Dokter van der Stamstraat 1 • 2265 BC Leidschendam • The Netherlands
PO Box 115 • 2260 AC Leidschendam • The Netherlands
For more information please contact the Press Office: email@example.com
• +31 (0)70 800 3560 • +31 (0)70 800 3828
Judicial developments in the
Ayyash et al.
This case relates to the attack of 14 February 2005 in Beirut.
On 21 June 2013, the Prosecution filed a notice confirming that its disclosure obligations under Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence have been met as of 17 June 2013 in accordance with the Pre-
Prosecution’s Request to extend
the time frame for filing all Rule 113 material. Rule 113 provides for the disclosure of exculpatory material which may reasonably suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or affect the credibility of the
s evidence. Between 1 March 2013 and 17 June 2013, the Prosecution disclosed 71 batches of Rule 113 material amounting to a total of 26,883 pages. The process of disclosing Rule 113 material will continue in the event that new exculpatory material is received after 17 June. After the OTP submitted various updates regarding the disclosure of material related to expert witnesses, in an order issued on 18
June 2013, the Pre-Trial Judge transferred Rule 161 matters related to such witnesses to the Trial Chamber.
Challenges to the Form of the Amended Indictment:
The Prosecutor submitted an amended indictment on 6 February 2013 which was confirmed by the Pre-Trial Judge on 12 April. A redacted version of the latest amended indictment was made public on 28 May. Counsel for Mr. Badreddine, Mr. Oneissi and Mr. Sabra filed preliminary motions on 2 and 3 May alleging a number of defects in the form of the amended indictment. Preliminary motions which are submitted before the commencement of trial serve various purposes such as challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or alleging defects in the form indictment. Such motions are a guarantee that the right of an Accused to a fair trial is respected. On 12 June 2013, the Trial Chamber rendered its decision on the Defence
preliminary motions in which it found that
the amended indictment “provides counsel
for the Accused with enough detail to inform them clearly of the nature and cause of the charges to allow them to prepare a
defence of the case at trial.”