Case: IT-98-33-A


Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding

Judge Fausto Pocar
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Judge David Hunt
Judge Mehmet Güney

Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
1 July 2003

Radislav KRSTIC




Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr Nenad Petrusic
Mr Norman Sepenuk

1. The appellant Radislav Krstic (“Krstic”) has applied for subpoenas to be issued to two prospective witnesses, requiring each of them to attend at a location (to be nominated) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.1 The purpose of such attendance is to give counsel for Krstic the opportunity to interview them there in anticipation of adding material to his application, already made pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”), for the admission of additional evidence in support of his appeal against conviction.

2. The application for the issue of subpoenas is made pursuant to Rule 54, which provides:

At the request of either party or proprio motu, a Judge or a Trial Chamber may issue such orders, summonses, subpoenas, warrants and transfer orders as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for the preparation or conduct of the trial.

That Rule applies mutatis mutandis to proceedings in the Appeals Chamber.2 The issues which the application raises are of some significance to the Tribunal’s procedures generally, and for that reason the present Decision is given publicly notwithstanding that the Motion was filed on a confidential basis.3

3. The significance of these issues arises from the fact that, increasingly, applications for the admission on appeal of additional evidence follow the revelation by the prosecution after judgment has been given by the Trial Chamber, pursuant to its continuing obligations of disclosure under Rule 68,4 of witness statements which it had taken from persons with knowledge of the events considered by the Trial Chamber and which – to use a neutral term – are capable of placing those events in a different light.

4. In order to have those statements admitted into evidence on appeal in any such case, the defence is required primarily to establish that, although the statement itself clearly “was not available at trial”,5 the evidence which it reveals was also not available at trial in any form. The defence often seeks to satisfy this requirement by asserting that an attempt had been made before or during the trial to ascertain from such prospective witnesses what evidence they could give, but that the prospective witnesses had either failed or declined to co-operate.

5. However, before additional evidence will be admitted pursuant to Rule 115, the defence is obliged to demonstrate not only that the evidence was not available at trial but also that the evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,6 which means that the defence must show (inter alia) that it made use of –

[…] all mechanisms of protection and compulsion available under the Statute and the Rules of the International Tribunal to bring evidence on behalf of an accused before the Trial Chamber,7

and that it had brought any difficulties in relation to obtaining evidence on behalf of the accused, including those arising from intimidation or inability to locate witnesses, to the attention of the Trial Chamber.8 This obligation of due diligence is therefore directly relevant to the procedures of the Tribunal (in particular, Rule 54) both before and during trial, as well as on appeal.

6. In response to the application by Krstic in his conviction appeal for the admission of additional evidence pursuant to Rule 115,9 the prosecution submitted, as it does in almost all cases, that due diligence had not been exercised by the defence at the trial. It nominated Rule 54 (making orders that witnesses attend to give evidence) and Rule 71 (taking evidence by way depositions ) as containing the relevant “mechanisms of protection and compulsion” which should have been used by him – but which had not been used by him – either before or during the trial.10

7. Krstic replied to the prosecution’s submission that due diligence had not been exercised by stating that no defence lawyer would compel a witness to give evidence or would attempt to take that witness’s deposition (particularly in the presence of the prosecution) unless the defence had “at least some inkling that the witness had useful information to offer”,11 or would call the witness “cold” without prior information as to what the witness would say.12 Krstic also asserted that relief under Rule 54 would be refused, as not being “necessary” where the witness has refused to be interviewed.13

8. The Appeals Chamber accepts that, in a situation where the defence is unaware of the precise nature of the evidence which a prospective witness can give and where the defence has been unable to obtain his voluntary cooperation, it would not be reasonable to require the defence to use “all mechanisms of protection and compulsion available” to force the witness to give evidence “cold” in court without first knowing what he will say. That would be contrary to the duty owed by counsel to their client to act skilfully and with loyalty.14 Accordingly, it is generally inappropriate in this situation to consider orders to the prospective witness to attend to give evidence (Rule 54) or for taking his evidence by way of deposition for use later in the trial (Rule 71).15

