Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15518

1 Wednesday, 4 August 1998

2 --- Upon commencing at 2.37

3 (Open session)

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good afternoon ladies

5 and gentlemen. As I indicated yesterday, the Trial

6 Chamber shall read this short ruling. After I have

7 just read the conclusion, the Registrar will try and

8 get you the copies, because they are not quite ready.

9 And this is a preliminary decision, we will have to

10 write a full decision.

11 Now, on the 24th July, '98 the Trial Chamber

12 heard the Prosecution's application for a proposed

13 rebuttal of the Defence case. The Trial Chamber,

14 having listened to arguments, was of the opinion that

15 only Dr. Landy Sparr, the expert witness on the medical

16 evidence of Esad Landzo, could be called as a rebuttal

17 witness. We held the view that the evidence of the

18 remaining witnesses, namely Rajko Djordjic, Stephen

19 Chambers and Professor Andreja Stegnar, did not

20 constitute true rebuttal evidence but may only be

21 regarded as fresh evidence.

22 On the 28th of July, 1998 the Trial Chamber

23 answered affirmatively to the inquiry of the

24 Prosecution, whether it could file an application to

25 reopen its case to enable it to call the three

Page 15519

1 witnesses who the Trial Chamber held did not meet the

2 parameters of rebuttal evidence.

3 The Prosecution has now brought this

4 application, filed on the 30th July, 1998 to reopen

5 this case. It still maintains that all of the

6 witnesses proposed and documents sought to be admitted

7 are within the permissible ambit of rebuttal evidence.

8 Now, I dealt extensively with the arguments

9 of counsel. I don't think I have enough breath to read

10 all these things now. However, I came to a conclusion

11 which I thought was the only necessary thing for the

12 purpose of this decision. The conclusion that the

13 Trial Chamber came to is that the evidence suggested as

14 rebuttal evidence do not come within the purview of

15 such evidence as discussed in this decision.

16 The new evidence put forward are evidence

17 which existed ab initio and did not arise ex

18 improviso. The failure to obtain them during the

19 presentation of the case of the Prosecution has not

20 been satisfactorily explained.

21 On the representation of the Prosecution the

22 Trial Chamber has no doubts the trial will be further

23 protracted by the admission of the evidence.

24 In any event, the evidence is founded on

25 inference and cannot be said to point unequivocally at

Page 15520

1 the establishing of the case of the Prosecution.

2 In our view the justice of the case and the

3 fair and expeditious trial of the proceedings enjoys a

4 rejection of the application. This is the decision of

5 the Trial Chamber.

6 I think that's all we have for the

7 proceedings of the day. So the Trial Chamber will now

8 rise.

9 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at

10 2.41 p.m., sine die.