Case No.: IT-01-48-PT

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge O-Gon Kwon

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
28 January 2004

PROSECUTOR

v.

SEFER HALILOVIC

_________________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION

_________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Mr. Ekkehard Withopf
Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky
Ms. Maria Tuma

Counsel for the Accused

Mr. Stefan Kirsch
Mr. Guénaël Mettraux

 

THIS 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 ("International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED of the "Motion for Certification" filed by the Defence of Sefer Halilović ("Accused") on 23 December 2003 ("Application"), seeking certification pursuant to Rule 72 (B)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") for leave to appeal the Trial Chamber decision rendered on 16 December 2003 ("Impugned Decision"),1

NOTING that in support of the Application, the Defence states:

  1. the prosecution case is so lacking in precision that it is a direct challenge to the fairness of the process; and
  2. the generality of the prosecution case may force the Defence to challenge a number of issues at trial which, if they were to be clarified prior to trial, would both restrict the number of issues to be litigated and, as a result, limit the number of witnesses to be called and the length of trial;2

NOTING that, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules, the Impugned Decision dismissed the Defence motion requesting particulars from the Office of the Prosecutor because the Trial Chamber had found that the particulars sought by the Defence were already in the possession of the Defence or were evidentiary matters for trial, and that the rights of the Accused recognised under Article 21, paragraph (4)(a), of the Statute of the International Tribunal, have not been affected,

NOTING that the Application should have been made pursuant to Rule 73 (B) of the Rules, which governs interlocutory appeal with regard to motions other than preliminary motions, but that the criteria of review does not change for purposes of this decision,

NOTING that Rule 73 (B) of the Rules requires two criteria to be satisfied before the Trial Chamber can exercise its discretion to certify a decision for interlocutory appeal: (1) that the issue would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or outcome of the trial, and (2) an immediate resolution of the issue may, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, materially advance the proceedings,3

CONSIDERING that the arguments presented in the Application do not meet such criteria,

PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 73 (B) of the Rules,

HEREBY DENIES the Application.

 

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

__________
Richard May
Presiding

Dated this twenty-eighth day of January 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. "Decision on Defence Motion for Particulars," Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, 16 Dec. 2003.
2. Application, para. 4.
3. See "Decision on Radoslav Brdjaninís Motion for the Issuance of Rule 73 (B) Certification Regarding the Chamberís Rule 70 Confidential Decision," Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 24 May 2002.