Case No.: IT-98-34-T

BEFORE TRIAL CHAMBER I SECTION A

Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Maureen Harding Clark
Judge Fatoumata Diarra

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
23 October 2002

PROSECUTOR
v.
MLADEN NALETILIC aka "TUTA"
and
VINKO MARTINOVIC aka "STELA"

___________________________________________________________

DECISION ON THE ADMISSION OF EXHIBITS TENDERED DURING THE REJOINDER CASE

___________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Kenneth Scott

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Kresimir Krsnik, for Mladen Naletilic
Mr. Branko Seric, for Vinko Martinovic

 

TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A ("the 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 ("the Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED OF the following submissions:

  1. "Accused Naletilicís Submission Concerning Documents Used With Witness NX", filed on 16 October 2002;
  2. "Prosecutorís Exhibits Concerning Cross-examination of Defence Witness NX and Also Concerning Jure-Boban Song", filed confidentially on 15 October 2002;

CONSIDERING that in principle, exhibits should be submitted through a witness;

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 89 (C) of the Rules of procedure and evidence ("the Rules"), the Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value;

CONSIDERING that according to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, the same test as for rebuttal applies to evidence in rejoinder, therefore an entitlement to lead evidence in rejoinder arises only if the Prosecution raises new issues during its case in rebuttal;1

CONSIDERING that the Chamber is of the view that those principles apply equally to the submission of exhibits in rejoinder;

CONSIDERING FURTHERMORE that the Appeals Chamber has held that "[t]here is no legal basis Ö that proof of authenticity is a separate threshold requirement for the admissibility of documentary evidence";2

CONSIDERING, however, that in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, it is required that the evidence presents "sufficient indicia of reliability";3

CONSIDERING that the party conducting the direct examination of a witness must lay the source of the document it wishes to submit through the witness, in order for that document to meet the required degree of reliability;

CONSIDERING that the party conducting the cross-examination of a witness must lay the background and the source of the documents it wishes to submit through the witness, in order to allow the witness to recognise or reject the document;

CONSIDERING furthermore that the mere admission of a document does not necessarily mean that the document gives an accurate portrayal of the facts;4

RECALLING that the decision to authorise the admission of a document is without prejudice to the value or weight which will be accorded to the document at the final stage of the trial;

CONSIDERING that Exhibit P578.13 is not suitable as a rejoinder exhibit;

NOTING that Exhibit P443.1 was admitted into evidence in the "Decision on the Admission of Exhibits Tendered During the Rebuttal Case" issued by the Chamber on 23 October 2002;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

PURSUANT to Rules 54 and 89 of the Rules,

HEREBY ORDERS, in respect to the exhibits submitted in the course of the rejoinder case,

  1. that the following exhibits are admitted:
  2. P36; P113.11; P178.1; P188.1; P332.2; P416.1;

    D1/440; D1/441; D1/438; D1/439;

  3. that the following exhibits is denied:
  4. P578.13; P802.22;

 

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

Dated this twenty-third day of October 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

________________
Judge Liu Daqun
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1 - Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Cases No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Decision on Defence Motions for Rejoinder, 31 October 2000.
2 - Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., "Decision on Application of Defendant Zejnil Delalic for Leave to Appeal against the Decision of the Trial Chamber of 19 January 1998 for the Admissibility of Evidence", Case No. IT-96-21-AR73.2, 4 March 1998, at para. 25.
3 - Ibid., at para. 17; See also, Prosecutor v. Aleksovki, Decision on Prosecutor's Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, 16 February 1999; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Decision on Appeal Regarding Statement of a Deceased Witness, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, 21 July 2000; Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Order on the Standards Governing the Admission of Evidence, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 15 February 2002, at para. 18.
4 - Ibid.