International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions
	Follow @worldcourts

______________________________________________________

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 a "Notice of Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Arrest, Detention and Removal of Defendant Stevan Todorovic and for Extension of Time to Move to Dismiss Indictment", filed by counsel for the accused Stevan Todorovic on 10 February 1999 ("the Motion"), supplemented by a "Memorandum of Law in Further Support for an Evidentiary Hearing as to Abduction and Detention of Accused Todorovic" ("Defence Memorandum"), and the "Prosecutor’s Response to the Notice of Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Arrest, Detention and Removal of Defendant Stevan Todorovic and for Extension of Time to Move to Dismiss Indictment filed by Stevan Todorovic on 10 February 1999" ("the Response"), filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("the Prosecution") on 22 February 1999,

HAVING NOTED the written submissions of the parties and their oral arguments heard on 4 March 1999,

NOTING that the Defence requested (1) an evidentiary hearing as to the circumstances of the arrest, detention and delivery of the accused to the Tribunal, on or about September 1998, (2) that the accused be allowed to give evidence on this issue, (3) a discovery order directed to the Prosecution to make available to the Defence all documents in its possession as to the manner of, and individuals responsible for, the detention, arrest and delivery of the accused to the Tribunal, (4) that the accused be returned to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("FRY") and (5) that the indictment against him be dismissed,

NOTING that the Defence alleged that the accused was illegally kidnapped by four unknown individuals in the FRY; that this, in its view, raises the issue of the Prosecution’s involvement in an illegal abduction; and that the Prosecutor, acting independently or with others, cannot deprive the accused of his "right not to be illegally kidnapped",

NOTING FURTHER that the Defence argued that even if the Prosecution was not involved in the alleged kidnapping, the accused was still illegally brought into the Tribunal’s custody,

NOTING that the Defence also submitted that once it raised the issue of the illegal abduction of the accused, the burden of proof shifted to the Prosecution,

NOTING that the Prosecution opposed the Motion on the grounds that (1) the Motion was untimely brought, as this issue should have been raised by the Defence at the earliest opportunity after the accused was arrested; (2) the Motion did not establish a prima facie basis for judicial inquiry; (3) as to the merits, even if the Defence allegations were true they would not justify the relief sought by the Defence; and (4) the accused’s right to liberty and security of person recognised in relevant international standards and reflected in the Tribunal’s Statute was not violated,

NOTING FURTHER that the Prosecution stated it was not involved in any activity relating to the accused’s removal from the FRY, that it did not have prior information of any proposed operation to secure the arrest of the accused, and that it first learned of the accused’s arrest on 27 September 1998 when it was contacted by SFOR,

CONSIDERING that the issue at stake is whether or not to grant the accused’s request for an evidentiary hearing as to the alleged kidnapping of the accused,

CONSIDERING that the Motion is only supported by a report posted by a private individual on an e-mail bulletin board based on an alleged newspaper report,

CONSIDERING that Defence counsel stated at the hearing that he did not have any additional facts at that time to support his allegations, which is the reason why he requested an evidentiary hearing and a discovery order,

CONSIDERING therefore that the Motion does not contain sufficient factual and legal material, and in particular does not provide a statement as to the factual circumstances of his arrest, to warrant an evidentiary hearing,

HEREBY REAFFIRMS ITS REJECTION OF THE MOTION.

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

_____________________________

Richard May
Presiding Judge

Dated this twenty-fifth day of March 1999
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

Home | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.