Case No.: IT-02-54-T


Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge O-Gon Kwon

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
4 September 2003







The Office of the Prosecutor

Mr. Geoffrey Nice

The Accused

Slobodan Milosevic

Amicus Curiae

Mr. Steven Kay
Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic
Mr. Timothy McCormack


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 International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED of the Confidential Prosecution Motion for the Admission of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 92bis(D), filed on 29 August 2003 ("Motion") by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution"), seeking the admission into evidence of the transcript evidence and related exhibits of Witness B-1610,

NOTING that Witness B-1610 gave evidence regarding the involvement of a paramilitary group in the shelling and takeover of the village of Lisnja in Prnjavor and, as such, the Prosecution accepts that this witness be required to attend for cross-examination by the Accused in the light of his evidence on this issue,

NOTING that, due to difficulties presented in scheduling witnesses, the Prosecution has brought forward witness B-1610 to give evidence on about 9 or 10 September 2003, and applies under Rule 127 of the Rules for a reduction in the fourteen days notice period required by Rule 92bis(E) to allow the early admission of his transcript and related exhibits when he comes to testify on 9 or 10 September 2003,

NOTING that Rule 92bis provides:

(D) A Chamber may admit a transcript of evidence given by a witness in proceedings before the Tribunal which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused.

(E) Subject to Rule 127 or any order to the contrary, a party seeking to adduce a written statement or transcript shall give fourteen days notice to the opposing party, who may within seven days object. The Trial Chamber shall decide, after hearing the parties, whether to admit the statement or transcript in whole or in part and whether to require the witness to appear for cross-examination.

NOTING Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute,

CONSIDERING the Accused’s general opposition to the admission of Rule 92bis evidence,

CONSIDERING that the evidence presented therein does not go to proof of the acts and conduct of the Accused and is therefore admissible under Rule 92bis,

CONSIDERING the arguments of the Prosecution in relation to the difficulties presented in the scheduling of witnesses,

PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 92bis of the Rules,

HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

  1. That the transcript of evidence and related exhibits of witness B-1610 be admitted in evidence, and
  2. That the fourteen day time limit required by Rule 92bis(E) be reduced to allow for the early admission of this evidence.


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

Richard May

Dated this fourth day of September 2003
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]