The Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez - Case No. IT-95-14/2-T

"Decision on the Prosecution Request to Proceed by deposition"

3 November 1999
Trial Chamber III (Judges May [Presiding], Bennouna and Robinson)


Articles 21(4)(c) and 21(4)(e) of the Statute and Rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence - unavailability of a Judge; deposition evidence; right of the accused; Presiding Officer.

The Trial Chamber declared that the temporary unavailability of one of its Judges amounted to exceptional circumstances as stated in Sub-rule 71(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence1 and that this unavailability should not prejudice the right of the accused to be tried without undue delay2. With the agreement of the parties, the Trial Chamber ordered that deposition evidence be taken before a duly appointed Presiding Officer3.

_______________________________
1. Sub-rule 71(A) : 'At the request of either party, a Trial Chamber may, in exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice, order that a deposition be taken for use at trial, and appoint, for that purpose, a Presiding Officer.'
2. Article 21(4)(c) of the Statute.
3. On temporary unavailability of Judges, see also : Decision on the Prosecutor and Defence Motions to Proceed by Deposition, Blaskic case, 19 February 1998; Decision on Prosecution and Defence Requests to Proceed by Deposition, Kupreskic and others, 11 February 1999; Decision on the Prosecution Request to Proceed by Deposition, Kupreskic and others, 25 February 1999; Kvocka and others, Decision to Proceed by way of Deposition pursuant to Rule 71, 15 November 1999. See also new Article 15 bis, Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence dated 30 November 1999.