IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before: Judge Antonio Cassese, Presiding

Judge Richard May

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of: 8 January 1998

 

PROSECUTOR

v.

MILE MRKSIC
MIROSLAV RADIC
VESELIN SLJIVANCANIN
SLAVKO DOKMANOVIC

____________________________

SCHEDULING ORDER

____________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Grant Niemann
Mr. Clint Williamson
Mr. Stefan Wäspi

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Toma Fila and Mr. Vladimir Petrovic, for Slavko Dokmanovic

 

THE TRIAL CHAMBER,

NOTING the Prosecutor’s Motion For The Pre-Trial Admission Of Evidence filed on 15 December 1997 ("Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-trial Admission"), the Defence Response to the Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission ("Defence Response") filed on 29 December 1997, the Defence Motion For Pre-Trial Admission Of Evidence And Notification Of Additional Documents That Defence Intends To Rely Upon During The Trial filed on 29 December 1997 ("Defence Motion for Pre-Trial Admission"), and the Defence Additional Motion For Pre-Trial Admission Of Evidence filed on 6 January 1998 ("Defence Additional Motion") which raises further objections to the Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission,

NOTING the Defence Motion For Trial Chamber To Order A Discovery Of Mr. Dokmanovic’s Criminal File From The Osijek’s District Court To The Defence filed on 18 December 1997 ("Defence Motion for Discovery"), the Prosecutor’s Response thereto filed on 5 January 1998 and the Defence Reply filed on 7 January 1998,

NOTING the Prosecutor’s Motion For Pre-Trial Production Of The Defence Videotape filed on 5 January 1998 ("Prosecutor’s Motion for Production of Videotape") and the Defence Response thereto filed on 7 January 1998,

NOTING ALSO the Defence Motion To Enable To Call Witnesses By Means Of Safe Conduct And Video Conference Link filed on 6 January 1998 ("Defence Motion for Protective Measures"),

NOTING FURTHER that the commencement of the trial has been set for Monday 19 January 1998,

CONSIDERING the arguments and objections raised by the Defence in connection with certain material referred to in the Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission,

CONSIDERING that the Defence Response also raises objections in connection with various witness statements, such witness statements not being evidence in the trial,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber wishes to hear oral argument on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission with respect to the disputed material and on any matters that may be disputed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") in connection with the Defence Motion for Pre-Trial Admission,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber also wishes to hear oral argument from the parties on the Defence Motion for Discovery and the Defence Motion for Protective Measures,

CONSIDERING FURTHER that the Trial Chamber has determined that it should view in closed session the videotape in question before making its final determination on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Production of Videotape,

PURSUANT TO Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission is granted in relation to those matters to which no objection is taken by the Defence, i.e., paragraphs 3 (c) – (m) inclusive, subject to any subsequent ruling of the Trial Chamber following oral argument on the issues referred to in paragraph 4 (i) below.

2. The Prosecution shall file its Response to the Defence Motion for Pre-Trial Admission by Monday 12 January 1998 and its Response to the Defence Motion for Protective Measures by Friday 16 January 1998.

3. The Trial Chamber will view the videotape the subject of the Prosecutor’s Motion for Production of Videotape in closed session on Monday 19 January 1998, prior to the commencement of opening statements. Both parties and the accused may be present at the viewing.

4. After the opening statements have been made on Monday 19 January 1998, the Trial Chamber will hear oral argument from the parties on the following issues:

  1. the Prosecutor’s Motion for Production of Videotape,
  2. the admissibility of the disputed material referred to in the Prosecutor’s Motion for Pre-Trial Admission, that is, those items in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b);
  3. the admissibility of the items referred to in the Defence Additional Motion;
  4. if the objection to witness statements referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Defence Response is a reference to the admissibility of the information contained in those statements, the Trial Chamber will also hear oral argument on this point;
  5. the request for copies of materials in paragraph 3 of the Defence Response;
  6. the admissibility of disputed material, if any, in the Defence Motion for Pre-Trial Admission;
  7. the Defence Motion for Discovery;
  8. the Defence Motion for Protective Measures;
  9. whether there should be a limit on the number of prosecution witnesses and the material produced dealing with general background and peripheral issues and, if so, what such limit should be.

 

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

________________________________

Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Duty Judge

Dated this eighth day of January 1998

At The Hague

The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]