Source: http://cld.irmct.org/advanced-search/?p=20
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:43:19+00:00

Document:
14. The Appeals Chamber recalls the generally accepted principle that the interpretation and implementation of protective measures should be the least restrictive necessary to provide for the protection of victims or witnesses.
 The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case Nos. ICTR-98-41-AR73 & ICTR-98-41-AR73(B), Decision on Interlocutory Appeals of Decision on Witness Protection Orders, 6 October 2005, para. 19.
 Registrar’s Submission [Registrar’s Submission Pursuant to Order of 8 June 2017, 21 June 2017 (confidential)], Annex, RP. 2/1554bis (“I fully understand the meaning and implications of my personal decision and therefore commit myself, through this document, not to hold WISP and the Mechanism in general accountable for any moral and material prejudice which I might suffer from my decision as to whether to participate in such an interview.”) (Emphasis added).
 See Registrar’s Submission, Annex, RP. 1/1554bis (“I fear for my safety because even when I appeared before the Tribunal previously, I did so as a protected witness. If they want to interview me, I am prepared to meet with them in court. In all other respects, my response is no.”).
 See Rule 69(A) of the Rules. See also Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Decision on Accused’s Request for Status Conference, 11 June 2014, para. 4.
 See Rule 69(B) of the Rules. See also Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55, Decision on Request for Status Conference, 1 April 2016 (“Karadžić Decision of 1 April 2016”), p. 1.
 See. Karadžić Decision of 1 April 2016 [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55, Decision on Request for Status Conference, 1 April 2016]], p. 2. See also Request [Request for Status Conference, 18 September 2017], para. 5.
 Cf. Karadžić Decision of 1 April 2016, p. 1. See also Decision on Motion to Report Government of Turkey to United Nations Security Council and for Modification of Conditions of Detention, 22 March 2017, p. 3.
 See Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on David J. Scheffer’s Application to File an Amicus Curiae Brief, 7 September 2010 (“Šainović et al. Decision of 7 September 2010”), p. 2; In the Case Against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.5-A, Decision on Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, 5 February 2010 (“Hartmann Decision of 5 February 2010”), para. 4; The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana et al., Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on the Admissibility of the Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the “Open Society Justice Initiative” and on its Request to be Heard at the Appeals Hearing, 12 January 2007 (“Nahimana et al. Decision of 12 January 2007”), p. 3.
 See Šainović et al. Decision of 7 September 2010, p. 2; Hartmann Decision of 5 February 2010, para. 5; Nahimana et al. Decision of 12 January 2007, p. 3.
 See also Hartmann Decision of 5 February 2010, para. 5; The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Decision on the Kingdom of Belgium’s Application to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and on the Defence Application to Strike Out the Observations of the Kingdom of Belgium Concerning the Preliminary Response by the Defence, 9 February 2001, paras. 10, 14(b).
 See Radovan Karad[ž]i[ć]’s Appeal Brief [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A], 5 December 2016 (confidential with public redacted version filed on 23 December 2016), paras. 522-548; Prosecution Response Brief [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A], 15 March 2017 (confidential with public redacted version filed on 16 May 2017), paras. 290-299; Radovan Karad[ž]i[ć]’s Reply Brief [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A], 6 April 2017 (confidential with public redacted version filed on 19 April 2017), paras. 163-165.
 See Article 19(4)(d) of the Statute. See also Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement, 16 May 2008 (original French version filed on 28 November 2007), paras. 96, 109 (“Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement”).
 See Rules 98 and 131 of the Rules.
 Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Decision on Momčilo Krajišnik’s Request to Self-Represent, on Counsel’s Motions in Relation to Appointment of Amicus Curiae, and on the Prosecution Motion of 16 February 2007, 11 May 2007, paras. 10-12.
 Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-AR73.3, Decision on Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Counsel, 20 October 2006 (“Šešelj Appeal Decision”), paras. 22-25.
 See Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 109.
 See Slobodan Milošević v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.7, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, 1 November 2004, paras. 17, 19.
 Šešelj Appeal Decision, paras. 24, 25.
