BELGRADE UNWILLING TO SHARE ‘CONFIDENTIAL DETAILS’ WITH TRIBUNAL
Serbia’s representative has informed the Trial Chamber that he is not authorized to share with the judges the confidential details related to the serious problems caused by the arrest warrant for the ‘three members of the Serbian Radical Party’ who have been charged with contempt of court.
On 10 February 2016, the Trial Chamber issued an order to the Serbian government to report to the Tribunal every two weeks on the efforts, if any, to execute the warrants for the arrest of Petar Jojic, Jovo Ostojic and Vjerica Radeta. The first progress report submitted by Belgrade was made public by the Tribunal today.
The report states that the reasons for the delay are confidential. Sasa Obradovic, Serbia's representative, has not been 'given authority to share with the Trial Chamber in this report any confidential details of the serious problems that the competent organs of the Republic of Serbia face in executing the order’ for the Radicals' arrest.
The report goes on to say that the Serbian government would ‘inform the UN Security Council about difficulties created for it by the Tribunal in this case and the associated case against Vojislav Seselj’.
The three officials of the Serbian Radical Party have been charged with contempt of court because they tried to threaten, intimidate, bribe and otherwise tamper with the witnesses in the Vojislav Seselj case. The Tribunal has waited for their arrest for over a year.
Obradovic has indicated that he will submit a new progress report on 9 March 2015. By 15 March 2016, Serbia will inform the Tribunal of its efforts, if any, to ensure Vojislav Seselj's attendance at the hearing in The Hague on 31 March 2016, when the judges are to deliver verdict.
- Case : Seselj
- 2016-02-12 SESELJ JUDGMENT TO BE DELIVERED ON 31 MARCH 2016
- 2016-02-10 SERBIA REPRIMANDED AGAIN FOR NOT COOPERATING WITH TRIBUNAL
- 2015-04-28 JUDGES REPRIMAND SESELJ
- 2016-03-16 TRIBUNAL BOWS TO VOJISLAV SESELJ'S WISHES FOR THE THIRD TIME
- 2016-03-28 THE FIRST “JUDGMENT IN ABSENTIA”
- 2016-03-31 PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LATTANZI