Case No. IT-02-54-T

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER III

Before:
Judge Patrick Robinson, Presiding
Judge O-Gon Kwon
Judge Iain Bonomy

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
14 June 2004

PROSECUTOR

v.

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

__________________________________

FINAL DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS

_______________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Ms. Carla Del Ponte
Mr. Geoffrey Nice
Mr. Dermot Groome
Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff

The Accused

Mr. Slobodan Milosevic

Amici Curiae

Mr. Stephen Kay, QC
Prof. 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 "Prosecutionís Response to Accusedís Objection to Admission of Intercepted Communications", filed by the Prosecution on 31 October 2002 ("Motion"), requesting that the Trial Chamber admit into evidence a number of intercepted communications ("intercepts") concerning the Bosnia and Herzegovina phase of the trial,

NOTING the Trial Chamberís "Preliminary Decision on the Admissibility of Intercepted Communications", issued 16 December 2003 ("First Decision"), (1) ordering that 245 intercepts contained in Prosecution Exhibit 613 shall be admitted into evidence on a prima facie basis and (2) reserving final ruling with respect to admissibility subject to determining the relevance and reliability of the intercepts,1

NOTING that the relevant provisions pertaining to the admissibility of the intercepts are Rules 89 and 95 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"),

Authenticity

NOTING the following:

CONSIDERING the report of the experts, J.P. French and Associates, in which it is stated that

  1. "Generally speaking, the linguistic and technical examinations revealed no evidence of tampering or editing";2

  2. "Linguistically, the conversations appear natural, coherent and cohesive";

  3. "From a technical viewpoint, no suspicious disruptions, breaks or discontinuities were found in the signals; nor were there abrupt changes in the energy-frequency characteristics of the background sound or amplitude levels, such as one might associate with editing"; and

  4. "The conversations were found to be substantially completeÖ"

Relevance

HAVING ORALLY ORDERED on 04 December 2003 the Prosecution to file a schedule setting forth the relevance of each of the intercepts,3

CONSIDERING the "Submission of Prosecution Document Concerning the Relevance of Intercepted Communications", filed by the Prosecution on 19 January 2004 ("Relevance Submission"), wherein the Prosecution set forth its representations with respect to the relevance of the intercepts,

NOTING that the Accused and Amici Curiae did not respond to the Relevance Submission,

CONSIDERING that several of the intercepts (1) were tendered as evidence without an accompanying English translation and thus the Trial Chamber is unable to asses their relevance, (2) are duplicates, or (3) have been withdrawn by the Prosecution,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber has determined that some of the intercepts are relevant and some are not, as set forth in the Disposition contained within this Decision,

PURSUANT TO Rules 54, 89, and 95 of the Rules,

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

  1. the following intercepts are admitted into evidence: exhibit 613, tabs 1-17, 19-28, 30-89, 91-129, 131-145, 147-171, 173-180, 182-184, 186-188, 191-197, 199-200, 202, 205-207, 209, 213, 215-216, 218-220, 222, 224-238, 240-241, 243-244; and

  2. the remainder of the intercepts are denied admission into evidence.

 

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

___________
Patrick Robinson
Presiding

Dated this fourteenth day of June 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. See also notes 1-12 of the First Decision for other relevant procedural history of this matter.
2. Reference is made in the report to four exceptions to the continuity of the recorded conversations, however no significance is ascribed to these.
3. Hearing on 4 December