THIS BENCH of the Appeals 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 Bench" and "the International Tribunal" respectively),

BEING SEIZED OF the "Aplication [sic] for Leave to Appeal to Three Judge Appelate [sic] Bench from Decision on Defense Motion for Production of all Statements, Reports, Summaries, Articles and Books Witness Greve Used to Rely in Expert Testimony", filed by the Counsel for Dragan Kolundzija on 29 September 2000 ("the Application for Leave to Appeal" and "the Defence" respectively);

NOTING the "Decision on Defence Motion for Production of Materials by Witness" issued by Trial Chamber III on 22 September 2000 ("the Impugned Decision") whereby the Trial Chamber inter alia, refused to allow the disclosure of certain documents and related materials ("the Documents");

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to the Motion of Accused Dragan Kolundzija for Leave to Appeal the Written Decision of Trial Chamber III of 22 September 2000 on the ‘Defence Motion for Production of all Statements, Reports, Summaries, Articles and Books Witness Greve Used to Rely in Expert Testimonys [sic]’", filed by the Prosecutor on 9 October 2000;

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal is filed pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("the Rules") which provides, inter alia, that applications "for leave to appeal shall be filed within seven days of the filing of the impugned decision" and allows for interlocutory appeals in the following two instances:

1. if the decision impugned would cause such prejudice to the case of the party seeking leave as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal;
2. if the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the Tribunal or in international law generally;

NOTING that the Application for Leave to Appeal argues, inter alia, that: i) the Trial Chamber’s failure to order disclosure of the Documents will result in the Defence being unable to effectively cross-examine the expert witness; ii) the Prosecutor has failed to comply with Rule 68 of the Rules; iii) disclosure of the Documents is mandatory in order to ensure compliance with the principle of equality of arms; and iv) the issue is of importance to the proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally "since it seeks clarifications of disclosure Rules on materials not under hearsay rules but as the basis for opinion testimony";

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal was filed pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules, without specifying whether the interlocutory appeal falls within the criteria of Rule 73 (B)(i) or (ii);

CONSIDERING that it is for the Defence to show the Bench either that the Impugned Decision would cause such prejudice to its case as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal, or that the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally;

FINDING that there has been no showing either that there is such prejudice or that the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally;

HEREBY DISMISSES the Application for Leave to Appeal.

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

________________________________
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Presiding Judge

Dated this twelfth day of December 2000
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.