Case No. IT-04-74-PT


Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Kevin Parker
Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti

Mr. Hans Holthuis

9 February 2006







Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Kenneth Scott
Mr. Daryl Mundis

Counsel for Accused:

Mr. Michael Karnavas and Ms. Suzana Tomanovic for Jadranko Prlic
Mr. Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Ms. Senka Nozica for Bruno Stojic
Ms. Vesna Alaburic for Milivoj Petkovic
Mr. Tomislav Jonjic for Valentin Coric
Mr. Fahrudin Ibrisimovic for Berislav Pusic


Slobodan Praljak


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"),

BEING SEIZED of the "Prosecution Motion for the admission of evidence (ECMM documents)", filed partly confidentially on 26 January 2006 ("Prosecution Motion"), in which the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") requests the Trial Chamber to admit into evidence 409 documents originating from the European Commission Monitoring Mission (ECMM), listed in the Confidential Annex to the Prosecution Motion,

NOTING "the Accused Valentin Coric's Response to the Prosecution Motion for the admission of evidence", filed 6 February 2006 (“Coric Response”), "Jadranko Prlic's Response to Prosecution Motion for the admission of evidence (ECMM documents)", filed on 7 February 2006, the "Response on behalf of Berislav Pusic to the Prosecution motion for admission of evidence (ECMM documents)", filed 8 February 2006 and "The accused Milivoj Petkovic's response to the Prosecution's motion for the admission of evidence (ECMM documents)", filed 8 February 2006,

NOTING that the Prosecution has not provided the Trial Chamber with the actual ECMM documents, but instead has only provided the Trial Chamber with titles and (in some instances) summaries of the ECMM documents,1

NOTING FURTHER that the Prosecution has indicated that some ECMM documents are subject to certain protective measures,2 but that it is unclear to the Trial Chamber which documents are subject to protective measures, and why such measures were accorded,

NOTING the Trial Chamber’s Decision of 3 February 2006, which states that "while it is plainly the duty of the pre-trial Judge and the pre-trial Chamber to take any measure necessary to prepare the case for a fair and expeditious trial,3 this Trial Chamber is of the view that a determination of the Prosecution Motion, insofar as it seeks admission into evidence of materials contained in Annex 1 to the Prosecution Motion pursuant to Rule 89 (C) of the Rules, involving as it does a critical examination of the content of the evidence and manner in which it is to be presented at trial, must be left to the bench that will hear the case,"4

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is in no position to assess the relevance or probative value of the ECMM documents at the present time,

CONSIDERING THEREFORE, regardless of the way in which the Prosecution Motion was filed, that it would be premature to admit this evidence at the present stage of proceedings under Rule 89(C) of the Rules, but that the Prosecution may tender all or some of the proposed documents listed in the confidential Annex as evidence at trial, preferably through the ECMM officers it intends to call at trial,5

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, pursuant to Rules 54 and 89(C) of the Rules,

DENIES the Motion.


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

Judge Carmel Agius

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

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. See confidential annex to the Prosecution Motion.
2. Prosecution Motion, para. 9.
3. See Rules 65 ter (B), and 65 ter (M) of the Rules.
4. See also Prosecutor v. Zeljko Mejakic et al., Case No. IT-02-65-PT, "Decision on Prosecution’s motion for admission of trial transcripts and statements pursuant to Rule 92 bis and Rule 89 (F) and protective measures", 22 October 2004; Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, Case No.: IT-01-48-PT, "Order on Prosecution application for admission of evidence under Rule 92 bis", 22 October 2004.
5. Prosecution Motion, para. 10.