IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before:
Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge O-Gon Kwon
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Order of:
4 April 2003
PROSECUTOR
v.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
________________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor
Ms. Carla Del Ponte
Mr. Geoffrey Nice
Mr. Dermot Groome
The Accused
Slobodan Milosevic
Amici Curiae
Mr. Steven Kay, QC
Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic
Mr. Timothy L.H. McCormack
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 confidential and ex parte “Prosecution’s Request for Reconsideration of the Trial Chamber’s ‘Decision on Prosecution Motion for Protective Measures’ or for Certification of Appeal Against the Decision”, dated 20 March 2003 (“Request”),1 in which the Prosecution requests the Trial Chamber either to reconsider its “Decision on Prosecution Motion for Protective Measures” of 13 March 2003 (“Decision”)2 or, alternatively, to certify this issue for appeal pursuant to Rule 73(B),
HAVING CONSIDERED the Prosecution submissions in its Request,
NOTING that Rule 73 (B) requires two criteria to be satisfied before the Trial Chamber can exercise its discretion to certify a decision for interlocutory appeal: (1) that the issue would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or outcome of the trial, and (2) an immediate resolution of the issue may, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, materially advance the proceedings,3
NOTING that a Trial Chamber may reconsider its own decisions in appropriate circumstances,
NOTING the argument of the Prosecution that different Trial Chambers have dealt with the issue under consideration differently, referring however only to one decision by the Trial Chamber in the Blaskic case,4
CONSIDERING that in its Decision, this Chamber explicitly distinguished the Blaškic Decision from the issues of relevance in the application before this Trial Chamber and that the Prosecution has failed to show any basis for submitting that the Chamber should reconsider its findings in respect of the Blaskic Decision,5
NOTING the argument of the Prosecution that the practice of Rule 70 information providers will be significantly affected by this Decision and that it “will most likely have a negative impact on the providing of information as the basis and conditions its being presented as evidence has been altered [sic]”,6
CONSIDERING that the question of whether or not the Decision will have an adverse impact on the practice of Rule 70 information providers other than the humanitarian organisation the subject of the Decision, does not provide justification for the Chamber to either reconsider its Decision or grant Rule 73 certification,
CONSIDERING that, whilst a Trial Chamber may reconsider its own decisions in certain circumstances, no legitimate basis for such reconsideration has been made out by the Prosecution in its Request,
CONSIDERING that the Prosecution has failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements for certification pursuant to Rule 73(B), that (1) the issue would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or outcome of the trial, and (2) an immediate resolution of the issue may, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, materially advance the proceedings,
PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 73(B) of the Rules
HEREBY DENIES THE MOTION
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
__________________
Richard May
Presiding
Dated this fourth day of April 2003
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]