Judges to Decide on Milosevic Documents
TU No 453, 22-May-06
Judges to Decide on Milosevic Documents
TU No 453, 22-May-06
The lawyers formerly assigned to the former Yugoslav president’s defence case, Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, say Milosevic wanted the material made public.
They previously considered asking the chamber which handled Milosevic’s trial – made up of Judge Patrick Robinson, Judge Iain Bonomy and Judge O-gon Kwon – to address the issue. But they were informed by the registry that since the case was closed, these judges were no longer in a position to deal with the issue.
Kay and Higgins’s next move was to approach a chamber tasked with deciding whether confidential records from the Milosevic trial could be made available for an inquest and an inquiry. Again, they were told that they were speaking to the wrong people.
The lawyers subsequently turned to the appeals chamber in an effort to overturn the latter decision. But that bid was thrown out earlier this week, with the appeals judges arguing that Kay and Higgins were no longer formally involved in any case at the tribunal and were therefore not in a position to petition its judges.
The lawyers had insisted that this fact should be overlooked. The court had a responsibility to resolve outstanding issues which would otherwise “perplex” Milosevic’s family and risk damaging the tribunal’s reputation, they said, especially given the historical significance of his trial.
The appeals judges insisted that a Dutch inquest and an internal inquiry into Milosevic’s death, and an audit of the tribunal’s detention facilities, would provide “ample information” to Milosevic’s relatives and satisfy public interest in the issue.
In his latest order, published on May 18, Judge Pocar requested Judges Robinson, Bonomy and Kwon to decide whether “there is any reason in the interests of justice” for unveiling the documents.
He noted that the choice of chamber took into account the court’s “trial management and case distribution needs”.
They previously considered asking the chamber which handled Milosevic’s trial – made up of Judge Patrick Robinson, Judge Iain Bonomy and Judge O-gon Kwon – to address the issue. But they were informed by the registry that since the case was closed, these judges were no longer in a position to deal with the issue.
Kay and Higgins’s next move was to approach a chamber tasked with deciding whether confidential records from the Milosevic trial could be made available for an inquest and an inquiry. Again, they were told that they were speaking to the wrong people.
The lawyers subsequently turned to the appeals chamber in an effort to overturn the latter decision. But that bid was thrown out earlier this week, with the appeals judges arguing that Kay and Higgins were no longer formally involved in any case at the tribunal and were therefore not in a position to petition its judges.
The lawyers had insisted that this fact should be overlooked. The court had a responsibility to resolve outstanding issues which would otherwise “perplex” Milosevic’s family and risk damaging the tribunal’s reputation, they said, especially given the historical significance of his trial.
The appeals judges insisted that a Dutch inquest and an internal inquiry into Milosevic’s death, and an audit of the tribunal’s detention facilities, would provide “ample information” to Milosevic’s relatives and satisfy public interest in the issue.
In his latest order, published on May 18, Judge Pocar requested Judges Robinson, Bonomy and Kwon to decide whether “there is any reason in the interests of justice” for unveiling the documents.
He noted that the choice of chamber took into account the court’s “trial management and case distribution needs”.
