Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39293Chamber found that other parts of the report would assist it in understanding matters atthe intersection between the laws of war and technical aspects of the conduct of militaryoperations. 60 Although fully aware of where to draw the lines between these matters, theTrial Chamber admitted the expert report into evidence in its entirety, declining toattempt to disentangle and only admit the relevant parts of the report. 61 On anotheroccasion, the Trial Chamber held that there is no obligation under the Rules for theDefence to disclose to the Prosecution any information it provided to the expert, anycommunications between the expert and the Defence, or any draft reports circulatedbetween the expert and the Defence. 62 It further ruled that such matters could beexplored with the expert in cross-examination, but also stated that the sources andmethodology used for an expert report must be clearly indicated and accessible, so as togive the parties and the Trial Chamber the possibility to test or challenge the factualbasis and the methodology relied upon, in order to assess the probative value of thereport. 6337. In considering the admission of Witness Šterc’s 92 ter witness statement, theTrial Chamber observed that, although Witness Šterc was presented as a witness of fact,parts of his statement consisted of conclusions and opinions which required specialknowledge, experience, or skills in order to be substantiated, and which did not have afactual basis in what the witness personally experienced.64 The Trial Chamberdetermined that when such a situation occurs, it expects such parts of the evidence tomeet the requirements which apply in relation to expert witnesses. 65 This means that thewitness’s conclusions and opinions are presented in full transparency of the facts he orshe relied upon and the methods he or she used to form his opinions and conclusions. 66The Trial Chamber found that Witness Šterc’s conclusions and opinions in thesubsequently stricken portions of his Rule 92 ter statement did not meet thisrequirement and for that reason they were not admitted into evidence. 67 Following the60 See Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Geoffrey Corn, 22 September 2009, para. 6.61 Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Geoffrey Corn, 22 September 2009, para. 6.62 Decision on Disclosure of Expert Materials, 27 August 2009, paras 1, 9.63 Decision on Disclosure of Expert Materials, 27 August 2009, paras 10-11.64 T. 20343-20344, 21130-21133.65 T. 21130-21133.66 T. 21131-21132.67 T. 21132.22Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `