WorldCourts: International Case Law Database   International Case Law Database
50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions
 
     
 
" " Lasva Valley, Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Sanctions for the Prosecutor's Continuing Violation of Rule 68, IT-95-14 (ICTY TC, Sep. 28, 1998)

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before: Judge Claude Jorda, Presiding

Judge Fouad Riad

Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen

Registrar: Mr. Jean-Jacques Heintz, Deputy Registrar

Order of: 28 September 1998

 

THE PROSECUTOR

v.

TIHOMIR BLASKIC

_________________________________

DECISION ON THE DEFENCE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR
THE PROSECUTOR'S CONTINUING VIOLATION OF RULE 68

__________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Mark Harmon
Mr. Andrew Cayley
Mr. Gregory Kehoe

Defence Counsel:

Mr. Anto Nobilo
Mr. Russell Hayman

 

TRIAL CHAMBER I 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,

PURSUANT to Rules 54 and 68 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter "the Rules");

NOTING the Defence Motion for sanctions for the Prosecutor's continuing violation of Rule 68, filed under seal on 10 July 1998, and the supporting material attached thereto (hereinafter "the Motion");

NOTING the supplemental filing to the Defence Motion for sanctions for the Prosecutor's continuing violation of Rule 68, filed on 28 July 1998 (hereinafter "the Supplement");

NOTING the Prosecutor’s confidential response to the Defence Motion and Supplement, dated 4 August 1998;

NOTING the Prosecutor Motion for seven days' advance disclosure of the name of the defence witnesses and defence witness statements, dated 9 July 1998 (hereinafter "the Prosecutor Motion of 9 July 1998");

NOTING the status conferences, held 24 August 1998 and 23 September 1998, at which the Trial Chamber heard the oral arguments of the parties;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecutor made several proposals designed to relieve the possible prejudice suffered by the Defence, as submitted in the Defence Motion;

CONSIDERING that, at the status conference of 24 August 1998, the Defence, while repeating its allegations, was not responsive to the proposals of the Prosecutor or to those of the Trial Chamber, but requested that the Prosecutor Motion of 9 July 1998 be dismissed as compensation;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber deems that the possible violation by one party of its disclosure obligations in no way relieves the other party of its own disclosure obligations;

CONSIDERING that, at the status conference of 23 September 1998, the Defence again charged that the Prosecution had failed to comply with its obligations under Rule 68 of the Rules, inter alia that it did not disclose an exhibit, which it had obtained as part of another case pending before the Tribunal;

CONSIDERING, however, that, on that point, the Defence did not intend to seize the Trial Chamber as the matter stood;

CONSIDERING that, in general, the Trial Chamber deems that the possible violations of Rule 68 are governed less by a system of "sanctions" than by the Judges’ definitive evaluation of the evidence presented by either of the parties, and the possibility which the opposing party will have had to contest it;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS

REJECTS the Defence Motion.

 

Done in French and in English, the French version being authentic.

Done this twenty-eighth day of September 1998,

At The Hague

The Netherlands.

(Signed)

_________________________________

Claude Jorda

Presiding Judge Trial Chamber I

[Seal of the Tribunal]

   

Home | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.