IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

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

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
27 April 2001

PROSECUTOR

v.

MOMCILO KRAJISNIK

&

BILJANA PLAVSIC

 _________________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FROM BILJANA PLAVSIC
FOR SEPARATE TRIAL

_________________________________________________

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 a "Motion for Separate Trial" filed on behalf of the accused, Biljana Plavsic, on 9 April 2001 ("the Motion"), in which the accused seeks to have her trial separated from that of the co-accused in this proceeding for the following reasons:

  1. the Prosecution delayed disclosure of the Indictment for over eight months whilst it prepared the case against her through "the vehicle" of the Krajisnik case and therefore prejudiced her ability to adequately prepare for trial; and
  2. the Defence has inadequate resources compared with those of the Office of the Prosecutor ("OTP");

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Response to Biljana Plavsicís Motion for Separate Trial" filed by the OTP on 20 April 2001, in which the OTP submits that the Motion be rejected for the following reasons:

  1. the Trial Chamber having joined the case of Biljana Plavsic with that of the co-accused in this proceeding, Momcilo Krajisnik, by an order on 23 February 2001, the time period for an application for leave to appeal that decision having expired on 2 March 2001, there is no remedy available to the accused under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("the Rules");
  2. the issue of prejudice raised by the accused in the Motion was addressed in the Trial Chamberís Joinder Order; and
  3. the issues relating to Defence resources and the date of notification of the Indictment are irrelevant to a consideration of the issue of separation of trial under Rule 82 (B) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber in its Joinder Order ruled on the relevant arguments raised by the accused and decided that there would be no conflict of interest in joining the trials and that to do so would be in the interests of justice, and therefore ordered the trials to be joined;

CONSIDERING that the accused has raised no new relevant arguments in satisfaction of Rule 82 (B);

PURSUANT TO RULES 54 AND 82 OF THE RULES

HEREBY DENIES the Motion.

 

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

___________________________
Richard May
Presiding 

Dated this twenty-seventh day APRIL of 2001
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]