11. In this context, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for Niyitegeka to request certification to appeal the Decision of 29 January 2016, which was issued, in part, on the basis of Rule 86 of the Rules. Notably, Niyitegeka filed the Request for Certification within the seven-day timeframe provided under Rule 80(C) of the Rules. Moreover, he lodged the present Appeal within seven days of the Decision of 10 May 2017 denying his Request for Certification. Consequently, and pursuant to Rule 154 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber finds that there is good cause to recognize the Appeal of the Decision of 29 January 2016 as validly filed.
 Niyitegeka states that the Decision of 29 January 2016 was only circulated on 1 February 2016 and that he filed his application seeking certification to appeal on 8 February 2016. Appeal, paras. 3, 4. This is not disputed by the Prosecution.
Fn. 38. The Appeals Chamber also dismisses Niyitegeka’s further request that it provide guidance as to the appropriate procedures for generally challenging decisions related to confidential material not issued under Rule 86 of the Rules and rendered after the close of an applicant’s trial and appeal proceedings in addition to what has already been stated in this decision. Article 23 of the Statute of the Mechanism (“Statute”) provides that the Appeals Chamber may affirm, reverse or revise the decisions taken by a Single Judge or Trial Chamber. However, the Appeals Chamber does not have advisory power and Niyitegeka’s submission fails to demonstrate that this is an issue of general importance whose adjudication would contribute substantially to the Mechanism’s jurisprudence. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Motion to Dismiss Ground 1 of the Prosecutor’s Appeal, 5 May 2005, p.3; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-A, Judgement, 23 November 2011, para. 23.
12. […] the Appeals Chamber clarifies that an appeal lies as of right of any decision taken under Rule 73 of the Rules by a single judge or trial chamber after an applicant’s trial and appeal proceedings have concluded. This is necessary to give full effect to the continuous obligation imposed upon the Prosecution by Rule 73(E) of the Rules to disclose exculpatory material after the completion of trial and any subsequent appeal.
18. The Appeals Chamber turns to Niyitegeka’s contention that the Single Judge erred in failing to consider that all the statements and testimony of the 12 Prosecution witnesses given subsequent to his own proceedings constitute potentially exculpatory material subject to disclosure under Rule 73 of the Rules. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 73(A) of the Rules imposes upon the Prosecution a positive and continuous obligation to, “as soon as practicable, disclose to the Defence any material that in [its] actual knowledge […] may suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or affect the credibility of Prosecution evidence”. The determination as to which material is subject to disclosure under Rule 73 of the Rules is a fact-based enquiry made by the Prosecution. A chamber will not intervene in the exercise of the Prosecution’s discretion unless it is shown that the Prosecution abused it and, where there is no evidence to the contrary, will presume that the Prosecution is acting in good faith. Niyitegeka demonstrates no error in the Single Judge’s determination that, with respect to Niyitegeka’s present request for disclosure, there was no reason to doubt that the Prosecution was complying with its continuous disclosure obligations in good faith. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Prosecution’s obligation to disclose exculpatory material is essential to a fair trial, and notes that this obligation has always been interpreted broadly.
19. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that the Office of the Prosecutor has a duty to utilize procedures designed to ensure that, particularly in instances where the same witnesses testify in different cases, the evidence provided by such witnesses is re-examined in light of Rule 73 of the Rules to determine whether any material has to be disclosed. This obligation reflects the possibility that statements or testimony given by a witness in a subsequent proceeding may contain material subject to disclosure under Rule 73 of the Rules and underscores that, as noted above, determining what is subject to disclosure is a fact-based enquiry by the Prosecution. […] Furthermore, Rule 73 of the Rules limits the Prosecution’s obligation to the disclosure of material that “in [its] actual knowledge […] may suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or affect the credibility of Prosecution evidence”. To the extent Niyitegeka considers that the Prosecution may be unaware of information that may impact the assessment of whether material in its possession is subject to disclosure under Rule 73 of the Rules, he may share such information with the Prosecution. In light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that Niyitegeka fails to establish that the Single Judge committed a discernible error by not determining that all the statements and transcripts of evidence given by the 12 Prosecution witnesses during proceedings subsequent to the conclusion of Niyitegeka’s case constitute material subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules.
 See also Augustin Ngirabatware v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-29-A, Decision on Ngirabatware’s Motions for Relief for Rule 73 Violations and Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal, 21 November 2014 (“Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014”), para. 15.
 Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014 [Augustin Ngirabatware v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-29-A, Decision on Ngirabatware’s Motions for Relief for Rule 73 Violations and Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal, 21 November 2014]], para. 15; Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-50-A, Decision on Motions for Relief for Rule 68 Violations, 24 September 2012 (“Mugenzi Decision of 24 September 2012”), para. 7; Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement, 17 December 2004 (“Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement”), para. 183.
 Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 15. See also Mugenzi Decision of 24 September 2012, para. 7; Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-R68, Decision on Motion for Disclosure, 4 March 2010, para. 14.
 Decision of 29 January 2016 [Decision on Niyitegeka’s Urgent Request for Orders Relating to Prosecution Witnesses, 29 January 2016 ]], para. 11.
 Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 15; Callixte Kalimanzira v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-05-88-A, Judgement, 20 October 2010 (“Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement”), para. 18; Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement, 29 July 2004 (“Blaškić Appeal Judgement”), paras. 265, 266. See also Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 20.
 Cf. Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 302.
 See Prosecutor v. Sreten Lukić, Case No. MICT-14-67-R.1, Decision on Sreten Lukić’s Application for Review, 8 July 2015, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Milan Lukić, Case No. MICT-13-52-R.1, Decision on Milan Lukić’s Application for Review, 7 July 2015, para. 5; Juvénal Kajelijeli v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-R, Decision on Request for Review, 29 May 2013 (“Kajelijeli Review Decision”), para. 7; Prosecutor v. Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 14 July 2010 (“Šljivančanin Review Decision”), p. 2.
 See Kajelijeli Review Decision, paras. 24, 32, 43.
 See Decision of 5 May 2016 [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion Regarding Protected Witnesses and Ngirabatware’s Motion for Assignment of Counsel, 5 May 2016 (confidential)], paras. 3, 21, referring to [REDACTED].
 Šljivančanin Review Decision [Prosecutor v. Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 14 July 2010], p. 4. Cf. [MICT] Rules 55 and 131 of the Rules.
 See Ngirabatware Decision of 5 May 2016 [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion Regarding Protected Witnesses and Ngirabatware’s Motion for Assignment of Counsel, 5 May 2016 (confidential)], para. 20; Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16-R, Decision on Niyitegeka’s Request for Review and Assignment of Counsel, 13 July 2015, para. 8; Aloys Ntabakuze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-14-77-R, Decision on Ntabakuze’s Pro Se Motion for Assignment of an Investigator and Counsel in Anticipation of his Request for Review, 19 January 2015, para. 9.
 See Response [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Prosecution’s Response to Karadžić Motion to Compel Inspection of Pseudonyms of Witnesses Subject to Ex Parte Rule 86 Proceedings, 25 April 2017], para. 8.
 Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108 bis, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997 (“Blaškić Appeal Decision”), para. 38. See also Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Decision on Application for Subpoenas, 1 July 2003 (“Krstić Appeal Decision”), paras. 20.
 For instance, those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide cannot invoke immunity from national or international jurisdiction even if they perpetrated the crimes while acting in their official capacity (see Blaškić Appeal Decision, paras. 41, 42). See also Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 51; Krstić Appeal Decision, paras. 24-27.
 Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 38. See also Blaškić Appeal Decision, paras. 42-44.
 Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 44.
 Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 33. See also Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 37.
 Blaškić Appeal Decision, para. 33.
 See Response [Prosecution Response to Ngirabatware’s Motion to Initiate Contempt Proceedings, 12 April 2017], paras. 2-4, citing, inter alia, Blaškić Appeal Decision [Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108 bis, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997], paras. 25, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44; Krstić Appeal Decision [Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Decision on Application for Subpoenas, 1 July 2003], paras. 23-28; Reply [Reply to Prosecution Response to Motion to Initiate Contempt Proceedings and Request for Oral Hearing, 16 April 2017], paras. 7, 8, citing, inter alia, Blaškić Appeal Decision; Krstić Appeal Decision, para. 26.
 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et al., Case No. IT-04-84bis-AR73.1, Decision on Request for Oral Argument, 16 March 2011, p. 2, n. 8 and references cited therein.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.