Omarska, Keraterm & Trnopolje Camps, Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., Decision on Prosecution's Motion to Strike Portion of Reply, IT-98-30/1-A (ICTY AC, Sep. 30, 2002)

Case: IT-98-30/1-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before: Pre-Appeal Judge, Judge David Hunt

Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of: 30 September 2002

PROSECUTOR
v
Miroslav KVOCKA
Milojica KOS
Mladjo RADIC
Zoran ZIGIC
Dragoljub PRCAC

__________________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF REPLY

__________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Ms Susan L Somers for the Prosecutor

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr Slobodan Stojanovic for Zoran Zigic

I, Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge,

NOTING Zoran Zigic’s confidential "Motion to Present Additional Evidence", filed on 23 August 2002 ("Motion");

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Zoran Zigic’s Motion to Present Additional Evidence", filed on 9 September 2002;

NOTING paragraphs 33 and 34 of Zigic’s confidential "Reply to Prosecution’s Response to Zoran Zigic’s Motion to Present Additional Evidence", filed on 23 September 2002 ("Zigic’s Reply"), where he refers to and summarises the statement of Faruk Hrncic ("Hrncic") a witness which he wishes to call;

BEING SEISED OF "Prosecution’s Motion to Strike Portion of Zigic’s Reply to Prosecution’s Response to Zoran Zigic’s Motion to Present Additional Evidence", filed on 26 September 2002, whereby the prosecution requests that paragraphs 33 and 34 of Zigic’s Reply be struck out on the basis that these two paragraphs go beyond the proper scope and ambit of a reply;

NOTING Zigic’s "Reply to Prosecution’s Motion to Strike Portion of Zigic’s Reply to Prosecution’s Response to Zoran Zigic’s Motion to Present Additional Evidence", filed confidentially on 30 September 2002;

NOTING that Zigic complains in his Motion that certain alleged eyewitness to the murder of Becir Medunjanin for which he was convicted were not called at trial, although available, but he does not identify Hrncic as one of those witnesses;

NOTING that Zigic submits in his Reply for the first time that the prosecution refused to help him at the trial to call five witnesses¹ and that he identifies in his Reply also for the first time that one of them, Hrncic, should now be called "in the interests of justice";²

CONSIDERING that the letter of the prosecution’s Senior Trial Attorney dated 25 October 2000 to which Zigic referred in his Motion was put forward by him as being itself evidence which he sought to have admitted in evidence;³

CONSIDERING, therefore, that paragraphs 33 and 34 of Zigic’s Reply contain new material going beyond the scope of what is permissible to include in a reply;

HEREBY GRANT the motion and ORDER that paragraphs 33 and 34 be struck out of Zigic’s Reply.

NOTING, however, that if he decides to pursue the matter further, Zigic may seek leave to add the content of those paragraphs to his original Motion. If he does so, the prosecution will have the right to file a further response to it.

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

Dated this 30^th day of September 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

______________________
David Hunt
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1 - Motion, page 6 and letter annexed in the Motion.
2 - Motion, page 2.
3 - Letter annexed in the Motion.

Home | Terms & Conditions | About