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:
3 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 Cedomir Popov", filed on 18 October 2004 ("Motion"), in which the Prosecution challenges the objectivity of the testimony and the methodology of the report of Dr. Cedomir Popov, filed pursuant to Rule 94 bis (A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") on 17 September 2004, 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 Čedomir Popoví filed 18 October 2004" filed on 1 November 2004, in which Assigned Counsel submits that Dr. Popovís report is relevant as it deals inter alia with a number of issues which have been raised by the Prosecution during the presentation of the Prosecutionís case, including the concept of "Greater Serbia"; Assigned Counsel submits that the Trial Chamber should admit the report and allow the Prosecution to challenge the methodology and objectivity of the report during 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 either the expertise of Dr. Popov as an expert historical witness or the relevance of the report, and that the issue of a Greater Serbia that the report of Dr. Popov purports to address was raised by the Prosecution in its 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 third day of December 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]