War crimes tribunal hears media plea

Radoslav Brdjanin was quoted in an article by Randal

Appeals judges at the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague are considering whether an American journalist should be forced to testify before the tribunal.

Is it conceivable that someone who could end up in front of this tribunal would speak to a reporter if that reporter were later required to give evidence against him?

Floyd Abrams, lawyer

Former Washington Post reporter Jonathan Randal has been called to give evidence in a war crimes case - but refuses to do so, saying war correspondents and their sources would be in jeopardy if they were considered as potential witnesses.

Mr Randal has been called to give evidence about a 1993 article he wrote in which he quoted a former Bosnian Serb deputy prime minister, Radoslav Brdjanin, who is currently on trial, as saying that non-Serbs should be expelled.

Jonathan Randal did not appear in court for his appeal

Arguing in support of Mr Randal, global media organisations urged judges to rule that journalists should only be called to testify as a last resort and if it is crucial to the case.

War criminals might never be brought to justice if journalists are forced to testify against them, the organisations' lawyer said on Thursday.

"Is it conceivable that someone who could possibly end up in front of this tribunal would speak to a reporter if that reporter were later required to give evidence against him?" US lawyer Floyd Abrams asked the court.

"If such people start seeing journalists as a threat they will start taking less pacific means to prevent them testifying against them," he said.

Legal precedent

Mr Abrams was speaking on behalf of media groups, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC and news organisations from the former Yugoslavia.

Many journalists say they should not be hauled before the tribunal

He called on the court to set a legal precedent, which he summed up as "subpoena journalists last".

"In a system where a court seeks journalistic testimony as a last resort, then that testimony will often not be needed at all," he said.

Mr Abrams predicted that even if such a rule were adopted, journalists would still frequently be prepared to testify voluntarily.

This is the first case before the court dealing with the issue of journalistic privilege.

Journalists are divided on the issue.

Some consider it their duty to testify.

The BBC's former Belgrade correspondent, Jacky Rowland, appeared at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague in August, to give evidence at the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Other journalists say testifying before an international court compromises their objectivity.

Contempt charges

Mr Randal was not in court on Thursday.

But he has argued that a journalist relies on trust for gathering information, and that trust would be threatened if a reporter can be subpoenaed by an international court.

If the court finds Mr Randal in contempt, he could face imprisonment for up to seven years or a $100,000 fine.

A ruling in Mr Randal's case is expected in the coming weeks.

Correspondents say the decision is likely to be seen as a legal precedent, which could have ramifications for the new International Criminal Court also based in The Hague.