Case No. IT-04-74-PT
BEFORE THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Amin El Mahdi
Judge Alphons Orie
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
1 July 2005
PROSECUTOR
v.
JADRANKO PRLIC
BRUNO STOJIC
SLOBODAN PRALJAK
MILIVOJ PETKOVIC
VALENTIN CORIC
BERISLAV PUSIC
_______________________________________________
DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTION REGARDING DEFENCE RULE 70 MATERIAL AND DEFENCE SENSITIVE WITNESSES IN RELATED CASES
_______________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Kenneth Scott
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Michael Karnavas for the accused Mr. Jadranko Prlic
Mr. Berislav Zivkovic for the accused Mr. Bruno Stojic
Mr. Bozidar Kovacic for the accused Mr. Slobodan Praljak
Ms. Vesna Alaburic for the accused Mr. Milivoj Petkovic
Mr. Tomislav Jonjic for the accused Mr. Valentin Coric
Mr. Fahrundin Ibrisimovic for the accused Mr. Berislav Pusic
TRIAL CHAMBER I ("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");
RECALLING the Chamber’s "Decision on Defence’s Motion for Access to Confidential Material" dated 9 March 2005, whereby the Chamber granted access to the Defence to the confidential material in the Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic et al., Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez cases ("Related Cases") concerning the conflicts between Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croats or between the Army of BiH and HVO on the territory of the BiH in 1992/93 subject to protective measures ("March Decision");
BEING SEIZED of "the Prosecution’s Motion Regarding Defence Rule 70 Materials and Defence Sensitive Witnesses in Related Cases" filed on 29 March 2005 ("Motion"), whereby the Prosecution requests that the Trial Chamber amend or augment its March Decision with regard to Defence Rule 70 materials and Defence sensitive witnesses in related cases because it "is not in a position to review Defence closed-session witness ₣testimoniesğ to identify and further process sensitive witnesses. The Prosecution cannot know or consider which such previous witnesses the former Defence teams may consider particularly sensitive, based on information, considerations, promises and agreements that only the Defence teams may be privy to or know about";1
CONSIDERING that the Prosecution requests that the Chamber require the Defence in each Related Case to review its Rule 70, closed-sessions and sensitive witness materials and to provide summaries of or to disclose such materials;2
CONSIDERING that the Chamber has stated in the March Decision that it is in the interests of justice that Rule 70 material shall not be disclosed except upon the provider’s consent, that "'sensitive witness' material (which is in principle closely connected to the facts of a specific case and not available to the opposing party until about 30 days before the sensitive witness is due to testify)3 and ex-parte pleadings or submissions (not available to the opposing party in the previous proceedings) should not be disclosed to the Applicants except upon showing of a legitimate need";
CONSIDERING that the March Decision is to be understood as granting access to the Defence teams in the present case to Rule 70, closed-sessions and sensitive witness materials adduced at trial by the Prosecution; that if the Defence teams in the Prlic et al. case require access to Defence Rule 70, closed-sessions and sensitive witness materials, if any, such access must be specifically requested by the Prlic et al. Defence teams;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 75 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
HEREBY DENIES the Motion.
Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.
Dated this 1st Day of July 2005,
At The Hague
The Netherlands
______________________
Judge Liu Daqun
Presiding
[Seal of the Tribunal]