Steijnen en Olof Advocaten

                                          Couwenhoven 52-05

                                          3703 ER Zeist

                                          tel. 030-6956867

                                          fax. 030-6957830

                                          e-mail: n.h.van.holst@free­ler.n­l

30 april 2002

Mr. Claude Jorda

President ICTY

P.O. Box 13888

2501 EW DEN HAAG

Mr. Hans Holthuis                                          

Registrar ICTY

P.O. Box 13888

2501 EW DEN HAAG

Mr. Ch. Rohde

Legal Officer ICTY

P.O. Box 13888

2501 EW Den Haag

Dear Sirs,

In complete violation with all relevant human right principles your tribunal was refusing me further access to my client Mr.Milosevic since my last visit in November 2001.

 

I was requesting access to him in my quality of his council in domestic legal proceedings and in his proceedings before the European Court.

With respect to this denial of access to my client your tribu­nal chose not the form of explicit refusal, but resorted to a much more sop­histicated and bureaucratic form of action, namely an impli­cit denial of meeting with Mr. Milosevic. This by simply not responding any more to my repeated requests for facilitating access to him.

Finally there was no other way left than undertaking legal action against this ceaseless breach on his fundamental defen­ce rights by your tribunal.

 

So this boycott by your tribunal resulted in the summary proceedings before the Regio­nal Court in the Hague at the beginning of February 2002.

 

In courtroom I was informed by the counsel of State that there should be a letter, dated 31 Januari 2002, wich should state that your tribunal was allowing me from that moment henceforth communica­tion with my client on a basis equal to that of a counsel subscribed at your tribunal.

 

This letter, holding that arrangement, I received only after a great deal of to-things and fro-things. See my correspondence with you on this point.

 

It reads, as far as it is relevant here:

      "In order to support your request to be granted privile­ged communications with the accused for the ECHR repre­senta­tion, you are quoting the European Agreement Rela­ting to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. However, at this time neither the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia nor the United Nations are a party to this Agreement.

 

      Nevertheless, I deem it appropriate to accord to the accused privileged communications with an attorney repre­senting his interests before the European Court, provided that the following conditions are observed. Firstly, it appears to me that your previous conduct before this institution has not been as professional as could be expected for an attorney. Therefore, it is required that you provide us with a copy of the Code of Professional Conduct you are subject to. Secondly, please take note of the Detention Rules and Regulations, copies of which are attached. The provisions will provide you with informati­on on the possibilities for communications. The privilege extends to communications of the accused with yourself or the ECHR directly, regarding the representation before the ECHR."

By the way, I am sure that Mr. Holthuis is already in the possession of Dutch Code of Professional Conduct, since he has, as an offici­al of Dutch origin, easy access to such documents and since Mr. Rohde in his fax of 16 April 2002 mentions explicit­ly an Article of this Rules of Conduct. 

So finally there was your explicit statement to allow me the kind of communication with my client which a decent court has to respect according to human rights standards.

Unfortunately after a short time I got influenza and was not able to visit my client for several weeks.

Around March 15 I was capable to resume working. So I wrote you a letter, dated 19 March, in which I aknowledged in writ­ten my request for an arrangement to visit my client, which request was m­ade already some days before by phone.

I must stress that I received never any response to this request, neither in written nor by phone or fax.

This with regard to, primarily, the period 19 March-27 March.

 

So there is no other option than to conclude that your tribu­nal, despite its promises in written, was continuing without batting an eyelid its earlier practice to boycott my requests to meet with my client. By the meanwhile well known tactic of simply not giving any response to my requests.

With regard to the continuation period 27 March-16 April an aswer by your tribunal was likewise not forthcoming.

 

Finally I received a fax sent by Mr. Rohde dated 16 April 2002, in wich he states inter alia:

      "In response, I would like to refer to the Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated 27 March 2002, in which the Court found that the complaint submitted on behalf of Mr.Milosevic was inadmissible. Furthermore, at this stage, neither yourself nor Mr.Milosevic have indi­cated to the Registry as to whether you will continue to represent Mr.Milosevic for any other proceedings. It is therefore the view of the Registry that the substance of your complaint is no longer relevant, since there is no continuing necessity for you or your colleagues to con­sult with Mr. Milosevic in relation to this case."

So it seems that with regard to this continuation period after March 27, the date of the decision of the European Court, your tribunal furthermore considered itself completely discharged from its promise to give me access to Mr. Milose­vic, because after that date his European Court case was ended.
 

Nevertheless, not untill 16 April 2002 your tribunal took the effort to inform me of this stand.

I strongly protest against these male fides manipulations by your tribu­nal. Which implicate not only an uninterrupted viola­tion of my clients basic defence rights, by continuing to deny me as his counsel access to him in this European Court case, but which manipulations are also directed at creating hypocritically the impression to the outside world that his counsel is allowed to consult with Mr. Milosevic, while in reali­ty the tribunal goes on to fru­strate completely such a con­tact.

So the fact that Mr. Rohde dares to write in his fax of 19 April 2002 that:

"In any case, I would like to point out that at no stage of your representation of Mr. Milosevic did the registra­ry impose any restrictions upon your right to visit Mr. Milosevic",

is far removed from the thruth. Eventually it was needed even to undertake legal action last february 2002 in order to get the promise of being permitted to meet with client.

