|
|
|
International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions |
|
|
Vukovar Hospital, Prosecutor v. Dokmanovic, Decision on Pre-Trial
Motions, IT-95-13a (ICTY TC, Jan. 21, 1998)
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before: Judge Antonio Cassese, Presiding
Judge Richard May
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh
Order of: 21 January 1998
PROSECUTOR
v.
MILE MRKSIC,
MIROSLAV RADIC,
VESELIN SLJIVANCANIN,
SLAVKO DOKMANOVIC
___________________________________________________________
DECISION ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
___________________________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Grant Niemann
Mr. Clint Williamson
Mr. Stefan W�spi
Ms. Ann Sutherland
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Toma Fila and Ms. Jelena Lopicic, for Slavko Dokmanovic
THE TRIAL CHAMBER
NOTING the Scheduling Order of 8 January 1998 ("the Scheduling
Order") and the motions and responses referred to therein,
NOTING the closed session hearings of 19 and 20 January 1998 and
CONSIDERING the arguments raised by the parties,
PURSUANT to Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
International Tribunal,
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
- The Trial Chamber grants the Prosecutors motion for the production of the
video-tape referred to in paragraph 4 (a) of the Scheduling Order.
- The Trial Chamber dismisses the objections of the Defence to the admission of the
material referred to in paragraph 4 (b) of the Scheduling Order. The material may be
relevant, and it is for the Trial Chamber to determine the evidentiary weight when it is
presented;
- The Trial Chamber dismisses as irrelevant the objection of the Defence referred to in
paragraph 4 (c) of the Scheduling Order. The Prosecutor does not intend to adduce the
items referred to therein;
- As the Defence objection referred to in paragraph 4 (d) of the Scheduling Order has been
withdrawn, submission of the material is allowed;
- It having been made clear that the materials referred to in paragraph 4 (e) of the
Scheduling Order are witness statements concerning events at Ilok, the submission of these
items is allowed;
- With regard to paragraph 4 (f) of the Scheduling Order, documents 7-10 in the list
referred to in the Defence Motion filed on 29 December 1997 are not objected to and are
therefore allowed. Documents 1-6 are allowed: their reliability may be challenged in the
course of the trial. Decisions with regard to any other documents may be made at a later
date;
- The material referred to in paragraph 4 (g) of the Scheduling Order having been
disclosed, no ruling is necessary on this point;
- It is understood that the parties will use their best endeavours to see whether they can
agree the statements of forty-five of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 4 (h) of the
Scheduling Order, and that the Defence will call any witnesses whose statements are
disputed. With regard to the remaining witnesses, the Defence shall provide a sworn
statement from each witness for whom protective measures are requested stating the reasons
why they are not prepared to come to The Hague. The Trial Chamber will rule on the request
for safe conduct and use of the video-conference link after the close of the Prosecution
case;
- With regard to paragraph 4 (i) of the Scheduling Order, and with a view to expediting
the trial, the Prosecutor shall endeavour to call the minimum number of witnesses
necessary to deal with general background and peripheral issues.
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
_________________________
Antonio Cassese
Presiding Judge
Dated this twenty-first day of January 1998
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]
|
|
Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.
|
|
|