Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Mohamed Bennouna
Judge Patrick Robinson

Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of:
3 February 2000






The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Grant Niemann
Mr. Michael Keegan
Mr. Kapila Waidyaratne

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr.Vladimir Petrovic, for Damir Dosen
Mr. Dusan Vucicevic, for Dragan Kolundzija


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 ("International Tribunal"),

NOTING the "Defence Motion Requesting that the Trial Chamber Allow a Review of Confidential Materials from the Furundžija Matter Relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (“the Motion”) filed on behalf of the accused Dragan Kolundžija ("the accused") on 26 November 1999,

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to ‘Defence Motion Requesting that the Trial Chamber Allow a Review of Confidential Materials from the Furundžija Matter Relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’” filed by the Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution") on 10 December 1999,

HAVING HEARD the arguments of the parties in open session on 24 January 2000,

NOTING the arguments of the accused seeking access to confidential materials, including pleadings and transcripts of closed session testimony given in the Furundžija case regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), on the basis that:

  1. the Presiding Judge of the Trial Chamber hearing this case was a judge in the Furundžija case;
  2. the convicted person in that case, Anto Furundžija, would not be adversely affected; and
  3. the accused in this case would be prejudiced by being denied access to the material,

NOTING the arguments of the Prosecution in response that:

  1. the Motion should be dismissed on the basis that it is improperly brought before this Trial Chamber, as Rule 75 (D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("the Rules") as amended with effect from 7 December 1999, requires the lifting of any protective measures to be undertaken by the Trial Chamber which made them; and
  2. no prejudice would attach to the accused in applying the new Sub-rule (D) of Rule75 as he would simply have to apply to the appropriate Trial Chamber for relief.

CONSIDERING that Rule 75 (D) provides that the lifting or variation of protective measures issued in respect of a victim or witness are to be varied or rescinded by the Trial Chamber which issued the measures or, if at the time of the request for lifting or variation the original Chamber is no longer constituted by the same Judges, the President may authorise such lifting or variation,

CONSIDERING that pursuant to IT/161, Rule 75, as amended, entered into force on 7 December 1999,

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 6 (D), an amendment "shall not operate to prejudice the rights of the accused in any pending case",

CONSIDERING that Rule 75 (D) is a procedural provision and that its operation in the current matter would not operate to prejudice the rights of the accused,

PURSUANT TO Rule 75 (D) and Rule 54 of the Rules

HEREBY DENIES the Motion and draws the attention of the accused to Rule 75 (D) of the Rules.

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

Richard May
Presiding Judge

Dated this third day of February 2000
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]