9. The Reply, however, wrongly assumes that Rule 54 is limited to making orders that the prospective witness attend to give evidence before the relevant Chamber. It is clear, both from the terms of the Rule itself and from what the Appeals Chamber said in the Tadic Rule 115 Decision,16 that the requirement that “all mechanisms of protection and compulsion available ” be used by the defence was not intended to be limited to the situation where the defence is aware of what evidence the prospective witness can give but where the prospective witness is unwilling (for whatever reason) to cooperate. In the exercise of due diligence, the appropriate mechanisms must also be used in the situation where the defence is unaware of the precise nature of the evidence the prospective witness can give and where the defence is unable to obtain his cooperation by speaking to it.

10. Rule 54 permits a judge or a Trial Chamber to make such orders or to issue such subpoenas as may be “necessary […] for the preparation or conduct of the trial”. Such a power clearly includes the possibility of a subpoena being issued requiring a prospective witness to attend at a nominated place and time in order to be interviewed by the defence where that attendance is necessary for the preparation or conduct of the trial. By analogy with applications for access to confidential material produced in other cases (where a legitimate forensic purpose for that access must be shown), an order or a subpoena pursuant to Rule 54 would become “necessary” for the purposes of that Rule where a legitimate forensic purpose for having the interview has been shown. An applicant for such an order or subpoena before or during the trial would have to demonstrate a reasonable basis for his belief that there is a good chance that the prospective witness will be able to give information which will materially assist him in his case, in relation to clearly identified issues relevant to the forthcoming trial.17

11. The assessment of the chance that the prospective witness will be able to give information which will materially assist the defence in its case will depend largely upon the position held by the prospective witness in relation to the events in question, any relationship he may have (or have had) with the accused which is relevant to the charges, the opportunity which he may reasonably be thought to have had to observe those events (or to learn of those events) and any statements made by him to the prosecution or to others in relation to those events. The test would have to be applied in a reasonably liberal way but, just as in relation to such applications for access to confidential material, the defence will not be permitted to undertake a fishing expedition – where it is unaware whether the particular person has any relevant information, and it seeks to interview that person merely in order to discover whether he has any information which may assist the defence.

12. Where the prospective witness had previously been uncooperative with the defence, such a course would obviously be adopted only if the judge or Trial Chamber considered that it was reasonably likely that there would be cooperation if such an order were made. That is not a determination which the defence may safely make for itself. If it were decided by the judge or the Trial Chamber that such a course is unlikely to produce the cooperation sought, or if such an order is made without success, an alternative course could be to make an order or to issue a subpoena pursuant to Rule 54 requiring the prospective witness to appear before the Tribunal, when the judge who issued the order can explain to him the importance of his cooperation to assist in producing a just result in the trial, and how he will be afforded protection by the Tribunal if it is required. If this produces the cooperation sought, the defence can interview him before he is released by the Tribunal, but in private.18

13. In some cases, once the difficulties encountered by the defence have been brought to the attention of the Chamber, it may be that the prosecution, in accordance with its duty to assist the Tribunal to arrive at the truth and to do justice for ( inter alia) the accused,19 will use its own resources and its somewhat more extensive powers (including the power of persuasion) to facilitate an interview directly between the prospective witness and the defence.

14. What must also be emphasised is that the obligation of the defence to report to the Trial Chamber its inability to obtain the cooperation of a prospective witness, to which the Tadic Rule 115 Decision refers, is intended not only as a first step in exercising due diligence but also as a means of self-protection, in that a contemporaneous record then exists that the cooperation of the prospective witness had not been obtained. Such a record avoids the inevitable charge by the prosecution – when the defence later seeks to have additional evidence admitted in an appeal against conviction – that there is no support for the claim by the defence that it had attempted but failed to obtain the cooperation of the prospective witness.

15. Of course, such a report to the Trial Chamber does not by itself satisfy the obligation of due diligence. The defence must also seek relief from the Trial Chamber by which the uncooperative prospective witness will be compelled to cooperate. If the Trial Chamber denies the relief sought from the Tribunal as being inappropriate in the particular case, or (where relief is granted) if all the steps available within the Tribunal prove to be unsuccessful, counsel would, in the usual case, be deemed to have acted with due diligence in relation to that witness.

