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 ("International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED of the "Motion Regarding the Separate Trial for Mr. Simo Zaric by the Defense," filed on behalf of the accused Simo Zaric ("the Accused") on 8 July 1999 ("Motion"), in which the Accused seeks a separate trial under Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("the Rules"),

NOTING the "Prosecutor’s Response to the Defence Motion Regarding the Separate Trial for Mr. Simo Zaric," filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 21 July 1999,

NOTING that the Motion has been filed out of time under Rule 72 of the Rules, but that the Trial Chamber has the discretion pursuant to Sub-rule 127(A) to accept such filing,

NOTING the written and oral arguments of the Accused, inter alia, that

(i) he voluntarily surrendered to the custody of the International Tribunal on 24 February 1998, and has been held in pre-trial detention, awaiting trial, since that time;

(ii) the trial in this case was originally scheduled to commence on 22 June 1999, but was subsequently delayed, for reasons unrelated to this Accused;

(iii) the Accused was a member of the military forces in Bosanski Samac, whereas his

co-accused were members of the civilian authorities;

(iv) for the foregoing reasons, in particular, the delay in bringing this case to trial, Simo Zaric should be tried separately, in order to avoid a conflict of interests that might cause serious prejudice to the Accused pursuant to Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules,

NOTING the written and oral arguments of the Prosecution, inter alia, that

(i) the Motion is time-barred under Rule 72 of the Rules, but, given that the delay in the commencement of the trial only recently came to light, the Motion is appropriately brought under Rule 73 of the Rules;

(ii) the Trial Chamber has previously held that crimes committed in and around the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak from approximately 1 September 1991 through 31 December 1993, as described in the Second Amended Indictment, comprise the "same transaction" for purposes of Rule 48 of the Rules;

(iii) pursuant to Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules, the only basis for severance is prejudice to the accused, or to protect the interests of justice;

(iv) pre-trial detention for periods between nineteen months and five years have been held to fall within the acceptable range under the European Convention on Human Rights;

(v) the Trial Chamber has previously denied a motion to sever in this case on the grounds, inter alia, that the accused were properly joined;

(vi) the fact that the Accused is the only member of the military amongst his co-accused is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant him a separate trial;

(vii) pursuing a joint trial will minimise hardship to the Prosecution witnesses in this case, the majority of whom will be called to testify on counts relating to all four accused;

(viii) the Accused has failed to identify a conflict of interest that might cause him serious prejudice or jeopardise the interests of justice so as to justify his request for a separate trial pursuant to Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules,

HAVING DENIED the Motion orally on 23 November 1999 with reasons to follow,

STATES ITS REASONS as follow,

CONSIDERING that all four accused in this case are charged with crimes arising out of the same transaction, namely those crimes committed in and around the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak from approximately 1 September 1991 through 31 December 1993, as described in the Second Amended Indictment,

CONSIDERING therefore, that the accused have been properly joined under Rule 48 of the Rules, which provides that "SpCersons accused of the same or different crimes committed in the course of the same transaction may be jointly charged and tried," and that joint trials in such cases are a well-established practice in the International Tribunal,

CONSIDERING Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules which states that a Trial Chamber "may order that persons accused jointly under Rule 48 be tried separately if it considers it necessary in order to avoid a conflict of interests that might cause serious prejudice to an accused, or to protect the interests of justice,"

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that any such conflict of interests exists and therefore that the criteria for granting a separate trial under Sub-rule 82(B) of the Rules have not been met,

CONSIDERING that a joint trial avoids duplication of evidence, minimises hardship to witnesses, and is generally in the interests of judicial economy,

CONSIDERING that separation of the Accused’s trial is unlikely to yield an earlier date for the commencement of his trial,

CONSIDERING therefore, that the interests of justice are best served by a joint trial in this case,

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

______________________
Patrick Robinson
Presiding

Dated this third day of February 2000
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]

Home | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.