Case No. IT-01-48-T
IN TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A
Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Judge Amin El Mahdi
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
29 June 2005
PROSECUTOR
v.
SEFER HALILOVIC
_________________________________________
DECISION ON DEFENCE MOTION FOR EXCLUSION OF EXHIBITS
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Philip Weiner
Ms. Sureta Chana
Mr. David Re
Mr. Manoj Sachdeva
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Peter Morrissey
Mr. Guénaël
Mettraux
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 Defence "Motion for Exclusion of Exhibits", filed on 3 June 2005 ("Motion"), by which the Defence "seeks reconsideration"1 of the Trial Chamber’s “Decision on Admission Into Evidence of Documents Tendered during Witness Salko Gusic’s Testimony in Court”, filed on 24 February 2005 ("Decision on Admission"), and the exclusion from evidence of Prosecution exhibits P111, P112, P113, P114, P115, and P121 ("Exhibits");
NOTING the Prosecution "Response to Defence Motion for Exclusion of Exhibits", filed on 17 June 2005;
NOTING the "Defence Objection to Admission of Evidence", filed on 10 February 2005 ("Defence Objection"), by which the Defence objected to the admission into evidence of these Exhibits, among others, on the grounds that:
"[t]he burden to establish the authenticity of documents which it seeks to tender is and remains with the prosecution",3
NOTING that the Defence, by its "Motion for Certification", filed on 4 March 2005, sought certification from the Trial Chamber for interlocutory appeal of the Decision on Admission on the grounds listed above under 1) to 3),6 that this motion was denied by the Decision on Motion for Certification of 6 April 2005; and CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber in that decision stated that the Defence "has had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness [Salko Gusic] and to challenge the reliability and/or authenticity of the exhibits", thus also addressing the argument under 4) above;7
CONSIDERING in this respect that it is settled practice in this Tribunal that "when objections are raised on grounds of authenticity or reliability, [a] Trial Chamber will […] admit documents and video recordings and then decide what weight to give them within the context of the trial record as a whole";8
CONSIDERING that the Defence in the current Motion is resubmitting the above arguments;9
CONSIDERING that the Defence has failed to show good cause, as required by the Guidelines on the Standards Governing the Admission of Evidence,10 why the Trial Chamber should reconsider the Decision on Admission;
CONSIDERING THEREFORE that this matter has been decided;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
PURSUANT TO Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
DISMISSES the Motion.
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
_____________
Judge Liu Daqun
Presiding
Dated this twenty-ninth day of June 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]