Case No.: IT-02-54-T

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

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

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
1 June 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION

______________________________________________

OMNIBUS ORDER ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE DEFENCE LIST OF PROPOSED EXPERT WITNESSES AND PROSECUTION MOTION ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEFENCE CASE AND ADDENDUM THERETO

____________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Ms. Carla Del Ponte
Mr. Geoffrey Nice

The Accused

Mr. Slobodan Milošević

Court Assigned Counsel

Mr. Steven Kay, QC
Ms. Gillian Higgins

Amicus Curiae

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"),

HAVING RECEIVED a confidential "Disclosure of Defence Expert Witness Names", in a letter received from the Liaison Assistant on behalf of the Legal Associate of the Accused, Mr. Rakic on 5 May 2005 (“expert witness list”), containing a list of 38 proposed expert witnesses in response to an order of the Trial Chamber to "provide a list of experts he intends to call and submit that to the Trial Chamber within 14 days",1

BEING SEISED OF a "Prosecution Motion on the Management of the Defence Case", filed on 17 May 2005 ("Motion"), and "Addendum to Prosecution Motion on the Management of the Defence Case", filed on 24 May 2005 ("Addendum"), in sum seeking the following relief:

  1. The Accused should be ordered to file a witness list indicating the witnesses he considers to be of the highest priority, or alternatively to do so in court;

  2. The Accused should be ordered to resubmit his expert witness list to include Rule 65ter numbers and apply for leave to add witnesses not currently on that list;

  3. The Trial Chamber should restrict the number and nature of experts the Accused is permitted to call;

  4. The Trial Chamber should order that SREDACTEDC be withdrawn as a possible witness for reasons of conflict of interest; and

  5. Any witness who has already testified should not be recalled,

CONSIDERING that 13 of the 38 witnesses named in the expert witness do not appear on the Rule 65ter witness list of the Accused and that, in the absence of an application to add them to the witness list, the Trial Chamber cannot consider the admissibility of these witnesses,

CONSIDERING the standing order of the Trial Chamber requiring the Accused to "serve on the Prosecution and Amici Curiae any expert reports six weeks before the date on which it is anticipated the expert will testify",2 and that the Accused is required to comply with the terms of Rule 94bis,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber will exercise its power to refuse to hear the evidence of proposed expert witnesses whose testimony it considers to be cumulative and/or irrelevant, an example of such a witness being SREDACTEDC, listed as an expert on history,

NOTING that the Trial Chamber has already heard at length the evidence of one of the proposed expert witnesses, SREDACTEDC, as a fact witness,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber will not accept as a fact witness a person whose evidence is clearly that of an expert,

CONSIDERING that it is appropriate to remind the Accused of the limited time available to him to conclude his case, and that the testimony of all witnesses, including any expert witnesses, must be accommodated within that time,

CONSIDERING that, at this stage, it is not appropriate to require the Accused to file a priority list of witnesses, as requested by the Prosecution,

PURSUANT TO Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal

HEREBY DENIES THE PROSECUTION MOTION IN PART AND CONFIRMS ITS PREVIOUS ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

  1. The Accused will serve on the Prosecution any expert reports six weeks before the date on which it is anticipated the expert will testify, and will otherwise comply with the terms of Rule 94bis; and

  2. The Trial Chamber will not consider hearing the evidence of witnesses who do not appear on the Rule 65ter witness list of the Accused, in the absence of an application to add such witnesses.

 

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

___________________________
Judge Robinson
Presiding

Dated this first day of June 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. "Omnibus Order on Matters Arising out of Status Conference on the Defence Case", 17 May 2005 ("Omnibus Order"), Order (4).
2. "Omnibus Order on Matters Dealt With at the Pre-Defence Conference", 17 June 2004, Order (7).