Case No.: IT-02-54-T

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Richard May, Presiding

Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge O-Gon Kwon

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
17 November 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

_________________________________

ORDER ON PROSECUTIONíS MOTION FOR VARIANCE OF PRIOR ORDERS OF NON-DISCLOSURE

_________________________________

Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Geoffrey Nice
Ms. Hildegaard Uertz-Retzlaff
Mr. Dermot Groome

The Accused:

Mr. Slobodan Milosevic

Amicus Curiae:

Mr. Steven Kay
Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic
Mr. Michaïl Wladimiroff

 

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 a confidential and partly ex parte "Prosecutionís Second Motion for Variance of Prior Orders of Non-Disclosure" filed on 3 November 2003 ("Motion"), seeking variation of the Trial Chamberís prior orders to the Accused, his associates and to the amici curiae not to disclose certain Rule 68 materials as defined in the Motion ("materials") to the public except to the limited extent directly and specifically necessary for the preparation and presentation of the Accusedís case (or, in the case of the amici, assistance to the Chamber),

NOTING that, in respect of specific Rule 68 materials provided to the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 70 by an information provider, the Prosecution seeks Ė on the request of the information provider Ė that the Trial Chamber order the Accused, his associates and the amici curiae, to comply with two restrictions on use of the Rule 68 material:

  1. That the material must continue to remain under the protection of Rule 70, and therefore may not be disclosed to others apart from the Accused, his associates and the amici curiae, without the prior approval of the information provider; and

  2. That unless authorised by the provider, the information may only be introduced into the record under seal and referred to in trial in closed session.

NOTING the prior Orders of the Trial Chamber concerning non-disclosure of Rule 66 materials1 and Rule 68 Materials2,

CONSIDERING the Appeals Chamber has held that where it can be established that information is provided to the Prosecution on a confidential basis under Rule 70, then it is protected by paragraphs (C) and (D) of that Rule,3 and the information provider may impose conditions upon the use of that information,

CONSIDERING that the content of the materials set out in an ex parte Annex to the Motion indicate that the information is important Rule 68 material and that the orders sought would allow the information to be provided to the Accused,

PURSUANT TO Rules 54, 68 and 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,

HEREBY GRANTS THE MOTION and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

  1. The material may not be disclosed to others apart from the Accused, his legal associates and the amici curiae, without the prior approval of the information provider; and

  2. Unless authorised by the information provider, the information may only be introduced into the record under seal and referred to in trial in closed session.

 

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

__________
Richard May
Presiding

Dated this seventeenth day of November 2003
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. 19 July 2001 and 21 March 2002.
2. 23 January 2003. It is noted that the Prosecution has not accurately reflected the content of this Order. The Prosecution asserts in its Motion that order (1) sought (that the material not be disclosed to others without the prior approval of the provider) is already provided for in the Chamberís Order of 23 January 2003, and so the only new order sought is that related to (2) production of the material under seal and reference in closed session. However, what the Chamber in fact ordered is that the material shall not be disclosed except to the "limited extent directly and specifically necessary for the preparation and presentation of the accusedís case". This entitled the information recipients to use the material without first obtaining the consent of the information provider (either directly or through the Prosecution).
3. Prosecutor v. Milosevic, "Decision on the Interpretation and Application of Rule 70", IT-02-54-AR108bis & AR73.3, 23 October 2002 ("Milosevic Appeals Decision"), para. 20.