IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before: Judge Antonio Cassese, Presiding

Judge Richard May

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of: 21 January 1998

 

PROSECUTOR

v.

MILE MRKSIC,
MIROSLAV RADIC,
VESELIN SLJIVANCANIN,
SLAVKO DOKMANOVIC

___________________________________________________________

DECISION ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

___________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Grant Niemann
Mr. Clint Williamson
Mr. Stefan Wäspi
Ms. Ann Sutherland

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Toma Fila and Ms. Jelena Lopicic, for Slavko Dokmanovic

 

THE TRIAL CHAMBER

NOTING the Scheduling Order of 8 January 1998 ("the Scheduling Order") and the motions and responses referred to therein,

NOTING the closed session hearings of 19 and 20 January 1998 and CONSIDERING the arguments raised by the parties,

PURSUANT to Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal,

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

  1. The Trial Chamber grants the Prosecutor’s motion for the production of the video-tape referred to in paragraph 4 (a) of the Scheduling Order.
  2. The Trial Chamber dismisses the objections of the Defence to the admission of the material referred to in paragraph 4 (b) of the Scheduling Order. The material may be relevant, and it is for the Trial Chamber to determine the evidentiary weight when it is presented;
  3. The Trial Chamber dismisses as irrelevant the objection of the Defence referred to in paragraph 4 (c) of the Scheduling Order. The Prosecutor does not intend to adduce the items referred to therein;
  4. As the Defence objection referred to in paragraph 4 (d) of the Scheduling Order has been withdrawn, submission of the material is allowed;
  5. It having been made clear that the materials referred to in paragraph 4 (e) of the Scheduling Order are witness statements concerning events at Ilok, the submission of these items is allowed;
  6. With regard to paragraph 4 (f) of the Scheduling Order, documents 7-10 in the list referred to in the Defence Motion filed on 29 December 1997 are not objected to and are therefore allowed. Documents 1-6 are allowed: their reliability may be challenged in the course of the trial. Decisions with regard to any other documents may be made at a later date;
  7. The material referred to in paragraph 4 (g) of the Scheduling Order having been disclosed, no ruling is necessary on this point;
  8. It is understood that the parties will use their best endeavours to see whether they can agree the statements of forty-five of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 4 (h) of the Scheduling Order, and that the Defence will call any witnesses whose statements are disputed. With regard to the remaining witnesses, the Defence shall provide a sworn statement from each witness for whom protective measures are requested stating the reasons why they are not prepared to come to The Hague. The Trial Chamber will rule on the request for safe conduct and use of the video-conference link after the close of the Prosecution case;
  9. With regard to paragraph 4 (i) of the Scheduling Order, and with a view to expediting the trial, the Prosecutor shall endeavour to call the minimum number of witnesses necessary to deal with general background and peripheral issues.

 

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

_________________________

Antonio Cassese

Presiding Judge

Dated this twenty-first day of January 1998

At The Hague

The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]