Case No. IT-02-60-T
IN TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A
Before:
Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding
Judge Volodymyr Vassylenko
Judge Carmen Maria Argibay
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
25 September 2003
PROSECUTOR
v.
VIDOJE BLAGOJEVIC
DRAGAN JOKIC
____________________________________
DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO AMEND WITNESS LIST AND ADMIT EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 92 bis
____________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Peter McCloskey
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Michael Karnavas and Ms. Suzana Tomanovic for Vidoje Blagojevic
Mr. Miodrag Stojanovic and Ms. Cynthia Sinatra for Dragan Jokic
TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A, ("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 ("Tribunal"),
BEING SEISED of the "Prosecution’s Motion to Amend Witness List and Incorporated Motion to Admit Evidence under Rule 92 bis," filed partly confidentially by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 3 September 2003 ("Motion"),
NOTING that the Motion raises issues concerning four expert reports and proposes amendments which include inter alia the removal of two witnesses from the witness list,1 the inclusion of testimony of two witnesses2 under Rule 92 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules"), and reinstating two witnesses as live witnesses,3 whose testimony was previously designated under Rule 92 bis of the Rules,
NOTING that no response has been filed by either of the accused to the Motion,
NOTING the "First Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92 bis" rendered by the Trial Chamber on 12 June 2003, in which the Trial Chamber has considered the jurisprudence in relation to Rule 92 bis of the Rules in detail,
CONSIDERING that in relation to the issues dealing with the expert reports, the Trial Chamber will issue its decision at a later stage,
CONSIDERING that the testimony of witnesses W60 and W58 is cumulative in nature and as similar evidence has been given by other witnesses, their testimony is not necessary for the proceedings,
CONSIDERING that the prior testimony of witnesses W70 and W68 does not go to the acts and conduct of the accused and is relevant to the proceedings of this case and therefore it is appropriate to admit this evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis (D), and the Trial Chamber does not find it is necessary for them to be cross-examined,
CONSIDERING that in relation to witnesses W108 and W88, the Trial Chamber accepts that their reinstatement as viva voce witnesses may be necessary,
PURSUANT TO Rule 54 and Rule 92 bis of the Rules,
HEREBY GRANTS the Motion, in part and ORDERS
Done in French and English, the English version being authoritative.
___________
Judge Liu Daqun
Presiding
Dated this twenty-fifth day of September 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]
Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.