Susica Camp, Prosecutor v. D. Nikolic, Warrant of Arrest, IT-94-2 (ICTY TC, Nov. 04, 1994)

			International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions

	Follow @worldcourts

Lasva Valley, Prosecutor v. Kordic et al, Order on the Motion to Suppress Evidence by the Defendant Dario Kordic, IT-95-14/2 (ICTY TC, Feb. 11, 1999)
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before: Judge Richard May, Presiding

Judge Mohamed Bennouna

Judge Patrick Robinson

Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of: 11 February 1999

PROSECUTOR

v.

DARIO KORDIC
MARIO CERKEZ

________________________________________________

ORDER ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
BY THE DEFENDANT DARIO KORDIC

________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor

Mr. Geoffrey Nice
Ms. Susan Somers
Mr. Patrick Lopez-Terres
Mr. Kenneth Scott

Defence Counsel

Mr. Mitko Naumovski, Mr. Leo Andreis, Mr. David F. Geneson, Mr. Turner T. Smith, Jr., and Ms. Ksenija Turkovic, for Dario Kordic
Mr. Bozidar Kovacic, for Mario Cerkez

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 "Motion to Suppress Evidence by the Defendant Dario Kordic” filed on 22 January 1999 (“the Motion”), in which the Accused Kordic seeks to suppress and exclude from admission as evidence all material obtained in a search conducted on 23 September 1998,

NOTING the Court Order with Search Warrant (File No. IT-98-31-misc) issued by Judge Richard May on 18 September 1998 ("the search warrant"),

NOTING that the Prosecutor executed the search warrant in the city of Vitez in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on 23 September 1998,

NOTING the "Prosecutor’s Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence" filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 5 February 1999 ("the Response"),

CONSIDERING that the issues raised by the Accused in relation to the way in which the order and search warrant were executed, including the extent of the inventory, are matters in dispute between the parties, and will require the submission of evidence and determination of facts by the Trial Chamber,

CONSIDERING that the material objected to is not specified by the Accused and may or may not in fact be presented as evidence upon which the Prosecution will seek to rely,

CONSIDERING that before ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the Trial Chamber must know what is the evidence upon which it is being asked to rule,

CONSIDERING FURTHER that the time for ruling on such a motion is when the material which the Accused is seeking to suppress is called and when all facts are before the Trial Chamber,

HEREBY ORDERS that consideration of the Motion is postponed until such time as any of the material seized by the Prosecution pursuant to the search warrant is sought to be admitted to the Trial Chamber as evidence in these proceedings.

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

_____________________________

Richard May

Presiding Judge

Dated this eleventh day of February 1999

At The Hague

The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

Home | Terms & Conditions | About