Case: IT-98-30/1-A


Before: Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of: 7 March 2002



Miroslav KVOCKA
Milojica KOS
Dragoljub PRCAC




Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Appellants:

Mr Krstan Simic for M Kvocka
Mr Zarko Nikolic for M Kos
Mr Toma Fila for M Radic
Mr Slobodan Stojanovic for Z Zigic
Mr Jovan Simic for D Prcac


I, Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge,

NOTING the "Request for Corrigenda of Transcript and Judgement – Defense for the Accused Zoran Zigic" ("Request") filed by Zoran Zigic ("Appellant") on 24 December 2001, in which the Appellant requests the Appeals Chamber to correct what he alleges are "technical errors" or "clerical mistakes" in the transcript record of the proceedings Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic, Dragoljub Prcac, IT 98 30/1-T and in the judgment rendered by Trial Chamber 1 in those proceedings on 2 November 2001 ("Judgment");

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Request of Zoran Zigic for Corrigenda of Transcript and Judgment" ("Response") filed by the Prosecution on 7 January 2002, in which the Prosecution agrees that there are some errors in the transcript record but submits that many of the alleged "clerical mistakes" in the Judgment actually relate to findings of fact or inferences drawn from the evidence by the Trial Chamber;

CONSIDERING that the allegations made by the Appellant with respect to "clerical mistakes" in the Judgment are matters for determination by the Appeals Chamber when hearing the Appeal;

CONSIDERING that, where the parties are in agreement that the transcript of the proceedings contains errors, there is no bar to having those amendments made to the transcript prior to the hearing of the Appeal by the Appeals Chamber;

CONSIDERING FURTHER that it is for the Appeals Chamber hearing the Appeal to determine what the proper interpretation of the Judgment should be in light of any amendments made to the transcript and otherwise, and what the consequences should be if the Judgment proceeded upon a misunderstanding of the evidence which was given;


  1. The parties are to inform the Appeals Chamber and the Conference Languages Services Section of where they are in agreement that the transcript of the proceedings contains errors and request the Conference Languages Services Section to check the audio or visual tapes against those parts of the transcript, and report back to the Appeals Chamber as to any amendments to the transcript which should be made, in the form of a separate list of the amendments showing both the original version and the amended version in a manner which assists the Appeals Chamber to see the amendments made.
  2. In all other respects, the Request of the Appellant is refused on the basis that the issues raised are matters to be determined by the Appeals Chamber when hearing the Appeal.


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

Dated this 7th day of March 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

David Hunt
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]