Case No. IT-02-60-T

IN TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A

Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Volodymyr Vassylenko
Judge Carmen Maria Argibay

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
30 June 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

VIDOJE BLAGOJEVIC
DRAGAN JOKIC

__________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 92 bis

__________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Peter McCloskey

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Michael Karnavas and Ms. Suzana Tomanovic for Vidoje Blagojevic
Mr. Miodrag Stojanovic and Ms. Cynthia Sinatra for Dragan Jokic

 

TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A, (“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 (“Tribunal”),

BEING SEISED of the “Prosecution’s Motion to Amend Witness List and Incorporated Motion to Admit Evidence under Rule 92 bis,” filed under seal by the Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution”) on 10 June 2003 (“First Motion”),1

NOTING that the amendments proposed in the Motion include inter alia the inclusion of testimony of eight witnesses2 under Rule 92 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal (“Rules”),

NOTING that subsequently the Prosecution filed “Prosecution’s Motion to Amend Witness List and Incorporated Motion to Admit Evidence under Rule 92 bis,” on 20 June 2003 under seal3 (“Second Motion”), in which it proposed inter alia the inclusion of five witnesses 4 under Rule 92 bis of the Rules ,

NOTING that no response has been filed by either of the accused to the First Motion or the Second Motion,

NOTING the First Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92 bis” rendered by the Trial Chamber on 12 June 2003, in which the Trial Chamber has considered the jurisprudence in relation to Rule 92 bis of the Rules in detail,

CONSIDERING that this decision is in relation to the witnesses W27, W32, W35, W40, W77, W76 and W152, and that the admission of evidence under Rule 92 bis of the Rules relating to the other witnesses in the First Motion and Second Motion shall be determined at a later stage,

CONSIDERING that the prior testimony of witnesses W27, W35, W40 and W77 does not go to the acts and conduct of the accused and is relevant to the proceedings of this case, and the Trial Chamber does not feel that it is necessary for them to be cross-examined,

CONSIDERING that the prior testimony of witness W32 is of a cumulative nature and that it may not be necessary for the evidence of this witness to be admitted under Rule 92 bis of the Rules,

CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice for the prior testimony of W76 to be entered into evidence under Rule 92 bis (D) of the Rules and for parts of her video taped testimony to be shown before the Trial Chamber,

CONSIDERING that in relation to witness W152, whose statement is to be entered into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis (A) and (B) of the Rules, it may be necessary to call him for cross-examination,

PURSUANT TO Rule 54 and Rule 92 bis of the Rules,

HEREBY GRANTS the First Motion and Second Motion, in part and ORDERS

The testimony of witnesses W27, W35, W40 and W77 be entered pursuant to Rule 92 bis (D) of the Rules, without calling them for cross-examination;

In relation to witness W32, the Trial Chamber recommends that the Prosecution withdraw this witness from its witness list at this stage. Should the Prosecution determine at a later stage that it is necessary to reinstate this witness on the witness list , the Trial Chamber will consider such a motion;

In relation to witness W76, the testimony is to be entered into evidence under Rule 92 bis (D) of the Rules and parts of her video taped testimony be shown before the Trial Chamber;

In relation to witness W152, the witness statement shall be entered into evidence under Rule 92 bis (A) and (B) of the Rules and the Trial Chamber reserves its decision on whether it is necessary to call the witness for cross-examination until the final Rule 92 bis statement has been filed.

 

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

_______________
Judge Liu Daqun
Presiding

Dated this thirtieth day of June 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1 - A public redacted version of the First Motion was filed on 10 June 2003.
2 - W27, W32, W35, W40, W77, W81, W88 and W76.
3 - A public redacted version of the Second Motion was also filed on 20 June 2003.
4 - W119, W118, W99, W105 and W152. W152 was previously proposed as an additional witness in the First Motion.