IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

 

Before: 
Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge Mohamed Fassi Fihri

Registrar: 
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of: 
8 May 2001

PROSECUTOR

v.

MOMCILO KRAJISNIK

&

BILJANA PLAVSIC

_______________________________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FROM MOMCILO KRAJISNIK TO COMPEL
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE PARTICULARS

_______________________________________________________________

 

Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Mark Harmon
Mr. Nicola Piacente

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Deyan Brashich, for Momcilo Krajisnik
Mr. Robert. J. Pavich, for Biljana Plavsic

 

 

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 the "Motion to Compel Prosecution to Provide Particulars", filed by the Defence for Krajisnik on 17 April 2001 ("the Motion"), in which the accused seeks to compel the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") to provide particulars "as to any overt act by the Accused evidencing ‘participating, initiating, planning, instigating, ordering, committing or otherwise aiding and abetting’ the various crimes charged", arguing that:

  1. there is jurisprudence from the cases of Prosecutor v. Delalic & Ors. and Prosecutor v. Tadic to suggest that a motion for particulars is available to parties in proceedings before the International Tribunal, and that is especially so in this proceeding given the volume of discovery made;
  2. despite the Trial Chamber’s "Decision Concerning Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment" rendered on 1 August 2000 in this proceeding ("1 August Decision"), the Defence has recently been reconstituted, this proceeding has been joined with that of Biljana Plavsic and that given the timetable for trial there is very restricted time in which to prepare a defence; and
  3. the Pre-Trial Brief is not a substitute for discovery and will not be provided in time for the Defence to prepare its case,

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Defence’s Motion for Further Particulars" filed by the Prosecution on 24 April 2001 ("the Response"), in which the Prosecution opposes the Motion, arguing that:

  1. the accused has already made a motion for particulars pursuant to Rule 72 on 8 June 2000, in which it raised materially the same arguments as in the instant Motion and the Trial Chamber ruled on the original motion, and, therefore the Defence is not entitled to raise these adjudicated issues again;
  2. it is not settled law that an accused may bring a motion for further and better particulars before the International Tribunal and there are strong arguments mitigating against this;
  3. the Defence have already been provided with adequate particulars in the Indictment, as confirmed by the 1 August Decision,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber has considered a motion by this accused pursuant to Rule 72 and in its 1 August Decision rejected the accused’s request for further particulars on the basis that the Indictment did not lack precision, that the facts were sufficiently pleaded in the Indictment and that the Prosecution will be required to set out in its Pre-Trial Brief details of the offences allegedly committed and the precise role of the accused,

CONSIDERING that the Defence will have three months from the date of filing of the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief to prepare and file its Pre-Trial Brief,

PURSUANT TO RULE 54 OF THE RULES

HEREBY DENIES the Motion.

 

 

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

___________________________
Richard May
Presiding

Dated this eighth day of May 2001
At The Hague
The Netherlands 

[Seal of the Tribunal]