Even more contrary to the truth is the continuation of this citation, wich reads:

"As soon as the Registrary received a request from you to visit Mr. Milosevic and a suitable date and time was found, your request was duly processed."

Never, since my last visit to Mr. Milosevic in november 2001, there was any reaction by the registrary with regard to my repeated requests for access to my client.

Not to mention any action !

All this with the final result that I am now already barred from meeting with my client for nearly five months !

The fact that my colleague Mr. Vergès was permitted once, in January 2002, in front of the world press, to meet with Mr. Milosevic, had nothing to do with my request by letter of 19 March that other counsel be permitted to consult with Mr. Milosevic in case of convalescence on my part.

 

This simply because this visit of my colleague preceded the arrangement put forward in your letter of 31 January 2002 and the summary procee­dings before the Regional Court of the Hague and since I was not in ill health at the time of Mr. Vergès' visit to Mr. Milosevic, so that also substituti­on was not at all at issue.

So this action by your tribunal to permit, strictly once-only, Mr. Vergès to meet with Mr. Milosevic - and at the same time leaving undone any reaction on my request for access - was clearly inspired by propagandistic considerations. 

 

The fact that Mr. Vergès, in front of the world press, was permitted access - and not me; I was still waiting for any sign by the tribunal on my request - was clearly meant by your tribu­nal to bring across to the outside world the mislea­ding message that Mr. Milo­sevic received all legal assistence he has to claim on.

Moreover, this once-only visit was also restricted in time, so that it, inevitably, could have had at the most the character of a first acquaintance and an courtesy visit.

I have to repeat that I never received any response to my requests to meet with my client.

So I challenge with great emphasis the registrary to show any evidence whatsoever that it has produced, since my latest visit in November 2001, any response to my repeated requests to get access to mr. Milosevic.

And I really want to know who in the tribunal's administration is responsible for the fact that I, now already for five months, never received any respon­se to these repeated re­quests.

 

This even after your promise in written by your letter of January 31, 2002, to give me, with respect to this European Court case, the same status as a counsel connected with your tribunal.

I demand a proper answer on the question who in the tribu­nal's admi­nistration is to hold responsible for this. Since it is com­pletely inacceptable that your tribunal is playing games with my client's basic human rights with respect to his defen­ce.

This boycott by the registrary, and its deliberate deception about the true nature of this boycott, has to stop right now.

 

And I demand an inquiry by Mr. Jorda, being the tribunal's Presi­dent, into this state of affairs.

And further I have to stress that it is a shame - and at the same time revealing for the real approach of Mr. Milosevic's basic human rights with respect to his defence rights by the registrary of your tribunal - that, like Mr. Rohde writes in the above quoted part of his letter, the registrary tries to seize with both hands the first oppor­tu­ni­ty which seems to occur in order to withdraw immediately the promise to give me as his counsel access to him.

 

This without ever having implemented this promise even once !

So I also want to hear from Mr. Jorda, being the tribunal's President, whether he has been informed about this posi­tion taken by the registrary, holding that after March 27, the date of the decision of the European Court, there is no need any more for communication between client and counsel, and I also want to hear from Mr. Jorda whether he shares this view or not.

Of course this standpoint is unacceptable !

 

It represents a further cut back on Mr. Milosevic's defence rights.

 

So far Mr. Milosevic is even not properly informed about this decisi­on of the European Court. Not to mention that, so far, he has had no opportunity at all to acquaint himself with the ins and outs of this decision, which is so important for him.

 

Of course there is an absolute necessity for him to be repor­ted in detail about the content of this decision, to discuss this decision with his counsel and to consult with his counsel about the implications and possible further steps.

 

To deny Mr. Milosevic this right, is to deny him elementary defence rights !

So I demand access to Mr. Milosevic. On the basis as put forward in the tribunal's letter of 31 January 2002.

 

This as a matter of observance of his human rights with res­pect to defence, in accordance with the promise done by the tribunal's letter of January 31, 2002 and as the very first time of compliance with this promise. 

 

I await the view of Mr. Jorda with respect to this issue.

Finally I repeat my protest against the interference of the Dean of the Utrecht Bar Association, organized by the regis­trary.

 

As I have stressed before, to undertake such kind of action in case of alleged misconduct of an counsel is, according to the tribunal's own regulations, a pregorative of a Judge or a Chamber. So it is beyond the competence of the registrar.

 

The effort in the fax dated 16 April 2002 to refute this argument, stating that, since I am:

"..not a practising defence counsel at the International Tribunal, Rule 46 would not apply to your situation",

lacks adequacy.

 

Of course your tribunal cannot, on the one hand refer me to the tribunals regulations, like the Detention Rules and Regu­lations, as the framework within which I have to deploy my activities, and pose at the same time on the other hand that it is, regarding my activities, not bound to its own regula­tions, since I am 'not a practising defence counsel at the International Tribunal'.

 

So I repeat my demand that your registrary shall immediately withd­raw its action against me at the Dutch Bar Association. And I ask Mr. Jorda to see to it that this really will happen.

Could you please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

N.M.P. Steijnen