Case No.: IT-02-54-T


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

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
9 May 2005







Office of the Prosecutor:

Ms. Carla Del Ponte
Mr. Geoffrey Nice

The Accused:

Mr. Slobodan Milosevic

Court Assigned Counsel:

Mr. Steven Kay
Ms. Gillian Higgins

Amicus Curiae:

Prof. Timothy 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 an "Application for Re-Admission of Witness Henning Hensch", filed by the Defence through the Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer on 27 April 2005 ("Application"), in which it requests that the Trial Chamber permit (1) the readmission of Mr. Henning Hensch to the Defence witness list, and (2) the Defence to call the additional witness "in due course",1

NOTING that, pursuant to this Chamber’s "Order Rescheduling and Setting the Time Available to Present the Defence Case" of 25 February 2004, the Defence filed its witness list on 13 April 2004, and a revised list on 18 June 2004;2 and that the revised list identified Mr. Henning Hensch as the witness assigned the Rule 65 ter number 662,

NOTING that, according to the Application, the Defence presented the following summary description of the witness and his anticipated testimony at the time of the submission of the original witness list:

German policeman; present in person at an event in Kosovo that was exploited by the media. Personal knowledge of facts pertaining to the parties to the conflict in Kosovo.3

NOTING that the Application provides slightly more information on the testimony Mr. Hensch might give, stating that if called as a witness "[h]e will provide the Trial Chamber with a compelling testimony related to the areas he visited as a member of the Kosovo Verification Mission–OSCE", and that his testimony would be "of a great value to the Croatian and Bosnian part of the indictment as he has personal experiences of the events that took place in these areas",4

NOTING that Mr. Hensch was removed from the witness list after Assigned Counsel informed the Chamber that the Accused no longer wished to call him as a Defence witness,5

CONSIDERING that this Chamber has previously ordered that "[I]f the Accused wishes to add any witnesses or exhibits to his witness list after the Pre-Defence Conference, he must apply to the Chamber for permission to do so showing good cause",6

CONSIDERING that the good cause requirement is equally applicable to requests to restore witnesses after they have been withdrawn,

CONSIDERING that the Application does not establish good cause for the Chamber to grant permission to readmit Mr. Hensch to the Defence witness list, because the summaries of his anticipated testimony are too vague for the Chamber to determine the relevance of such testimony to the allegations in the joint indictment,

NOTING that the Application was filed confidentially because it is the Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer’s practice to file internal memoranda containing communications from the Accused confidentially,

CONSIDERING that submissions from the Parties are to be filed publicly unless their contents warrant confidential filing, and that nothing in the Application requires that it be filed confidentially,

PURSUANT to Rule 54 of the Rules,


  1. The Application is denied without prejudice to the Defence making a future application with an improved summary of the proposed witness’ testimony; and

  2. The Registry shall change the status of the Application and the accompanying internal memorandum from the Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer from confidential to public.


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

Judge Robinson

Dated this ninth day of May 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. The Application’s reference to "witnesses" in the second prayer for relief appears to be a typographical error, because Mr. Hensch is the only witness mentioned in the Application.
2. In the original 13 April 2004 filing, only a small number of these witnesses were named, and the majority referred to solely by a pseudonym. The Trial Chamber’s "Order to the Accused on Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses" of 27 May 2004 required the Accused to produce to the Trial Chamber the identities of all witnesses on the Rule 65 ter (G) witness list, and to "disclose to the Prosecution and Amici Curiae the identities of all witnesses on the Rule 65 ter (G) witness list, except those identified by the Accused as witnesses for whom the extraordinary protective measure of delayed disclosure will be sought". In compliance with this Order, the Defence submitted a revised witness list on 15 June 2004, which was filed on 18 June 2004.
3. Application, para. 3.
4. Application, para. 7(b).
5. Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No. IT-02-54-T, T. 33146–T. 33147 (19 October 2004).
6. Milosevic, "Order Concerning the Preparation and Presentation of the Defence Case", 17 September 2003,
p. 5, para. 6.