121811. THIS TRIAL CHAMBER <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Tribunal <strong>for</strong> the Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Pers<strong>on</strong>sResp<strong>on</strong>sible <strong>for</strong> Serious Violati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory<strong>of</strong> the <strong>for</strong>mer Yugoslavia since 1991 (“Tribunal”) is seised <strong>of</strong> the “Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong>Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter (GH-145)”, filed with two annexes <strong>on</strong> 28 May 2013(“Moti<strong>on</strong>”). The Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> filed its “Corrigendum to Annex A to Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong>Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter (GH-145)” <strong>on</strong> 31 May 2013 (“Corrigendum”). TheDefence filed its “Resp<strong>on</strong>se to Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92ter (GH-145)” <strong>on</strong> 11 June 2013 (“Resp<strong>on</strong>se”). On 19 June 2013, the Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fidentially filedthe “Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Request <strong>for</strong> Leave to Reply and Reply to Resp<strong>on</strong>se to Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong>Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter (GH-145)” (“Reply”).A. Submissi<strong>on</strong>s2. In the Moti<strong>on</strong>, the Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> requests the admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>evidence</strong> <strong>of</strong> GH-145 pursuantto Rule 92 ter <strong>of</strong> the Rules <strong>of</strong> Procedure and Evidence <strong>of</strong> the Tribunal (“Rules”), arguing that the<strong>evidence</strong> is probative, relevant, and reliable and meets the requirements <strong>for</strong> admissi<strong>on</strong> under thatRule. 1 The Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> submits that admitting the <strong>evidence</strong> in this manner will enable it to presentits case-in-chief in an efficient and expeditious manner, without compromising the fairness <strong>of</strong> theproceedings. 2 The Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> requests the admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 32 associated exhibits. 3 The Prosecuti<strong>on</strong>also requests that the Chamber take notice <strong>of</strong> the revised summary <strong>of</strong> the <strong>evidence</strong> <strong>of</strong> GH-145submitted with the Moti<strong>on</strong>. 43. In the Resp<strong>on</strong>se, the Defence objects to the admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> paragraphs 60 to 65 and the sixthsentence <strong>of</strong> paragraph 32 <strong>of</strong> the witness statement. 5 It asserts that the paragraphs relate to matters <strong>of</strong>sufficient sensitivity and importance that the Chamber should hear the <strong>evidence</strong> viva voce withoutthe influence <strong>of</strong> leading questi<strong>on</strong>s. 6 The Defence does not raise an objecti<strong>on</strong> to the remainder <strong>of</strong> theproposed Rule 92 ter <strong>evidence</strong>.4. In the Reply, the Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> argues that the Defence’s attempt to carve out “sensitive”in<strong>for</strong>mati<strong>on</strong> from the witness statement has no basis in the Rules. 7 Further, citing a previousdecisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Trial Chamber, the Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> asserts that the Defence will have the opportunity to1 Moti<strong>on</strong>, paras 1, 3-6.2 Moti<strong>on</strong>, paras 1, 7.3 Corrigendum, Annex A.4 Moti<strong>on</strong>, paras 2, 8, Annex A.5 Resp<strong>on</strong>se, paras 1-2.6 Resp<strong>on</strong>se, para. 1.7 Reply, para. 2.1Case No. IT-04-75-T 25 June 2013
12180test the witness in relati<strong>on</strong> to the <strong>evidence</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tained in the challenged paragraphs during crossexaminati<strong>on</strong>.8B. Applicable Law5. The main objective <strong>of</strong> Rule 92 ter—entitled “Other Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Written Statements andTranscripts”—is to ensure an effective and expeditious trial, while simultaneously ensuring andrespecting the rights <strong>of</strong> the accused. 9 The jurisprudence <strong>of</strong> the Tribunal has applied the Rule aspermitting, by necessary inference, the admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> exhibits where they accompany writtenstatements or transcripts and <strong>for</strong>m an “inseparable and indispensable” part <strong>of</strong> the written <strong>evidence</strong>. 10In order to satisfy this requirement, the document must be <strong>on</strong>e without which the witness’stestim<strong>on</strong>y would become incomprehensible or <strong>of</strong> lesser probative value. 11 Moreover, the <strong>evidence</strong>sought to be admitted, whether a written statement or a transcript <strong>of</strong> oral testim<strong>on</strong>y, must fulfil thegeneral requirements <strong>of</strong> admissibility <strong>of</strong> Rule 89(C): the proposed <strong>evidence</strong> must be relevant andhave probative value. 12C. Discussi<strong>on</strong>6. GH-145’s proposed <strong>evidence</strong>, in the <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> a written statement, c<strong>on</strong>tains in<strong>for</strong>mati<strong>on</strong> about,inter alia, (a) meetings he, as a journalist covering the c<strong>on</strong>flict in Croatia in the latter half <strong>of</strong> 1991,had with various political and military figures including alleged members <strong>of</strong> the JCE charged in theIndictment; (b) the takeover <strong>of</strong> villages by the JNA and Serb militias in the Knin area; and (c) theevents surrounding the takeover <strong>of</strong> Vukovar including the use <strong>of</strong> heavy weap<strong>on</strong>ry by the JNA <strong>on</strong>Vukovar, negotiati<strong>on</strong>s between the ICRC and JNA, c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s at the Vukovar hospital, and theevacuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> residents from Vukovar. The tendered associated exhibits are discussed in the witnessstatement and <strong>for</strong>m an inseparable and indispensable part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>evidence</strong>. The Trial Chamber finds8 Reply, paras 2-3.9 Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong>’s Moti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>for</strong> Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter (ST012 and ST019), 29 September 2009 (c<strong>on</strong>fidential) (“Stanišić and Župljanin<str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>”), para. 18; Prosecutor v. Prli} et al., Case No. IT-04-74-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> the Applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Rule 92 ter <strong>of</strong> theRules, 25 June 2007, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Deli}, Case No. IT-04-83-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> to Admit WrittenWitness Statements under Rule 92 ter, 27 September 2007, para. 10.10 Stanišić and Župljanin <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, para. 18; Prosecutor v. Luki} and Luki}, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>fidential Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> the Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Prior Testim<strong>on</strong>y with Associated Exhibits and WrittenStatements <strong>of</strong> Witnesses Pursuant to Rule 92 ter, 9 July 2008 (“Luki} and Luki} <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>”), para. 15; Prosecutor v.Ljubi~i}, Case No. IT-00-41-PT, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong>’s Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 92bis (D) <strong>of</strong> the Rules, 23 January 2004, p. 3; Prosecutor v. ðorđevi}, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong>’sMoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 ter, 10 February 2009 (“ðorđevi} <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>”), para. 5.11 Stanišić and Župljanin <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, para. 18; Luki} and Luki} <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, para. 15; Prosecutor v. Stani{i} and Simatovi},Case No. IT-03-69-T, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong>’s Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> the Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Written Evidence <strong>of</strong> Witness SlobodanLazarevi} Pursuant to Rule 92 ter with C<strong>on</strong>fidential Annex, 16 May 2008, para. 19; Prosecutor v. Haraqija andMorina, Case No. IT-04-84-R77.4, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Prosecuti<strong>on</strong> Moti<strong>on</strong> <strong>for</strong> Admissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92 bisand/or 92 ter, 2 September 2008 (“Haraqija and Morina <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>”), para. 12; ðorđevi} <str<strong>on</strong>g>Decisi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, para. 5.2Case No. IT-04-75-T 25 June 2013