16. If, as a result of these steps not being followed by the defence in the particular case, due diligence has not been satisfied, the defence will, again in the usual case where additional evidence is tendered in an appeal against conviction pursuant to Rule 115, be required to undertake the additional burden of establishing that the exclusion of the additional evidence would lead to a miscarriage of justice.20

17. Where – as in the present case – an appellant seeks the issue of a subpoena to a prospective witness to be interviewed in anticipation of tendering that person’s evidence on appeal pursuant to Rule 115, the legitimate forensic purpose to be established must be slightly adapted. An appellant must establish that there is a reasonable basis for his belief that there is a good chance that the prospective witness will be able to give information which will materially assist him in relation to clearly identified issues arising in his appeal against conviction, that the defence has been unable to obtain the cooperation of the witness, and that it is at least reasonably likely that an order would produce the degree of cooperation needed for the defence to interview the witness. If those matters are established, then – subject only to one general issue raised by the prosecution in the present case – the appellant would be entitled to the orders which he seeks pursuant to Rule 54.

18. Each of the two prospective witnesses in question in the present application gave a statement to the prosecution after the trial and thus has been cooperative with the prosecution.21 Krstic has argued that the statements indicate that each of these two men has knowledge of issues which are relevant to his appeal, and that it is reasonably likely that further questions of them will elucidate the precise nature of that knowledge. The material provided by Krstic to establish those matters cannot be revealed in this public Decision. The prosecution has very fairly stated that it has no objection in principle to the defence interviewing both prospective witnesses,22 which statement appears clearly (in its context) to accept that such material is sufficient to establish what has been stated as being required for the issue of a subpoena to each of them, subject to the one general issue which the prosecution has raised. The Appeals Chamber (Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting) is satisfied that, subject to that general issue raised by the prosecution, Krstic would be entitled to the issue of the subpoenas he seeks. To the remaining general issue the Appeals Chamber now turns.

19. The prosecution accepts that the Tribunal has power to issue a subpoena to a person to give evidence as a witness or to produce documents where that person obtained the information of which evidence is to be given, or the documents which that person is to produce, as an individual acting in his or her private capacity.23 That concession is correct. In the Blaskic Subpoena Decision,24 the Appeals Chamber held that such a power was an incidental or ancillary jurisdiction conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute.25 The prosecution points out, however, that, at the time of the events concerning which Krstic says that these prospective witnesses might give evidence, each was an officer in the Army of a State or an Entity,26 and that whatever relevant information they may have would have been gained by them in their capacity as State officials and related to their official functions, rather than as individuals acting in their private capacity.27 This appears to be so from the material provided in the Motion and from the statements which the prospective witnesses gave to the prosecution. In those circumstances, the prosecution says, the Chamber “may be limited” in its power to issue a subpoena to them.28 The prosecution bases this submission upon a number of statements made by the Appeals Chamber in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision.

20. The Appeals Chamber stated in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision that a subpoena may be issued to a State official where the information to be provided was gained before he took office as such and where the evidence is unrelated to his “current ” function as a State official,29 or where he gained that information at the time he was a State official but he was not actually exercising his official functions when he gained it.30 In these circumstances, the State official gained the information in his private capacity and not his official capacity. Where, however, he gained the information in the course of exercising his official functions, the Appeals Chamber stated, he enjoys a functional immunity.31 The Appeals Chamber went on to state that any international body such as this Tribunal must take into account the sovereignty of each State,32 that customary international law protects the internal organisation of each sovereign State,33 and that, as State officials are mere instrumentalities in the hands of sovereign States, “there is no practical purpose in singling them out and compelling them to produce documents or in forcing them to appear in court”.34 It dismissed “the possibility of the International Tribunal addressing subpoenas to State officials acting in their official capacity”.35 In that case, the Appeals Chamber held that, in order to compel the production of certain documents, it was necessary to issue a binding order to the relevant State, pursuant to Article 29 of the Statute, to produce the information required, leaving it to the State to identify the person responsible for providing the State’s compliance with that order.36

21. The prosecution is content that if need be the Motion by Krstic should be treated as seeking the making of such a binding order,37 and it concedes that the requirements to be satisfied before a binding order can be made have been satisfied,38 except perhaps one requirement in relation to one of the prospective witnesses.39 Counsel for Krstic has informed the Appeals Chamber orally that he has not filed a reply to the prosecution’s Response because he does not believe that he can be of any further assistance on this point.

