Case No. IT-98-34-A


Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg
Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca

Mr. Hans Holthuis

4 May 2005



Mladen NALETILIC, aka "TUTA"




Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Matthew Hennessy and Mr. Christopher Young Meek for Mladen Naletilic
Mr. Zelimir Par and Mr. Kurt Kerns for Vinko Martinovic


THE APPEALS 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 the "Withdrawal of Confidential Status of Appeal Brief” (“Withdrawal of Confidential Status”) filed on 29 March 2005 by Vinko Martinovic (“Appellant"), wherein the Appellant notifies the International Tribunal that he withdraws the confidential status of the "Appeal Brief of Mr. Vinko Martinovic" ("Appeal Brief") filed on 29 August 2003, and requests that it be recognised as a public filing on the basis of his assertions that the confidential status of his Appeal Brief was originally imposed due to safety concerns which have since dissipated over time and that currently, the Appellant no longer believes that there is any need for his Appeal Brief to remain confidential ("Request");

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Vinko Martinovic's ‘Withdrawal of Confidential Status of Appeal Brief’ and Notification of Confidential Information Contained in Vinko Martinovic’s Appeal Brief”(“Prosecution’s Response”) filed on 30 March 2005, wherein the Prosecution requests that the Appellant’s Withdrawal of Confidential Status be denied on grounds that: 1) withdrawal of the confidential status of the Appellant’s Appeal Brief would be a breach of confidentiality because the Appeal Brief reveals the identity of witnesses who testified with the use of pseudonyms, face distortion, and in closed session by order of the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rules 75 and 79 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"); 2) the Appellant may not unilaterally rescind protective measures granted by a Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 75; and 3) the Appellant fails to assert any grounds for rescinding the protective measures previously ordered by the Trial Chamber;

NOTING that the Appellant has not filed a reply;

RECALLING that on 23 September 2003, the Pre-Appeal Judge considered that given certain contents in the Appellant’s Appeal Brief, it should have been filed confidentially, and ordered that it henceforth be treated as a confidential filing;1

NOTING in particular that the Appellant’s Appeal Brief reveals information relating to witnesses for whom protective measures were ordered by the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rules 75 and 79 of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that the protective measures ordered by the Trial Chamber for witnesses testifying in this case continue to have effect mutatis mutandis on appeal;2

CONSIDERING that withdrawal of the confidential status of the Appellant’s Appeal Brief would entail rescinding the protective measures ordered by the Trial Chamber;

CONSIDERING that an appellant may not unilaterally withdraw the confidential status of a filing that has been ordered by the Appeals Chamber;

CONSIDERING further that the Appellant has failed to cite to any factual support for his Request that the Appeals Chamber recognize his Appeal Brief as a public filing because the Appeals Chamber’s decision to classify his Appeal Brief as confidential and the Trial Chamber’s decision to issue the underlying protective measures were based on safety concerns that have now dissipated;

RECALLING that on 17 March 2005, the Pre-Appeal Judge orally ordered the parties in this case to file public, redacted versions of their confidential appeal briefs with the International Tribunal in a timely manner;3

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rules 78 and 107 of the Rules, all proceedings before an Appeals Chamber, which include the parties’ filings as part of the proceedings, shall be public unless there are exceptional reasons for keeping them confidential4 and that, it is the practice of the International Tribunal that parties shall file public redacted versions of all confidential briefs filed on appeal from the Trial Chamber’s judgement in light of the fact that the Appeals Chamber shall, after giving due consideration to the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, pronounce and issue its judgement publicly pursuant to Rule 117 of the Rules;

HEREBY REJECTS the Appellant’s Withdrawal of Confidential Status and thereby DENIES the Appellant’s Request; and

ORDERS the Appellant to re-file a public version of his Appeal Brief as soon as possible wherein all confidential information, including the identity of protected witnesses, is duly redacted.


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

Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding

Dated this 4th day of May 2005,
Done at The Hague,
The Netherlands.

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Order, 23 September 2003, p. 2.
2. Cf. Rule 75 in fine.
3. Status Conference, T. 17 March 2005, p. 67.
4. See e.g., Rules 75 and 79 of the Rules.