PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND RWANDA

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND RWANDA

Louise Arbour, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon that the greatest deterrent signal that could be sent to those perpetrating crimes in Kosovo was the immediate apprehension of all remaining indictees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those indicted under sealed indictment.

Responding to questions posed to her, Ms. Arbour said that such action would demonstrate unequivocally that the international community had the know-how to uncover the necessary evidence to bring charges at the appropriate level of responsibility, the political will to see through the execution of those arrest warrants, and the skills to do so even in a very hostile environment.

None of the Tribunal's existing arrest warrants delivered to the Yugoslav authorities had ever been executed, she continued. Therefore, the prospect of even more indictments served on Belgrade would not bring an air of reality to the prospect of prosecutions. She called for action that was long overdue in the execution of the remaining arrest warrants.

Asked when the Tribunal expected to indict President Slobodan Milosevic, she said that she would question whether everyone else knew something that the Tribunal did not. Tribunal investigators had access to open source information and were conscience that criminal cases, that had to be proved in a courtroom beyond a reasonable doubt, were not built on assumptions, or on what everyone supposedly knew. They were built on the sworn testimony of courageous people and documentary evidence.

From past experiences, the Tribunal knew that it took considerable time to put together the elements of proof that could sustain charges against individuals, she continued. While it was conscience of what everybody purported to know, the Tribunal intended to prove what it alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom, and to accumulate the evidence that would allow it to do so.

Responding to whether she would be resigning and taking up a post with the Canadian Supreme Court, she said that despite speculation in the press, she could not confirm any such reports. As a member of the Canadian judiciary, she was on a leave of absence from the Ontario Court of Appeal. She had enormous respect for the Canadian judicial process, as well as the appointment process, which was not a process that unfolded itself in the press.

Commenting on the reports of her departure, she said that the reason for the speculation was because there would be a vacancy in the Canadian Supreme

Court, effective 1 June. By the constitutional arrangement in that country, the appointee that would fill that vacancy would come from the province of Ontario. That seemed to be the context in which the reports were circulated.

Asked about evidence on war crimes in Bosnia, she replied that she could not comment on the basis that others thought there was enough evidence. Nor could she comment on the quality of their legal analysis. In looking at the evidence that the Tribunal had, she was fully satisfied that there was high quality legal analysis available in her Office in The Hague to make the judgement calls that it made concerning charges brought against individuals.

The Tribunal was advancing its inquiries into what were clearly credible allegations of very serious crimes being committed in Kosovo, she added. It was documenting the perpetration of those crimes and developing the cases that would allow it to explore personal responsibility up the chain of command at whatever level actual evidence would take it to.

In response to whether the United States had in any way tried to block an indictment of President Milosevic, she said that nobody was telling the Tribunal to move forward or not to move forward in any particular case. That would be a completely futile attempt, since the Tribunal made its own decisions about the appropriateness of moving certain investigations. The Tribunal had put on hold many ongoing investigations to address the massive flow of incoming information regarding Kosovo.

She could not say whether governments or individuals held evidence that they were not making available, she said. The Tribunal was entitled to State cooperation and assistance. It put forward questions to States requesting access to particular types of information. It was now trying to access products of intelligence gathering efforts in many countries. Over the years, the United States, for instance, had made available to the Tribunal, and increasingly to the public, imagery products that often served as great leads for investigations or could actually serve as courtroom corroborative information for eyewitness testimony.

When it came to accessing information gathered through intelligence exercises, a lot of that information was governed by domestic laws, she continued. That was why it was not distributed widely, even in domestic cases. In addition, in the same way the journalists and criminal investigators had an acute need to protect their sources, military intelligence also had a strong commitment to the security of their sources. The question was how to engage the intelligence community, within the permissible limits of its national jurisdiction, to assist the Tribunal in developing evidence that could eventually be used in a courtroom.

Asked if Tribunal investigators would accompany North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops if and when they went into Kosovo, she said that she had tried, in her recent trips to London, Bonn and Washington, to ensure

Arbour Press Conference - 3 - 30 April 1999

that whatever mechanism was put in place for the re-entry of the international community in Kosovo, in a civilian and/or military capacity, that the needs of her Office would be properly met. There was considerable work to be done if the Office was to verify some of the accounts that had come from the refugees. It was determined to get very early access to areas of interest to it. She was more concerned about other priorities "trumping" her access.

As to who should apprehend those indictees, she said that in Bosnia the windows of opportunity were with the multinational Stabilization Force (SFOR).

Elaborating on her discussions with governments, she said that governments did not necessarily feel an obligation to make on-the-spot commitments or provide explanations for their behaviour. That was not to suggest that the discussions had been monologues. What she took away from them was a reaffirmation of their commitment to the justice agenda and to supporting the Tribunal's work.

Responding to how the Tribunal's investigators were coping with the stream of refugees, who were flowing out of Kosovo with possible evidence, she said that the Tribunal did not have adequate resources but had to deal with what it had. The two Tribunals had matured to a level where they had to develop the skills to make do with what they had. What it would need to cope with the influx of information of such magnitude as was seen in the Kosovo situation was not within the realm of contemplation.

What was critical was to put in place a system that would allow the Tribunal not to lose track of those who had a story to tell, that could not be recorded immediately, she said. Then it was necessary to enlist the assistance of others, such as governments and non-governmental organizations, in developing standardized questionnaires that would provide a screening house for work to be done.

* *** *