Case No.: IT-99-37-PT


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

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
21 January 2002





The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Geoffrey Nice
Mr. Daniel Saxon
Mr. Dirk Ryneveld
Ms. Julia Baly
Ms. Cristina Romano
Mr. Daryl A. Mundis
Mr. Milbert Shin

The Accused:
Slobodan Milosevic

Amicus Curiae:
Mr. Steven Kay
Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic
Mr. Michaïl Wladimiroff


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"),

BEING SEISED of the "Prosecution's Motion for Variation of Order of 11 January 2002 and/or a Further Pre-Trial Conference" filed by the Prosecution on 16 January 2002 ("the Motion"), in which the Prosecution asks the Trial Chamber to vary its Order so that the Prosecution may call witnesses scheduled to give evidence between 13 and 28 February 2002 in the order set out in the confidential list of witnesses filed on 9 January 2002 ("Witness List"),

NOTING that the trial in this case will commence on 12 February 2002, less than one month from the date of the Motion1, and that the Prosecution has stated on more than one occasion that it is ready to commence trial on that date,

NOTING that despite these assertions, the Prosecution now states that, although it intended to complete "most of this disclosure work prior to the commencement of trial", it could not have foreseen the order of the Trial Chamber that all witness statements be disclosed in a language the accused understands at least 30 days before the testimony of the witness, and that had it had prior notice of the order, "its communications concerning 'trial readiness' might have been tempered by reservations concerning compliance with its disclosure obligations", that no rule of the International Tribunal requires such disclosure and that the current order would require the Prosecution to re-order its witnesses in a way which will affect fairness and expedition of trial and cause inconvenience to victims and witnesses,

NOTING that the Prosecution list of witnesses was first filed on 29 November 2001 but that the Prosecution now asserts that it is unable to complete disclosure to the accused within the time-frame ordered by the Trial Chamber due to: (a) difficulties in obtaining the necessary translations; and (b) the fact that certain expert witnesses have not yet been identified and statements obtained, and other witnesses are protected under Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal,

CONSIDERING, however, that it would be in the interests of justice to permit the Prosecution to present its evidence and call its witnesses in the order it thinks correct,

CONSIDERING the right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the International Tribunal and, in particular, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and the right to examine the witnesses against him, and that the protection of this right is one of the fundamental reasons for ordering prior disclosure of the witness statements prior to the commencement of trial,

HEREBY VARIES ITS ORDER of 11 January 2002 as follows:

(1) all witness statements available in a working language of the International Tribunal but not yet disclosed shall be disclosed immediately to the accused and the amicus curiae in that working language, and the Prosecution shall file with the Trial Chamber a report confirming such disclosure, no later than Friday 25 January 2002;
(2) the witness statements of all witnesses listed in confidential Annex A to the Motion who are to testify in person by 28 February 2002 shall be disclosed to the accused and the amicus curiae, in one of the working languages of the International Tribunal and in a language which the accused understands, by the date indicated in Annex A and, in any event, by 1 February 2002; and
(3) the accused and the amicus curiae should make best use of the time available and prepare for cross-examination of these witnesses but the Trial Chamber will consider at trial any application for an adjournment of cross-examination because of lack of time for preparation and the Prosecution should be ready to call additional witnesses so as to utilise fully the time available to the Trial Chamber 2.


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

Richard May

Dated this twenty-first day of January 2002
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1) The Trial Chamber notes that its orders were made and confirmed in writing more than 30 days before the date for commencement of trial but that the Prosecution filed its Motion one week after the oral rulings were pronounced.
2) In the light of these Orders the Trial Chamber does not consider the holding of an additional pre-trial conference to be appropriate.