___________________________________________

___________________________________________

THE TRIAL CHAMBER of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter "the Tribunal"),

PURSUANT to Article 21 of the Statute and Rules 66, 67, and 68 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter "the Rules"),

NOTING the Defence Motion, dated 22 May 1998, for sanctions for the Prosecutor's failure to comply with Sub-rule 66 (A) of the Rules and the Decision of 27 January 1997 compelling the production of all statements of the accused (hereinafter "the Motion"),

NOTING the Prosecutor’s Response to the Defence Motion, filed on 23 June 1998,

NOTING the Trial Chamber Decision of 27 January 1997 to compel the production of discovery materials (hereinafter "the Decision of 27 January 1997"),

NOTING the Trial Chamber Decision, dated 25 August 1997, on the Defence motion to preclude the testimony of certain prosecution witnesses based upon the prosecution's violation of the Tribunal's order compelling the production of discovery materials (hereinafter "the Decision of 25 August 1997"),

NOTING the unofficial transcripts of the hearings of witness testimony on 10 December 1997 and 27 April 1998 and of the status conference held in camera on 3 June 1998,

CONSIDERING that, in its Motion, the Defence asserts that the Prosecutor has consistently and regularly violated her obligation to disclose prior statements of the accused, pursuant to Sub-rule 66(A) of the Rules and to the Trial Chamber Decision of 27 January 1997; that the Defence consequently requests that the Trial Chamber preclude the Prosecutor from making use of any of the improperly withheld documents and that it also order the disclosure of the said documents to the Defence within seven days,

CONSIDERING that, in support of its Motion, the Defence refers to exhibits 171 and 308 tendered during witness testimony on 10 December 1997 and 27 April 1998 respectively; that with respect to those two exhibits, the Trial Chamber has made no ruling from the bench1,

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution, basing itself on the decisions of 27 January 1997 and 25 August 1997, objects to the broad interpretation of the notion of prior statements within the meaning of Sub-rule 66(A) of the Rules, as presented by the Defence; that the Prosecution deems moreover that the above interpretation is a Defence strategy intended to circumvent the reciprocal disclosure of "documents" by the parties, pursuant to Sub-rules 66(B) and 67(C) of the Rules, disclosure which the Defence has waived,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber finds that the non-disclosure of exhibits which are not used at trial is not such as to prejudice the Defence, insofar as, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules, the Prosecutor remains under the obligation to disclose to the Defence all exculpatory evidence known to her,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber deems that it may legitimately rule only on the exhibits which were, in fact, used by the Prosecutor at trial and whose admission into evidence is contested by the Defence, that is, the aforementioned exhibits 171 and 308, in order to determine whether they are subject to the disclosure obligation covered by Sub-rule 66(A),

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber finds that the expression "prior statements obtained by the Prosecutor from the accused", within the meaning of Sub-rule 66(A) of the Rules, whether the prior statements were obtained by the Prosecution or whether they originate from any other source, according to the terms of the Decision of 27 January 1997, must be understood to refer to all statements made by the accused during questioning in any type of judicial proceeding which may be in the possession of the Prosecutor, but only such statements,

CONSIDERING that exhibits 171 and 308, which are orders issued freely by the accused himself in the course of his duties, cannot be considered to be prior statements pursuant to Sub-rule 66(A) of the Rules,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that these exhibits constitute documents covered by Sub-rule 66(B) of the Rules and that, consequently, since the Defence has waived use of that Rule by refusing to subject itself to reciprocal disclosure under Sub-rule 67(C) of the Rules, the Prosecutor is under no obligation to disclose them to the Defence, subject to the provisions of Rule 68 of the Rules.

RULING inter partes and unanimously,

DISMISSES the Defence Motion for sanctions for the Prosecutor's failure to comply with Sub-rule 66(A) of the Rules and the Decision of 27 January 1997 compelling the production of all statements of the accused,

STATES that exhibits 171 and 308 are admitted and have been placed in the record.

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

Done this fifteenth day of July 1998
At The Hague
The Netherlands

(Signed)
_____________________
Claude Jorda
Presiding Judge Trial Chamber I

1. Unofficial transcripts of the hearings of 10 December 1997 (p. 3689, 5-9) and 27 April 1998 (p.5848, 1-20) respectively.