Case No.: IT-98-32/1-PT


Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge O-Gon Kwon
Judge Iain Bonomy

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
22 March 2006







The Office of the Prosecutor

Mark Harmon
Frédéric Ossogo
Fergal Gaynor

Counsel for Milan Lukic

Michael Karnavas

Counsel for Sredoje Lukic

Duro Cepic


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 (the "Tribunal"),

NOTING the "Order Granting Prosecutionís Request to Suspend Consideration of Amendment of Indictment Insofar as it Relates to Milan Lukic," filed on 14 December 2005, in which Judge Iain Bonomy stayed "consideration of the proposed Second Amended Indictment insofar as it relates to Milan Lukic . . . until such time as Milan Lukic appears before the Tribunal and has an opportunity to respond to the proposed indictment," 1

NOTING that Milan Lukic was transferred to the seat of the Tribunal on 21 February 2006 and pleaded "not guilty" at his initial appearance on 24 February 2006 to all counts against him in the Amended Indictment dated 12 July 2001,

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Motion to Amend Indictment," filed on 27 February 2006 (the "Motion"), in which the Prosecution requests that the Second Amended Indictment replace the Amended Indictment as the operative indictment against Milan Lukic, such that the Second Amended Indictment will apply to both Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic,

NOTING the Prosecutionís arguments, contained in the Motion, that "the amendments to the indictment bring greater clarity and specificity to the indictment,"2 that "permitting the indictment to be amended in respect of Milan Lukic will ensure that the charges against both co-accused in this case are contained in the same indictment,"3 that there "is no question of the Prosecution seeking improper tactical advantage,"4 that "the proposed amendments will not delay the trial, which is not yet scheduled to begin"5 and finally that there "is therefore no unfair prejudice to the accused,"6

CONSIDERING that "the test for whether leave to amend [an indictment] will be granted is whether allowing the amendments would cause unfair prejudice to the accused"7 and that "[t]wo factors particularly are relevant in determining whether amendment of an indictment would cause unfair prejudice: (1) notice, i.e., whether the Accused has been given an adequate opportunity to prepare an effective defence; and (2) whether granting the amendments will result in undue delay,"8

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber discerns no unfair prejudice to Milan Lukic in granting the Motion,

CONSIDERING that the Chamber has reviewed the supporting material previously offered by the Prosecution in conjunction with the Second Amended Indictment, and that the proposed amendments meet the requirements of Rule 50(A)(ii),

CONSIDERING that the time prescribed by Rule 126 bis for Milan Lukic to respond to the Motion has passed without his filing any response,

CONSIDERING that granting the Motion would serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency,

PURSUANT to Rules 50, 54 and 126 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,

HEREBY GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that:

(1) Milan Lukic may file, within 30 days of the filing of this Decision, preliminary motions challenging the Second Amended Indictment. The Prosecution shall have 14 days from the filing of any such motions to file a response, if any;

(2) a further appearance before Judge Bonomy, at which Milan Lukic will be asked to plead to the counts against him in the Second Amended Indictment, will be scheduled in due course by Judge Bonomy.


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

Judge Patrick Robinson

Dated this twenty-second day of March 2006.
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Order Granting Prosecutionís Request to Suspend Consideration of Amendment of Indictment Insofar as it Relates to Milan Lukic, 14 December 2005, p. 1.
2. Prosecutionís Motion to Amend Indictment, 27 February 2006, para. 20.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, Decision on Prosecutorís Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Indictment, 17 December 2004, para. 22.
8. Prosecutor v. Cermak and Markac, IT-03-73-PT, Decision on Prosecution Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Indictment, 19 October 2005, para. 35.