THIS BENCH of the Appeals 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 Bench" and "the International Tribunal" respectively),

BEING SEIZED OF the "Accused Dario Kordic’s Application for Leave to Pursue an Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber III’s June 2, 2000 Ruling to Admit into Evidence Multiple Hearsay Statements Contained within an Anonymous Document of Unknown Origin for which no Foundation has been Laid", filed on 9 June 2000 ("the Application for Leave to Appeal");

NOTING the oral decision of Trial Chamber III rendered on 2 June 2000 ("the Impugned Decision") granting a request by the Office of the Prosecutor ("the Prosecution") to admit into evidence a report allegedly produced by the HIS (Croatian Information Service) and submitted to the President of the Republic of Croatia in February 1994 ("the Report");

NOTING the "Prosecutor’s Response to Accused Dario Kordic’s Application for Leave to Pursue an Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber III’s June 2, 2000 Ruling to Admit into Evidence Multiple Hearsay Statements Contained within an Anonymous Document of Unknown Origin for which no Foundation was Laid", filed confidentially on 19 June 2000 ("the Response");

NOTING the "Reply to the Prosecutor’s Response to the Accused Dario Kordic’s Application for Leave to Pursue an Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber III’s June 2, 2000 Ruling to Admit into Evidence Multiple Hearsay Statements Contained within an Anonymous Document of Unknown Origin for which no Foundation was Laid", filed on 23 June 2000 ("the Reply");

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal is filed pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("the Rules") which provides, inter alia, that applications "for leave to appeal shall be filed within seven days of the filing of the impugned decision" and allows for interlocutory appeals in the following two instances:

1. if the decision impugned would cause such prejudice to the case of the party seeking leave as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal;
2. if the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the Tribunal or in international law generally;

NOTING that the Application for Leave to Appeal was filed within time;

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal argues that the Impugned Decision would cause incurable prejudice and is of general importance to proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally because, inter alia: i) the admission into evidence of the Report was inconsistent with the Accused’s right of confrontation; ii) the Report may have been fabricated; iii) no foundation was laid prior to the admission of the Report; and iv) the Trial Chamber erred in its interpretation of Rules 89(C) and (D) and Rule 95;

CONSIDERING that "in order to make out a case successfully for the granting of leave to appeal an applicant must establish that the impugned decision is so prejudicial that the detrimental effect could not be rectified by the Trial Chamber in its judgement or by the Appeals Chamber in post-judgement appeal";

FINDING that the Application for Leave to Appeal has failed to establish that any alleged prejudice arising from the Impugned Decision could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal;

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber recently dealt with the general question of admissibility of evidence pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules and stated that "..the reliability of a statement is relevant to its admissibility, and not just its weight. A piece of evidence may be so lacking in terms of the indicia of reliability that [it] is not ’probative’ and is therefore inadmissible";

CONSIDERING FURTHER that the Impugned Decision of the Trial Chamber is consistent with the settled law of the International Tribunal, that "[t]here is no legal basis for the Applicant’s argument that proof of authenticity is a separate threshold requirement for the admissibility of documentary evidence";

FINDING that the Application for Leave to Appeal has failed to establish that the issues in the proposed appeal are of general importance to the proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally;

HEREBY REJECTS the Application for Leave to Appeal.

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

Dated this twenty-second day of September 2000

At The Hague,

The Netherlands.