Case No: IT-95-14-A

Before: Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis

Order of: 7 December 2001

PROSECUTOR

v

TIHOMIR BLASKIC

________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO REPLY

________________________________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Anto Nobilo
Mr Russell Hayman
Mr Andrew M Paley

 

I, Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("Tribunal"),

BEING SEIZED of the "Prosecutionís Supplementary Response on Protective Measures and Disclosure of Rule 70(C) Material", filed by the Prosecution on 16 November 2001 ("Supplementary Response"), the public redacted version of the "Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Motion for Access to Non-public Transcripts and Exhibits in Response to 11 October 2001 Order and Further Application for an Extension of Time", dated 31 October 2001, but filed by the Prosecution on 16 November 2001 ("Redacted Response"); and the "Appellantís Application for Leave to Reply to Prosecutorís Supplementary Response on Protective Measures and Disclosure of Rule 70(C) Material", filed by counsel for the appellant Tihomir Blaskic ("Applicant") on 21 November 2001 ("Application");

NOTING that the Prosecution requests the imposition of particularly stringent protective measures with respect to non-public materials in the Prosecutor v Kupreskic, Prosecutor v Furundzija and Prosecutor v Kordic and Cerkez, in the event that I order its disclosure to the Applicant;

NOTING that the Prosecution has made serious allegations of non-compliance with previous protective measure orders by the Applicant, and in particular against one of the counsel for the Applicant, Mr Anto Nobilo, in support of the request for the particularly stringent protective measures;

NOTING that the Applicant seeks leave to reply, in accordance with an order of mine, to the serious allegations of misconduct made by the Prosecution against the Applicant;

NOTING that the Applicant strongly denies the said allegations;

NOTING also that due to certain difficulties experienced by the Applicant in receiving the annexes attached to the Supplementary Response, the Applicant requests to be granted sufficient time to prepare a reply;

NOTING that the Applicant requests that the deadline for the filing of the reply be set only once counsel have received the annexes and made submissions to me on the time needed to prepare a reply;

NOTING that the said annexes number ten and total approximately 430 pages;

NOTING that the Prosecution does not object to the Applicant seeking leave to reply and to a reasonable period of time being granted in which to file a reply;

CONSIDERING that fairness demands that the Applicant be granted an opportunity to respond to the serious allegations made by the Prosecution;

CONSIDERING that the imposition of protective measures with respect to the possible disclosure to the Applicant of non-public material appear to depend on an assessment of the serious allegations made against the Applicant, and that such an assessment requires the filing of a reply by the Applicant;

CONSIDERING that a deadline of 10 January 2002 for the filing of a reply is a reasonable and sufficient period of time;

NOTING, further, the "Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Motion for Access to Non-public Transcripts and Exhibits in Response to 11 October Order and Further Application for Extension of Time", filed confidentially by the Prosecution on 31 October 2001 ("Response");

NOTING that I ordered the Prosecution to explain why I should not lift the confidentiality of the Response;

NOTING the Prosecutionís submission that the Response had to be filed confidentially in order to properly address certain issues, which required reference to sealed material and closed sessions, and that the Prosecution performed two minor redactions to the Response to enable a redacted version thereof to be made public;

CONSIDERING that the redactions are minor and do not alter in any significant manner the text of the document and, therefore, that the filing of the Redacted Response makes public the essential aspects of the Response;

PURSUANT TO Rule 54 of the Rules,

HEREBY GRANT leave to the Applicant to file a reply to the Supplementary Response, including on the protective measures submitted by the Prosecution to be necessary in the event that I grant the disclosure sought, by 12:00 on Thursday, 10 January 2002,

HEREBY APPROVE the filing of the Redacted Response, and

HEREBY ORDER that the Response is to remain confidential.

 

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

Done the seventh day of December 2001
At The Hague
The Netherlands

_______________________________________
Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]