Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39300her against improper questioning by the Prosecution. 14 In carefully reviewing the way inwhich Zdravko Janić’s lawyer conducted himself during the suspect interview, the TrialChamber noted that the witness was adequately represented and cautioned prior toquestioning by the Prosecution as required by Rule 42 (A) of the Rules. The TrialChamber therefore found that while his lawyer did fail to file a power of attorney withthe Registrar, this did not have a negative effect on the probative value of the interview.Additionally, when on the stand, Zdravko Janić was cautioned by the Trial Chamber asto his rights under Rule 90 (E) of the Rules. He raised no objection based on a risk ofself-incrimination, and attested to the truthfulness of the answers he gave in theinterview and stated he would give the same answers if examined in court. 15 The TrialChamber therefore found that no problem arose under Rule 90 (E) of the Rules, and thatall conditions for admission into evidence under Rule 92 ter of the Rules had beenmet. 1619. In relation to unattested portions of Rule 92 ter statements, the Trial Chamberclarified that their admissibility is not governed by Rule 92 ter of the Rules. 17 It heldthat such portions may be admitted into evidence, either for the truth of their contents orfor the purpose of assessing the credibility of the witness, provided that the additionalrequirements of the case law on previous inconsistent statements and the criteria of Rule89 (C) are satisfied. 1820. During the course of the trial, the Trial Chamber reminded a number of witnessesof their right to object to answer questions if their answers might tend to incriminatethemselves. Three witnesses objected to answering questions on the basis that theiranswers may be self-incriminating in relation to proceedings in another jurisdiction. 19As a result, the questions were either withdrawn or the Trial Chamber decided not tocompel the witnesses to answer the questions as foreseen in Rule 90 (E) of the Rules. 20On one occasion, the Trial Chamber granted the protective measure of partial private14 Reasons for the Decision on the Admission of Two Statements and Related Exhibits of WitnessZdravko Janić into Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter, 24 July 2008, para. 4.15 T. 6079-6082.16 Decision on Defence Objections to the Admissibility of Witness 81’s Suspect Interview under Rule 95,8 July 2008; Reasons for the Decision on the Admission of Two Statements and Related Exhibits ofWitness Zdravko Janić into Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter, 24 July 2008.17 Guidance on the Admissibility into Evidence of Unattested Parts of Rule 92 ter Statements as PreviousInconsistent Statements, 30 March 2010, para 7.18 Guidance on the Admissibility into Evidence of Unattested Parts of Rule 92 ter Statements as PreviousInconsistent Statements, 30 March 2010, paras 7-8, 10.19 T. 27922, 28215-28216, 28551-28553, 28600.15Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `