Case No. IT-03-68-T


Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Hans Henrik Brydensholt
Judge Albin Eser

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
19 January 2006







The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Jan Wubben
Ms. Patricia Sellers Viseur
Mr. Gramsci di Fazio
Ms. JoAnne Richardson

Counsel for the Accused:  

Ms. Vasvija Vidovic
Mr. John Jones


TRIAL CHAMBER II ("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"):

BEING SEISED of the "Defence Motion to File the Statement of an Expert Witness" filed by Counsel for Naser Oric (respectively "Defence" and "Accused") on 16 December 2005 ("Motion") and to which is appended at Annex A the report of Defence expert witness Professor Esad Bilic, (respectively "Report" and "Defence Expert"), filed pursuant to Rule 94bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules");

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Response to Defence Motion to File an Expert Statement Pursuant to Rule 94bis" filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 17 January 2006 ("Response") in which the Prosecution informs the Trial Chamber that it does not accept the Report pursuant to Rule 94bis(B)(i) of the Rules and states that it wishes to cross-examine the Defence Expert;

NOTING that Rule 94bis of the Rules provides that

    1. [t]he full statement of any expert witness to be called by a party shall be disclosed within the time-limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber or by the pre-trial Judge.
    2. Within thirty days of disclosure of the statement of the expert witness, or such other time prescribed by the Trial Chamber or pre-trial Judge, the opposing party shall file a notice indicating whether:

      1. it accepts the 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.

    3. If the opposing party accepts the statement of the expert witness, the statement may be admitted into evidence by the Trial Chamber without calling the witness to testify in person

NOTING that the Motion is by nature a disclosure obligation under Rule 94bis(A) rather than a specific request for relief;

NOTING further that the Defence Expert has been identified by the Defence as a witness scheduled to give evidence vive voce before the Trial Chamber beginning Friday 20 January 2006 and continuing into the next week, and thus may be cross-examined by the Prosecution if it so wishes;

CONSIDERING that the filing of the Report by the Defence does not in any way impede on the Prosecutionís right to cross-examine the Defence Expert pursuant to Rule 85(B) of the Rules;

PURSUANT TO Rule 94bis of the Rules

DECLARES the Motion moot.


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

Dated this nineteenth day of January 2006,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]