BEFORE A BENCH OF THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before: Judge Lal Chand Vohrah, Presiding

Judge Wang Tieya

Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia

Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Decision of: 4 February 1999

PROSECUTOR

v.

Zoran KUPRESKIC, Mirjan KUPRESKIC, Vlatko KUPRESKIC,
Drago JOSIPOVIC, Dragan PAPIC, Vladimir SANTIC, also known as "VLADO"

___________________________________________________________

DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORAL DECISION OF TRIAL CHAMBER II OF 15 JANUARY 1999

___________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Franck Terrier
Mr. Albert Moskowitz

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Ranko Radovic, for Zoran Kupreskic
Ms. Jadranka Glumac, for Mirjan Kupreskic
Mr. Borislav Krajina, for Vlatko Kupreskic
Mr. Luko Susak, for Drago Josipovic
Mr. Petar Puliselic, for Dragan Papic
Mr. Petar Pavkovic, for Vladimir Santic

 

This Bench of the Appeals Chamber ("the Bench") of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("the Tribunal"),

NOTING the application of the Defence Counsel for Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, Dragan Papic, and Vladimir Santic ("the Appellants") for leave to appeal against the oral decision of Trial Chamber II of 15 January 1999 in which the Trial Chamber ruled not to allow the re-examination of a witness by Defence Counsel for accused persons not calling the witness, filed on 19 January 1999,

NOTING the affirmation of the above-mentioned oral decision in a subsequent written decision by Trial Chamber II, in which the Trial Chamber held that the order of presentation shall be the examination-in-chief by the Defence Counsel for the accused calling the witness, cross-examination by Defence Counsel for other accused, cross-examination by the Prosecution, and re-examination by Defence Counsel for the accused calling the witness; and that it retains the discretion whether or not to permit further cross-examination by Defence Counsel for other accused where new material has been raised, filed on the 21 January 1999,

NOTING that leave to appeal is being sought pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("the Rules"), which provides as follows:

Decisions on such motions are without interlocutory appeal save with the leave of a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber which may grant such leave

    1. if the decision impugned would cause such prejudice to the case of the party seeking leave as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal; or
    2. if the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to the proceedings before the Tribunal or in international law generally.

CONSIDERING the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal,

FINDING that the decision not to allow the re-examination of a witness by Defence Counsel for accused persons not calling the witness cannot cause such prejudice to the case of the Appellants as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal,

AND FINDING that the issue in the proposed appeal is not of general importance to the proceedings before the Tribunal or in international law generally,

HEREBY DECIDES, unanimously, to refuse to grant the application for leave to appeal.

 

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

_____________________

Lal Chand Vohrah

Presiding Judge

Dated this fourth day of February 1999

At The Hague

The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]