Case No.: IT-02-54-T

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Patrick Robinson, Presiding
Judge O-Gon Kwon
Judge Iain Bonomy

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
1 December 2004

PROSECUTOR

v.

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

_________________________________________________

ORDER ON PROSECUTION NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 94 bis

__________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Ms. Carla Del Ponte
Mr. Geoffrey Nice

The Accused

Mr. Slobodan Milosevic

Court Assigned Counsel

Mr. Steven Kay, QC
Ms. Gillian Higgins

Amici Curiae

Prof. Timothy L.H. McCormack

 

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 ("the International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED OF a "Confidential Prosecutionís Notice Pursuant to Rule 94 bis in relation to Slavenko Terzić", filed on 18 October 2004 ("Motion"), in which the Prosecution challenges the objectivity of the testimony and the report of Dr. Slavenko Terzić, filed pursuant to Rule 94 bis (A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") on 17 September 2004, on the basis of the bias of Dr. Terzić, and seeks to have the report dismissed in its entirety,

NOTING the confidential "Assigned Counselís Response to ĎProsecutionís Notice pursuant to Rule 94bis in relation to Slavenko Terzićí filed 18 October 2004" filed on 1 November 2004, in which Assigned Counsel submits that the appropriate response to the concerns raised by the Prosecution is for the Trial Chamber to admit the Report and allow the Prosecution to challenge the objectivity of the evidence in cross-examination,

NOTING that, pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) of the Rules, the Prosecution is to file a notice indicating whether

    1. it accepts the expert witness statement; or
    2. it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness; and
    3. it challenges the qualifications of the witness as an expert or the relevance of all or parts of the report and, if so, which parts.

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution has not challenged the expertise of Dr. Terzić as an expert historical witness nor the relevance of the report, and that evidence on the historical context that the report of Dr. Terzić purports to address was allowed during the presentation of the Prosecution case,

CONSIDERING the expressed intention of the Prosecution to cross-examine the witness,

PURSUANT TO Rules 94 bis and 54 of the Rules

HEREBY REFUSES THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE REPORT.

 

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

______________________
Judge Robinson
Presiding

Dated this first day of December 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]