-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4838 (2003) · source