22. It is, however, necessary first to determine whether these statements made by the Appeals Chamber in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision prevent the issue of a subpoena to a witness who is expected to give evidence of what he saw or heard at a time when he was a State official and in the course of exercising his official functions.

23. The Blaskic Subpoena Decision was concerned with the production of documents. The subpoena in question had been directed to the Republic of Croatia and to its incumbent Defence Minister to produce documents. The nature of those documents is not described, but it is reasonably clear from that Decision that the documents concerned were State documents, and that both the State and the Minister of State to whom the subpoena was directed were required to produce them merely as the custodians of those documents. It is common place in the law that, where the documents to be produced are the documents of either a State or a corporation, only the State or the corporation can be required to produce them, and that it is for the State or the corporation to do so through its proper officer. The issue of a subpoena to the Defence Minister to produce the documents would have had to be set aside upon that basis in any event. The decision of the Appeals Chamber that a subpoena could not be directed to a State, but that a binding order to do so should have been sought pursuant to Article 29 of the Tribunal’s Statute, was directed to the production of documents, not to giving evidence.

24. The Blaskic Subpoena Decision did not have to determine, and it was not directly concerned with, the issue of whether a subpoena could be issued to a person to give evidence of what he saw or heard at a time when he was a State official and in the course of exercising his official functions. The justification for the ruling that a subpoena could not be addressed to State officials acting in their official capacity was stated to be that “[s]uch officials are mere instruments of a State and their official action can only be attributed to the State”.40 Such a statement is very relevant to a custodian of State documents, but it is not apt in relation to a State official who can give evidence of something he saw or heard (otherwise, perhaps, than from a State document). Unlike the production of State documents, the State cannot itself provide the evidence which only such a witness could give. The reference to the absence of any “practical purpose […] in compelling [State officials] to produce documents or in forcing them to appear in court” can be relevant solely to State officials who are the custodians of State documents.41

25. The only ruling made by the Appeals Chamber in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision which is directly relevant to a State official who is expected to give evidence of something he saw or heard (otherwise than from a State document) during the course of exercising his official duties is that he enjoys a functional immunity. The existence of such a functional immunity is not in issue in this case. What is in issue in the present Decision is the extent of that functional immunity. The Blaskic Subpoena Decision said this of the existence of that immunity:42

38. The Appeals Chamber dismisses the possibility of the International Tribunal addressing subpoenas to State officials acting in their official capacity. Such officials are mere instruments of a State and their official action can only be attributed to the State. They cannot be the subject of sanctions or penalties for conduct that is not private but undertaken on behalf of a State. In other words, State officials cannot suffer the consequences of wrongful acts which are not attributable to them personally but to the State on whose behalf they act: they enjoy so-called “functional immunity”. This is a well-established rule of customary international law going back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,43 restated many times since. More recently, France adopted a position based on that rule in the Rainbow Warrior case.44 The rule was also clearly set out by the Supreme Court of Israel in the Eichmann case.45

The issue is developed subsequently:46

41. […] It is well known that customary international law protects the internal organization of each sovereign State: it leaves it to each sovereign State to determine its internal structure and in particular to designate the individuals acting as State agents or organs. Each sovereign State has the right to issue instructions to its organs, both those operating at the internal level and those operating in the field of international relations, and also to provide for sanctions or other remedies in case of non-compliance with those instructions. The corollary of this exclusive power is that each State is entitled to claim that acts or transactions performed by one of its organs in its official capacity be attributed to the State, so that the individual organ may not be held accountable for those acts or transactions.

