Case No. IT-03-68-T

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Hans Henrik Brydensholt
Judge Albin Eser

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
26 January 2006

PROSECUTOR

v.

NASER ORIC

________________________________________________

DECISION ON "REQUETE DU GENERAL MILETIC AUX FINS D’ACCES A DES INFORMATIONS CONFIDENTIELLES DANS L’AFFAIRE ORIC"

________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Jan Wubben
Ms. Patricia Sellers Viseur
Mr. Gramsci di Fazio
Ms. JoAnne Richardson

Counsel for the Accused:

Ms. Vasvija Vidovic
Mr. John Jones

Counsel for the Accused Miletic:

Ms. Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic

 

TRIAL CHAMBER II ("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 "Requête du Général Miletic aux Fins d’Accès à des Informations Confidentielles dans l’Affaire Oric" filed by Defence Counsel for Radivoje Miletic in the Case Number IT-05-88-PT ("Miletic Defence") on 11 January 2005 ("Miletic Motion"), in which the Miletic Defence seeks to have access to all confidential material (including the transcripts of all the closed sessions, relevant exhibits and confidential decisions) in the Oric case ("Requested Material");

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Defence Motion on Behalf of General Miletic Seeking Access to All Confidential Material in the Oric Case" filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") in the Oric case on 25 January 2006 ("Prosecution Response"), in which the Prosecution submits that the Miletic Defence has failed to demonstrate that i) a sufficient nexus exists between the case against Naser Oric and the case against Radivoje Miletic; and that ii) the disclosure of the identity of the witnesses for whom protective measures were granted in the Oric case would assist in the preparation of its case;

NOTING that, during the hearing of 26 January 2006, the Defence for Naser Oric ("Oric Defence") informed the Trial Chamber that it would not respond to the Miletic Motion;

NOTING Rule 75(G)(i) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules") which provides that "[a] party to the second proceedings seeking to rescind, vary or augment protective measures ordered in the first proceedings must apply […] (i) to any Chamber, however constituted, remaining seised of the first proceedings";

RECALLING that access to confidential material may be granted whenever the Chamber is satisfied that the party seeking access has established that such material may be of material assistance to his case;-1-

RECALLING further that the relevance of the material sought by a party may be determined by showing the existence of a nexus between the applicant’s case and cases from which such material is sought, for instance, if the cases stem from events alleged to have occurred in the same geographical area and at the same time; -2-

CONSIDERING that there is no reason for the Trial Chamber to depart from the reasoning it adopted in its "Decision on the Defence Motion on Behalf of Drago Nikolic Seeking Access to all Confidential Material in the Oric Case" of 8 November 2005;

CONSIDERING therefore that the the Miletic Defence has failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the case against Radivoje Miletic and the case against Naser Oric in view of the fact that, while the two cases stem from events alleged to have occurred in the same geographical area and share a general background which is relevant to a large number of cases before the Tribunal, they have temporal and material scopes which do not overlap;

CONSIDERING further that the Miletic Defence has failed to substantiate how the disclosure of the identity of the witnesses for whom protective measures were granted in the Oric case would assist in the preparation of the case for Radivoje Miletic;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS

PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 75(G)(i) of the Rules

HEREBY DENIES the Miletic Motion.

 

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

Dated this twenty-sixth day of January 2006,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

_____________________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic et al., Case No. IT-01-47-PT, Decision on Motion by Mario ^erkez for access to confidential supporting material, 10 October 2001, para. 10; Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Decision on appellants Dario Kordic and Mario ^erkez’s request for assistance of the Appeals Chamber in gaining access to appellate briefs and non-public post-appeal pleadings ad hearing transcripts filed in the case of Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, 16 May 2002, para. 14.
2. Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for access to confidential documents, 3 July 2000, para.. 8; Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Decision on appellants Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez’s request for assistance of the Appeals Chamber in gaining access to appellate briefs and non-public post-appeal pleadings ad hearing transcripts filed in the Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, 16 May 2002, para. 15.