Case No. IT-03-67-PT
Date: 14 November 2006
IN TRIAL CHAMBER I
Judge Alphons Orie, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge Frank Höpfel
Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis
Decision of: 14 November 2006
DECISION ON THE ACCUSED’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION TO
APPEAL THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S DECISION ON THE PROSECUTION’S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Office of the Prosecutor
Ms Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff
Mr Dan Saxon
Mr Ulrich Müssemeyer
Ms Melissa Pack
The Accused (representing himself)
Mr Vojislav Šešelj
Standby Counsel for the Accused
Mr David Hooper
Mr Andreas O’Shea
- On 8 November 2006 the Trial Chamber, pursuant to Rule 73 bis(D), ordered the Prosecution to remove a number of counts from the indictment and not to present any evidence relating to five specified crime sites. On the same date, the Trial Chamber decided orally, upon a request of the Accused, that the Prosecution does not have to amend its pre-trial brief to reflect the changes to be made to the indictment. The Trial Chamber stressed that the central instrument giving notice to the Accused about the charges against him was the indictment and that from the reduced indictment it should be clear to the Accused which parts of the pre-trial brief have been rendered obsolete.
- On 8 November 2006 the Accused orally requested a certification to appeal the decision denying his request concerning the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief. The Accused emphasized the importance of the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief for the preparation of his defence. The Prosecution responded that the Accused had not met the criteria for certification under Rule 73 (B) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
- Rule 73 (B) of the Rules provides that a Trial Chamber may grant certification to appeal a decision "if the decision involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings".
- The proposed amendment of the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief is not an issue that could be considered to significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial. It is the indictment rather than the pre-trial brief which alerts the Accused as to what he is charged with and, in any case, the Accused will be able to read the pre-trial brief in the light of the reduced indictment and thereby be sufficiently put on notice of the Prosecution’s case against him. Should the Accused be unable to decide whether an allegation in the pre-trial brief is still effective, he may ask the Trial Chamber for clarification orally or in writing.
- Since the first part of the test in Rule 73 (B) has not been met the Trial Chamber will not deal with the second part, namely whether "an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings".
- Therefore, the Trial Chamber, pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules, DENIES the Accused’s request.
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
Judge Alphons Orie
Dated this 14th day of November 2006
[Seal of the Tribunal]