Case No.: IT-00-39-T

IN TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before:
Judge Alphons Orie, Presiding
Judge Amin El Mahdi
Judge Joaquín Martín Canivell

Registrar:
Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
31 March 2004

PROSECUTOR

v.

MOMCILO KRAJISNIK

______________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON TWO EXPERT WITNESSES (NIELSEN & RIEDELMAYER)

______________________________________________________________________

Office of the Prosecutor

Mr Mark Harmon
Mr Alan Tieger

Defence Counsel

Mr Nicholas Stewart
Ms Chrissa Loukas

 

1. Christian Nielsen

  1. On 17 December 2003 this Trial Chamber (the "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 "Tribunal") received from the Prosecution, pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the "Rules"), the expert report and curriculum vitae of one of its proposed expert witnesses, Christian Nielsen.1

  2. Rule 94 bis (A) states that the full report of an expert witness must be disclosed within the time-limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber. As noted by the Prosecution, the time-limit set by the previous Trial Chamber to be seized of the present case was 30 July 2002. At that time the trial was expected to start in November 2002.

  3. While the July 2002 deadline has not been formally lifted, it no longer corresponds to the actual state of the proceedings. The commencement of the trial was postponed to February 2004 as a result of the replacement of the Defence team. Thus the Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that the filing on 17 December 2003 of the documents relating to Nielsen – whose name was notified to the Defence already in the March 2003 list of witnesses – is not to be considered out of time by operation of the July 2002 deadline. Moreover the Defence states, in its response to the Prosecution’s submission on Nielsen,2 that it takes no position on the question of the time-limit. It also makes no complaint about late disclosure. Thus the matter is considered settled.
  4. Rule 94 bis (B) states that within 30 days of disclosure of the report of the expert witness, or by such other time prescribed by the Trial Chamber, the opposing party must file a notice indicating whether it accepts the expert report, wishes to cross-examine the expert witness, or challenges the qualifications of the witness as an expert, or the relevance of all or parts of the report. The Chamber allowed the Defence until the end of March 2004 to respond to the submission on Nielsen (as well as to the submission on Riedlmayer – see below), and therefore its response (filed on 25 March) is in time.
  5. The Defence states that it does not challenge the qualifications of Nielsen as an expert, nor does it contend that any part of his report should be excluded on the grounds of irrelevance. In accordance with Rule 94 bis (B) (ii), the Defence declares that it wishes to cross-examine Nielsen.
  6. 2. Andras Riedlmayer

  7. On 26 January 2004 the Chamber received from the Prosecution, pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Rules, the expert report and curriculum vitae of another proposed expert witnesses, Andras Riedlmayer.3 This submission included a request, pursuant to Rule 92 bis (D) of the Rules (which concerns the admission of transcripts of testimony from another proceedings), to admit into evidence excerpts of Riedlmayer’s testimony in the case of Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević dealing with destruction of cultural heritage in the time period and municipalities relevant to the indictment in the present case and going to proof of matters other than the acts and conduct of the Accused.
  8. Riedlmayer’s status as a proposed expert witness was notified to the Defence in the Prosecution’s March 2003 list of witnesses. The Prosecution once again notes that the 30 July 2002 disclosure deadline for expert reports should be regarded as inoperative. It also provides an explanation as to why Riedlmayer’s report was filed on the late date that it was. It proposes to call Riedlmayer towards the end of its case. The Defence makes no complaint about late disclosure, and thus the matter is considered settled.
  9. The Defence does not challenge the qualifications of Riedlmayer as an expert, nor does it contend that any part of his report should be excluded for irrelevance. It states its wish to cross-examine him. Lastly, the Defence does not object to the admission into evidence of the excerpts of Riedlmayer’s testimony in the Milosevic case identified by the Prosecution, on the understanding that they too are subject to cross-examination.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

THE CHAMBER,

PURSUANT TO RULE 94 BIS OF THE RULES:

FINDS that the Prosecution’s submissions relating to its expert witnesses Christian Nielsen and Andras Riedlmayer were not filed out of time;

NOTES that the two expert witnesses shall be called to testify before the Chamber;

ADMITS INTO EVIDENCE their reports and curricula vitae;

AND,

PURSUANT TO RULE 92 BIS (D) OF THE RULES:

ADMITS INTO EVIDENCE the identified excerpts of Riedlmayer’s testimony in the Milosevic case, which shall be open to cross-examination.

 

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

_______________
Alphons Orie
Presiding Judge

Dated this 31st day of March 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. "Submission of Statement of Dr Christian Nielsen," filed on 17 December 2003.
2. "Defence Response to the Prosecution’s Submission of Statement of Dr. Christian Nielsen and the Prosecution’s Filing of Statement of
Andreas Riedlmayer and Motion for Admission of Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 bis," filed on 25 March 2004.
3. "Prosecution’s Filing of Statement of Andras Riedlmayer and Motion for Admission of Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 bis," filed on 26 January 2004.
   

Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.