The general rule under discussion is well established in international law and is based on the sovereign equality of States (par in parem non habet imperium ). […]

The general rule at issue has been implemented on many occasions, although primarily with regard to its corollary, namely the right of a State to demand for its organs functional immunity from foreign jurisdiction (see above, paragraph 38).47 This rule undoubtedly applies to relations between States inter se. However, it must also be taken into account, and indeed it has always been respected, by international organizations as well as international courts. Whenever such organizations or courts have intended to address recommendations, decisions (in the case of the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter) or judicial orders or requests to States, they have refrained from turning to a specific State official; they have issued the recommendation, decision or judicial order to the State as a whole, or to “its authorities”.48 In the case of international courts, they have, of course, addressed their orders or requests through the channel of the State Agent before the court or the competent diplomatic officials.


43. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that, both under general international law and the Statute itself, Judges or Trial Chambers cannot address binding orders to State officials. Even if one does not go so far as to term the obligation laid down in Article 29 as an obligation of result, as asserted by one of the amici curiae,49 it is indubitable that States, being the addressees of such obligation, have some choice or leeway in identifying the persons responsible for, and the method of, its fulfilment. It is for each such State to determine the internal organs competent to carry out the order. It follows that if a Judge or a Chamber intends to order the production of documents, the seizure of evidence, the arrest of suspects etc, being acts involving action by a State, its organs or officials, they must turn to the relevant State.

26. The reasoning of the Appeals Chamber in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision is that, as the State official has acted on behalf of the State, only the State can be responsible for the acts of that official,50 and that, as a corollary, the State may demand for its State officials (where their acts are attributed only to the State) a “functional immunity from foreign jurisdiction”.51 Such a rule, the Appeals Chamber states, undoubtedly applies to relations between States inter se, but it must be taken into account and has always been respected by, inter alia, international courts.52 All of the authorities which the Appeals Chamber cited in support of the functional immunity upon which it relied relate to an immunity against prosecution. It may be the case (it is unnecessary to decide here) that, between States, such a functional immunity exists against prosecution for those acts, but it would be incorrect to suggest that such an immunity exists in international criminal courts.53 The Charter of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg denied such an immunity to “Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments”,54 as does this Tribunal’s Statute.55

27. But it is abundantly clear from the passages already quoted from the Blaskic Subpoena Decision, and from pars 23-24, supra, that the statement made in par 38 of that Decision – that “The Appeals Chamber dismisses the possibility of the International Tribunal addressing subpoenas to State officials acting in their official capacity” – can be justified only in relation to the production of documents in their custody in their official capacity. The Appeals Chamber did not say that the functional immunity enjoyed by State officials includes an immunity against being compelled to give evidence of what the official saw or heard in the course of exercising his official functions. Nothing which was said by the Appeals Chamber in the Blaskic Subpoena Decision should be interpreted as giving such an immunity to officials of the nature whose testimony is sought in the present case. No authority for such a proposition has been produced by the prosecution, and none has been found. Such an immunity does not exist. No issue arises for determination in this case as to whether there are different categories of State officials to whom any such immunity may apply, and it is unnecessary to determine such an issue here.

28. Should a State official give evidence before the Tribunal, whether under compulsion or voluntarily, he cannot be compelled to answer any question relating to any information provided under Rule 70, or as to its origin, if he declines to answer on grounds of confidentiality.56 As regards the possibility that the witness may be asked questions which raise issues of national security, a procedure analogous to Rule 54bis may have to be adopted.


29. The Appeals Chamber (Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting) orders that subpoenas be issued requiring the two prospective witnesses identified in the Motion to attend at a location in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at a time, to be nominated by the Krstic defence after consultation with the prosecution (and, if need be, with the Victims and Witnesses Section), to be interviewed there by the Krstic defence.


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

Dated this 1st day of July 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

Judge Theodor Meron

Judge Shahabuddeen appends a dissenting opinion.

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1 - Two motions for the issue of a subpoena were filed, one for each witness and each entitled: (Confidential) Defence Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena for Witness, 1 Apr 2003. A (Confidential) Addendum to Defence Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena for Witness, 3 Apr 2003, was also filed. These are collectively referred to as the “Motion”.
2 - Rule 107.
3 - There is, however, nothing in this decision which reveals material which could justify it remaining confidential.
4 - Rule 68 (“Disclosure of Exculpatory Material”) provides: “The Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence the existence of material known to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence.” This obligation continues after judgment: Prosecutor v Blaskic, IT-95-14-PT, Decision on the Appellant’s Motions for the Production of Material, Suspension or Extension of the Briefing Schedule, and Additional Filing, 26 Sept 2000, par 32; Musema c/ Le Procureur, ICTR-96-13-A, Arrêt («Defence Motion under Rule 68 Requesting the Appeals Chamber to Order the Disclosure of Exculpatory Material and for Leave to File Supplementary Grounds of Appeal»), 18 May 2001, pp 3-4; Rutaganda c/ Le Procureur, ICTR-96-3-A, Décision Sur La «Urgent Defence Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rules 66(B) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and for a Reconsideration of Deadlines Imposed in Judge Jorda’s Order of December 12, 2002», 13 Feb 2003, p 5; Prosecutor v Kordic & Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Scheduling Order, 17 Mar 2003, p 4.
5 - Rule 115(B).
6 - Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time Limit and Admission of Additional Evidence, 15 Oct 1998 (“Tadic Rule 115 Decision”), pars 35-45; Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al, IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgement, 23 Oct 2001 (“Kupreskic Conviction Appeal Judgment”), par 50; Prosecutor v Delic, IT-96-21-R-R119, Decision on Motion for Review, 25 Apr 2002 (“Delic Review Decision”), par 10.
7 - Tadic Rule 115 Decision, pars 40, 44-45, 47; Kupreskic Conviction Appeal Judgment, par 50.
8 - Tadic Rule 115 Decision, par 40; Kupreskic Conviction Appeal Judgment, par 50.
9 - Response to Defence Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence Under Rule 115, 31 Jan 2003, par 155.
10 - Reference might have been made to Rule 75 (protective measures for witnesses) as well. Consideration could also be given to seeking assistance from the State in which the witness resides, pursuant to Article 29 of the Tribunal’s Statute, by taking testimony, similar to the widespread procedure of letters of request for legal assistance (see Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn), Vol 17, pars 294-296) or to the procedure of letters rogatory available under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 20 April 1959.
11 - The Krstic Defence has here confused the procedure provided by Rule 71, whereby evidence is taken for use later in the trial, with the formalised procedure available in the United States for ascertaining what that witness can say, in the absence of the other party (in what is also called a “deposition”).
12 - Defence Reply to the Prosecution's Response to Defence Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence Under Rule 115, 12 Feb 2003 (“Reply”), par 7.
13 - Reply, par 7.
14 - Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel Appearing Before the International Tribunal (IT/125 Rev 1), 12 July 2002, Article 3(ii) and (iii). That duty of loyalty must, of course, be discharged consistently with the duty owed by counsel to the Tribunal to act with independence in the administration of justice.
15 - In par 12, infra, it is suggested that Rule 54 could be utilised so that a judge could explain to the prospective witness the importance of his cooperation and how he will be afforded protection by the Tribunal if it is required.
16 - See footnote 6, supra.
17 - cf Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic et al, Decision on Motion by Mario Cerkez for Access to Confidential Supporting Material, 10 Oct 2001, par 10; Prosecutor v Kordic & Cerkez, Order on Pasko Ljubicic’s Motion for Access to Confidential Supporting Material, Transcripts and Exhibits in the Kordic and Cerkez Case, 19 July 2002, p 4; Prosecutor v Blaskic, Decision on Appellant’s Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez Request for Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Appellate Briefs and Non-Public Post Trial Pleadings and Hearing Transcripts filed in the Prosecutor v Blaskic, 16 May 2002, par 14; Prosecutor v Kvocka et al, Decision on Momcilo Gruban’s Motion for Access to Material, 13 Jan 2003, par 5; Prosecutor v Kordic & Cerkez, Decision on Motion by Hadzihasanovic, Alagic, and Kubura for Access to Confidential Supporting Material, Transcripts and Exhibits in the Kordic & Cerkez Case, 23 Jan 3003, p 3.
18 - Both types of order will need to ensure that the prospective witness is given the expenses necessary for him to comply with their terms.
19 - Prosecutor’s Regulation No 2 (1999), Standards of Professional Conduct for Prosecution Counsel, 14 Sept 1999, par 2(h).
20 - Delic Review Decision, par 15.
21 - Each statement has already been made the subject of a Rule 115 application. At issue in the present case is whether, as a result of what these two men have already said, either of them is able to elaborate upon certain aspects of their statements and thus produce further material to be included in an additional Rule 115 application.
22 - Prosecution’s Response to Defence Requests for Subpoenas, 11 Apr 2003 (“Response”), par 3.
23 - Response, pars 8, 11.
24 - Prosecutor v Blaskic, IT-95-14-AR108bis, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 Oct 1997 (“Blaskic Subpoena Decision”).
25 - Blaskic Subpoena Decision, pars 46-48.
26 - The prosecution appears to suggest that the jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber draws no relevant distinction between them (Response, pars 13-14). That suggestion requires some consideration but, in the light of the outcome of this Decision, it is unnecessary to do so in the present case.
27 - Response, par 17.
28 - Ibid, par 16.
29 - Blaskic Subpoena Decision, par 49. The currency would appear to relate to the time he is to give information, but the position is unclear.
30 - Blaskic Subpoena Decision, par 50.
31 - Ibid, par 38.
32 - Ibid, par 40.
33 - Ibid, par 41
34 - Ibid, par 44.
35 - Ibid, par 38.
36 - Ibid, par 43.
37 - Response, par 23.
38 - Paragraph 12 of the Response states: “It is submitted that Rule 54bis, concerning the production of documents, does not involve materially different considerations and appears to offer useful guidance on the issuing of the production of a witness subpoenas [sic]. In this regard, Rule 54bis(A) provides that an applicant for binding orders must (i) specify the information sought as precisely as possible, (ii) indicate how the information is relevant to a matter in issue and necessary for a fair determination of the case/the preparation of the case; and (iii) explain the steps taken to secure the state’s assistance.” Whether the requirements which the prosecution identifies are correct has not yet been the subject of any decision but, again in the light of the outcome of this Decision, it is unnecessary to deal with this issue in the present case.
39 - Response, pars 19-22. The requirement which the prosecution asserts has not clearly been satisfied in relation to this witness is the third – that, before a binding order is made, steps must be taken to secure the assistance of the State concerned (Ibid, pars 21-22). The prosecution points out that, although the Krstic Defence did obtain the assistance of the relevant Government, it did not inform that Government that the prospective witness had declined to be interviewed or otherwise afford that Government a reasonable opportunity to cooperate by forcing the witness to give an interview (Ibid, par 22). This consideration is not relevant to the issue of a subpoena, and thus it is unnecessary to deal with the issue in the present case.
40 - Ibid, pars 38, 44.
41 - Ibid, par 44.
42 - Ibid, par 38. Footnotes 43-45 are part of the Blaskic Subpoena Decision.
43 - See, eg, the statement made as early as 1797 by the United States Attorney-General in the Governor Collot case. A civil suit had been brought against Mr. Collot, Governor of the French island of Guadeloupe. The United States Attorney-General wrote: “I am inclined to think, if the seizure of the vessel is admitted to have been an official act, done by the defendant by virtue, or under colour, of the powers vested in him as governor, that it will of itself be a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's action; that the defendant ought not to answer in our courts for any mere irregularity in the exercise of his powers; and that the extent of his authority can, with propriety or convenience, be determined only by the constituted authorities of his own nation”, JB Moore, A Digest of International Law, 1906, vol II, p 23. The famous McLeod case should also be mentioned. On the occasion of the Canadian rebellion of 1837 against the British authorities (Canada being at the time under British sovereignty), rebels were assisted by American citizens who several times crossed the Niagara (the border between Canada and the United States) on the ship Caroline, to provide the insurgents with men and ammunitions. A party of British troops headed by Captain McLeod was then sent to attack the ship. They boarded it in the United States port of Fort Schlosser, killed a number of men and set the ship on fire. A few years later, in 1840, Captain McLeod was arrested in Lewiston (New York territory) on charges of murder and arson. An exchange of diplomatic notes between the two Governments ensued. The official position of the United States – which had already been set out in similar terms by Great Britain in 1838, with regard to the possible trial of another member of the British team that attacked the Caroline – was clearly enunciated by the United States Secretary of State Webster: “That an individual forming part of a public force, and acting under the authority of his Government, is not to be held answerable, as a private trespasser or malefactor, is a principle of public law sanctioned by the usages of all civilised nations, and which the Government of the United States has no inclination to dispute [...] [W]hether the process be criminal or civil, the fact of having acted under public authority, and in obedience to the orders of lawful superiors, must be regarded as a valid defence; otherwise individuals would be holden responsible for injuries resulting from the acts of Government, and even from the operations of public war”, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 29, p 1139.
44 - When the two French agents who had sunk the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand were arrested by the local police, France stated that their imprisonment in New Zealand was not justified “taking into account in particular the fact that they acted under military orders and that France [was] ready to give an apology and to pay compensation to New Zealand for the damage suffered” (see the Ruling of 6 July 1986 of the United Nations Secretary-General, in United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol XIX, p 213).
45 - The Court stated among other things that “The theory of ‘Act of State’ means that the act performed by a person as an organ of the State – whether he was head of the State or a responsible official acting on the Government's orders – must be regarded as an act of the State alone. It follows that only the latter bears responsibility therefor, and it also follows that another State has no right to punish the person who committed the act, save with the consent of the State whose mission he performed. Were it not so, the first State would be interfering in the internal affairs of the second, which is contrary to the conception of the equality of States based on their sovereignty”, International Law Reports, vol 36, at pp 308-09; it should be noted that after this passage the Court expressed reservations about this Act of State doctrine; arguably, these reservations were set out for the main purpose of further justifying the proposition that the doctrine did not apply to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
46 - Blaskic Subpoena Decision, pars 41, 43. Footnotes 47-49 are part of the Blaskic Subpoena Decision.
47 - This is only natural: States have always taken for granted that they are not allowed to address authoritative instructions or orders to a foreign State official; the only area where practical problems have arisen relates to cases where national courts endeavoured to sit in judgement over foreign individuals acting as State agents.
48 - On the decisions of the Security Council, see Condorelli Brief [Amicus curiae brief submitted by Luigi Condorelli, 11 Apr 1997], par 4 and note 9. According to this learned author, the Security Council has also addressed its resolutions to specific national organs or institutions.
49 - That Article 29 lays down an obligation of result has been pointed out by Simma [Amicus curiae brief submitted by Bruno Simma, 14 Apr 1997], p 15. Under Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted on first reading by the International Law Commission, “There is a breach by a State of an international obligation requiring to achieve, by means of its own choice, a specified result if, by the conduct adopted, the State does not achieve the result required of it by that obligation”, ILC Draft Articles [International Law Commission, Report to the Forty-eighth Session of the General Assembly, 1996, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No 10 (A/51/10)].
50 - See pars 38(iii) and 41, and footnotes 43-45, supra.
51 - See par 41, supra.
52 - See par 41, supra.
53 - In Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2002 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), 14 Feb 2002 (the Yerodia Case), General List No 121 [unreported], at par 61, the International Court of Justice said: “Accordingly, the immunities enjoyed under international law by an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs do not represent a bar to criminal prosecution in certain circumstances. [...] an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction. Examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [...].”
54 - Charter, Article 7: “The official position of defendants whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.” See also Article II of Control Council Law No 10. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg Tribunal stated (at pp 222-223): “It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of sovereign States, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, and where the act in question is an act of State, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. […] The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances, protects the representatives of a State, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these acts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings […]. On the other hand the very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law.” Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal: Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946 (1947).
55 - Article 7.2: “The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment.”
56 - Rule 70(D). See, generally, Prosecutor v Milosevic, IT-02-54-AR108bis & AR73.3, Public Version of the Confidential Decision on the Interpretation and Application of Rule 70, 23 Oct 2002.