PRESS BRIEFING BY PROSECUTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

8 October 1996

Press Briefing

19961008 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda, Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon that she had met with Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali and several senior United Nations Officials, all of whom had demonstrated solid and overwhelming support for both Tribunals. Justice Arbour succeeded Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa on 1 October.

Justice Arbour, responsible for prosecuting persons charged with serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in those territories, said that, in the two months prior to assuming her post, she had travelled to Kigali, Rwanda; and Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, with Justice Goldstone. She would be leaving today to visit Ottawa and meet there with the Ministers of Justice and of Foreign Affairs, as well as with the Deputy Minister of Defence. Afterwards, she would return to Kigali to continue conversations with the staff of the Prosecutor's Office there. Prior to her arrival in Kigali, she would briefly visit Arusha and meet with United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who was on an African tour.

What were the priority issues she would be dealing with? a correspondent asked. Justice Arbour replied that they varied tremendously between Tribunals. In Rwanda, great demands were being put upon the Tribunal too commence litigation. Of the 21 people indicted in Rwanda, 10 were in custody, including four in Arusha. That litigation schedule "brings us to court much more rapidly there than it ever did with respect to the Yugoslav Tribunal", she said. Great pressure was being put on the Office of the Prosecutor for the commencement of the first trials. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunal and its investigative strategy were well established. The most pressing issue to be addressed in that forum was the non-cooperation of a few States where some indicted war criminals were located.

What did the process of taking over from her predecessor consist of? a correspondent asked. Justice Arbour replied that the process consisted of familiarizing herself with both operations. Since the International Court was located in The Hague, the distance posed a real challenge. For that reason, a considerable portion of her time had been dedicated to travelling to Kigali and Arusha. Furthermore, in order to familiarize herself with the work done in the former Yugoslavia, she had taken the opportunity to hold extensive briefings with the investigative teams.

Asked what concrete steps would be taken with regard to the extradition of those in the States of the former Yugoslavia, Justice Arbour replied she would pursue all of the avenues currently open. "The primary responsibility is on the States", she stressed. They needed to expel the indicted war criminals from their territory. The NATO Implementation Force (IFOR) presence should not be seen as a distraction from that primary responsibility. She would do what she could to advance "any argument seen as persuasive" either to those with direct responsibility for compliance with the arrest order, or to those who could persuade those who should be complying". In the case of Rwanda, when the cooperation had been forthcoming, the system had worked very well. In the past two weeks, two Rwanda war criminals had been indicted; one in Kenya, and the other was under way in the United States.

"I will try to break the mind-set that views the arrest of indicted war criminals as a matter of civilian policing", Justice Arbour said. The Tribunals had been created on the principle that the culture of impunity with respect to war crimes was a threat to international peace. That was the key concept under which one had to call for assistance from the international community in bringing indicted war criminals to justice. "The arrest of indicted war criminals ought not to be treated by military or political authorities as a mere matter of civilian policing", she said.

Was it true that some of the indicted could be prosecuted by national courts? a correspondent asked. Justice Arbour replied that under the statute, the International Tribunals had primacy over any domestic prosecutions.

A correspondent described the cases of the Serbian leaders who had still not been brought to court and asked if the Tribunal's work would continue to be futile. Justice Arbour said that she did not view its work as futile. There were currently seven people in custody in The Hague. While that was a small number, considering the 74 people indicted, there were trials scheduled and others in progress, and no one case in particular should be the measure for the success or failure of the Tribunal.

A correspondent asked about the view many held that the Tribunal in The Hague had a bias against Serbians, since most of the 74 who had been indicted were of that ethnicity. Justice Arbour responded that analysing the ethnic origin of those in custody or those waiting trial was not a useful exercise and yielded no useful information. "History will pass judgement on whether or not this Tribunal acted in an even-handed manner", she said. Investigations needed to be completed. The recent increased level of cooperation on the part of Serb authorities had given the Tribunal access to victims in a manner not necessarily always present in the beginning.

In reply to a question on measures exerted by the Security Council on States to ensure compliance with the Tribunal, Justice Arbour said compliance on the part of some States was not at an acceptable level. However, it was

Justice Arbour Press Briefing - 3 - 8 October 1996

not appropriate for her to approve or disapprove of the measures imposed on States by the international community or by the Security Council.

Asked about the rape cases in both Tribunals, she said she had documentation with specific numbers on the cases in the former Yugoslavia. However, she had not brought it with her. With regard to Rwanda, the work on cases related to sexual assault had been too slow. However, she was hopeful that recent efforts would accelerate the investigation.

Apart from the Serbian leaders who had been indicted, were there other key figures who had been indicted? a correspondent asked. Justice Arbour said that all serious violations of international humanitarian law would be investigated and those responsible would be prosecuted.

When would the work of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia be concluded? a correspondent asked. Ms. Arbour said it depended on the speed at which the budgetary resources were put at the Tribunal's disposal. In addition, it depended on the speed at which actual evidence could be produced since information led to more information.

Why had the Serbian leaders been indicted for besieging cities and shelling civilians, since those could be considered war strategies, not war crimes? a correspondent asked. Justice Arbour said that the persons indicted would have a fair opportunity to make that argument. Furthermore, there were three judges, who had been elected by the General Assembly, to pass judgement on whether what was indicted constituted a crime and whether the evidence to sustain a conviction was beyond a reasonable doubt.

* *** *