Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39294Jozo Bilobrk, Antonio Gerovac, and Željko Mikulić provisionally in private session. 54In light of potentially contradictory testimony, and in order to protect the integrity of theproceedings by preventing the witnesses from following and thereby being possiblyinfluenced by each other’s testimony, the Chamber found that it was in the interests ofjustice to hear their testimony provisionally in private session, thereby only minimallyinfringing upon the public character of the proceedings. 5534. On some occasions, only one witness gave evidence of an incident covered bythe Indictment. The Appeals Chamber has held that the testimony of a single witness ona material fact does not, as a matter of law, require corroboration. 56 On these occasions,the Trial Chamber exercised particular caution, considering all circumstances relevantto the testimony of the witness, including whether the witness may have had a motive togive inaccurate evidence.35. In assessing and weighing the testimony of expert witnesses, the Trial Chamberconsidered factors such as the professional competence of the expert, the material at hisdisposal, the methodologies used, the credibility of the findings made in light of thesefactors and other evidence, the position or positions held by the expert, and the limits ofthe expertise of each witness.36. On one occasion, the Trial Chamber was seised of a Gotovina Defence motionrequesting it to issue an order precluding the Prosecution from introducing testimonythrough proposed Prosecution expert witness Konings on whether targets selected andhit during Operation Storm were legitimate military targets. 57 The Trial Chamber heldthat it is not bound by the conclusions of the expert. However, the opinion of the expertas to whether, and why, he considers a target to be a legitimate military objective,although ultimately to be determined by the Trial Chamber, may assist it in makingdecisions in relation to the criminal liability of the accused. 58 In a decision regarding aDefence expert witness, the Trial Chamber held that parts of an expert report that dealtwith purely legal matters are of no assistance to the Trial Chamber. 59 However, the Trial54 T. 28650-28651; Order Lifting Confidentiality of Testimony of Witnesses 176, 177 & 178, 7 June2010.55 Reasons for Decision of 2 June 2010 to Hear Testimony of Witnesses Bilobrk, Gerovac and Mikulić inPrivate Session, 29 June 2010, para. 3.56 Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 65; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 62; Čelebići AppealJudgement, para. 492; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 33.57 Defendant Ante Gotovina’s Rule 73 Motion In Limine, 6 March 2008.58 See Decision on Part of the Gotovina Defence’s Rule 73 Motion In Limine, 21 May 2008, para. 6.59 Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Geoffrey Corn, 22 September 2009, para. 6.21Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `