Case No.: IT-02-54-T


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

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
6 February 2006







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 ("Tribunal"),

NOTING that Professor Audrey Budding testified as an expert witness for the Prosecution in this case on 23 and 24 July 2003, and that her expert report was admitted into evidence on 23 July 2003;

NOTING the confidential memorandum from the Deputy Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer of 16 December 2005, submitting the translation of an expert witness report by Professor Kosta Cavoski entitled “Budding versus Budding”, with two alternative subtitles—“The Two Faces of the Same Author in the Case of Slobodan MILOSEVIC" and "The Double Face of Budding In the Case of Slobodan MILOSEVIC" (“Cavoski Report”);

BEING SEIZED of a confidential "Prosecution’s Notice Pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) Challenging the Qualifications of Kosta Cavoski as an Expert and the Relevance of the Expert Report, Filed 16 December 2005", filed on 16 January 2006 ("Motion"), in which the Prosecution requests that the Chamber exclude the Cavoski Report in its entirety and refuse to allow the Accused to call Professor Cavoski as a witness, or, in the alternative, that the Prosecution be granted the right to cross-examine him;

NOTING the Assigned Counsel Response to the Motion, filed confidentially on 26 January 2006 ("Response"), in which Assigned Counsel contest the Prosecution’s assertions about Professor Cavoski’s qualifications, and present their own alternative requests for relief: either that the Chamber rule the expert report and testimony of Professor Audrey Budding inadmissible, or that it allow the Accused to call Professor Cavoski as an expert witness for the Defence;

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Reply to Assigned Counsel Response Filed 26 January 2006 to Prosecution’s Notice Pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) relating to Kosta Cavoski Filed 16 December 2005", filed confidentially on 1 February 2006 ("Reply"), in which the Prosecution, inter alia, seeks leave to reply to the Response;

CONSIDERING that there is no reason to maintain the confidentiality of these submissions;

NOTING that Rule 94 bis (B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") provides for the Prosecution to file a notice indicating whether

    1. it accepts the expert witness statement; or

    2. it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness; and

    3. it challenges the qualifications of the witness as an expert or the relevance of all or parts of the report and, if so, which parts.

CONSIDERING that, as the Prosecution has invoked subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of Rule 94 bis(B), the Trial Chamber must consider the relevance of the Cavoski Report and determine whether the qualifications of the proposed witness as an expert have been established;

CONSIDERING that, because "[t]he purpose of Professor Cavoski’s report is to provide a critique of the evidence and report of Professor Budding”,1 it is at least as relevant to the proceedings as Professor Budding’s expert report;

NOTING that, although no curriculum vitae of Professor Cavoski was included with the Cavoski Report, both the Prosecution and Assigned Counsel state in their respective submissions that he is a professor at the faculty of law in Belgrade;2

CONSIDERING that, although Professor Cavoski "is from the region of the former Yugoslavia",3 and despite any "knowledge of the history of the territories of the former Yugoslavia"4 he may have, it does not appear that he is sufficiently qualified to testify as a witness with expertise in the field that is the subject of his report;5

PURSUANT TO Rules 54, 89, 94 bis, and 126 bis of the Rules


  1. The Prosecution is granted leave reply to the Response;
  2. The status of the Cavoski Report, the Motion, the Response, and the Reply shall be changed from confidential to public; and
  3. The Defence shall file, by 13 February 2006, a copy of Professor Cavoski’s curriculum vitae and a list of any scholarly articles or other publications he has written, as well as any other information that may assist the Chamber in determining his expertise.


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

Patrick Robinson

Dated this sixth day of February 2006
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Response, para. 6.
2. See Motion, para. 5; Response, para. 4.
3. Response, para. 4.
4. Ibid., para. 4.
5. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Decision Concerning the Expert Witnesses Ewa Tabeau and Richard Phipps, 3 July 2002, p. 2 (defining an expert witness as "a person who[] by virtue of some specialised knowledge, skill or training can assist the trier of fact to understand or determine an issue in dispute").