Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39292same line of reasoning, the Chamber did not admit into evidence portions of WitnessPejković’s Rule 92 ter witness statement. 6838. In assessing documentary evidence, the Trial Chamber considered the origin ofthe document, the author and his or her role in the relevant events, the chain of custodyof the document to the extent that it was known, the source of the information containedin the document, and whether that information was corroborated by witnesses or otherdocuments. The Trial Chamber did not consider unsigned, undated, or unstampeddocuments a priori to be devoid of authenticity. When the Trial Chamber was satisfiedwith the authenticity of a particular document, it did not automatically accept thestatements contained therein to be an accurate portrayal of the facts. As a general rule,the less the Trial Chamber knew about a document, the circumstances of its creation andusage, the less weight it gave to it. For example, the Trial Chamber admitted adocumentary film proffered by the Prosecution, Storm Over Krajina, but emphasisedwhen admitting it that since it largely depicted persons, events, and locations with noidentifying information, the film contained little probative value overall. 69 Similarly,before admitting a human rights report tendered by the Prosecution, Military OperationStorm and its Aftermath, the Trial Chamber required that the Prosecution redact fromthe report any portions relating to Sector North, an area not covered by the Indictment,as well as any portions of the report containing statements purportedly made orrepresented to have been made by any of the accused. 70 The report was then admitted inits redacted version with no objections from the Defence. 7139. The Trial Chamber received much evidence on the practice of compiling andprocessing various reports from international organisations and agencies present on theground during the Indictment period. 72 It considered all of this evidence in assessing68 T. 25234.69 T. 15933.70 T. 15834-15836.71 T. 17130-17131.72 See e.g. for ECMM: P888 (Lennart Leschly, witness statement, 6 February 2007), para. 9; P931 (EricHendriks, witness statement, 4 April 2008), para. 7; P1281 (Witness 174, witness statement, 6 November2008), pp. 2-3; P1284 (Stig Marker Hansen, witness statement, 22 August 1997), p. 2; P1285 (StigMarker Hansen, witness statement, 24 April 2008), paras 5, 7; Søren Liborius, T. 8250, 8278, 8343, 8408,8447, 8526; Lennart Leschly, T. 9151-9152; Eric Hendriks, T. 9695-9696, 9708-9709, 9806-9808; StigMarker Hansen, T. 14980-14983, 15054;HRAT: P20 (Edward Flynn, witness statement, 29 June 1997), pp. 6-7; P21 (Edward Flynn, witnessstatement, 26-27 February 2008), paras 4-5, 29; P1098 (Maria Teresa Mauro, witness statement, 3 March2000), p. 3; P1099 (Maria Teresa Mauro, witness statement, 6 February 2008), paras 8-14, 17-18, 27-28;P1284 (Stig Marker Hansen, witness statement, 22 August 1997), p. 4; Edward Flynn, T. 1249-1250,23Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `