Case No. IT-99-36-T

Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Ivana Janu
Judge Chikako Taya

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
25 June 2003

PROSECUTOR
v.
RADOSLAV BRDJANIN

__________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTIONS FOR ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO RULE 92BIS – BOSANSKA KRUPA AND BOSANSKI NOVI

__________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Ms. Joanna Korner

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. John Ackerman
Mr. David Cunningham

TRIAL CHAMBER II ("Trial Chamber") of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("Tribunal"):

BEING SEISED OF the "Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Statements Pursuant to Rule 92bis – Bosanska Krupa Municipality" and "Confidential Annex A" ("Bosanska Krupa Motion"), filed on 8 April 2003, requesting the admission pursuant to Rule 92bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") of the written statements and relevant attachments of witnesses 7.63, 7.132 and 7.58;

REMAINING SEISED OF the "Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Statements Pursuant to Rule 92bis- Bosanski Novi Municipality", "Confidential Annex A" and "Confidential Annex B" thereto ("Bosanski Novi Motion"), filed on 28 November 2002, in respect of witness 7.147, regarding whom no decision was taken in the Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Statements Pursuant to Rule 92bis – Bosanski Novi Municipality ("Bosanski Novi Municipality Decision") handed down on 17 January 2003, because the Rule 92bis material in relation to that witness had not yet been made available to the defence of Radoslav Brdjanin ("Defence");

NOTING that on 21 February 2003 the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence the statement of witness 7.147;

NOTING the following responses from Defence (collectively referred to as the "Responses"):

1. "Response to Prosecutor’s Rule 92bis Motion – Bosanska Krupa", filed on 17 June 2003, in which the Defence does not object to Rule 92bis treatment of witnesses 7.63, 7.132 and 7.58;
2. "Response to Prosecutor’s Rule 92bis Motion – Bosanski Novi", filed on 17 June 2003, in which the Defence does not object to Rule 92bis treatment of witnesses 7.6, 7.95 and 7.98, but in which the Defence objects to Rule 92bis treatment of witness 7.147, alleging that the statement of the latter does not qualify for Rule 92bis treatment since it speaks of the acts and the conduct of Radoslav Brdjanin ("Accused");

NOTING that by agreeing to Rule 92bis treatment of testimonies and statements of witnesses, the Defence does not concede the accuracy of any statements of assertions made by any witness;

NOTING that in the Bosanski Novi Municipality Decision, the Trial Chamber already admitted the written statements of witnesses 7.6, 7.95 and 7.98 into evidence under Rule 92bis and that all three witnesses have appeared before the Trial Chamber for cross-examination;¹

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber has a duty to ensure that the requirements for the admission into evidence of witnesses’ statements and relevant attachments pursuant to Rule 92bis are met, and that the application of this Rule in the instant case does not prejudice the rights of the accused envisaged in Article 21 of the Statute of the Tribunal ("Statute");

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the written statements of witnesses 7.63, 7.132 and 7.58 go to proof of matters other than the acts and conduct of the Accused as charged in the Indictment;

CONSIDERING that the statement of witness 7.147 repeatedly refers to the acts and conduct of the Accused as charged in the indictment;

FINDING that the fifth paragraph on page two of the statement of witness 7.147, starting with "StChe meeting took place in the dining room …" and the sixth paragraph on page two, starting with "SiCn either October of November of 1991 …" shall be redacted;

PURSUANT TO Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute and to Rule 92bis of the Rules;

1. The written statements of witnesses 7.63, 7.132 and 7.58 are admitted into evidence under Rule 92bis;
2. the redacted version of the written statement of witness 7.147 is admitted into evidence under Rule92bis.

Done in French and English, the English version being authoritative.

Dated this 25^th day of June 2003.
At The Hague
The Netherlands

___________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]