Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mladic Defense Response and Objection to Revised Notice of Presentation of Prosecution Case in Chief: First Segment

Mladic Defense Response and Objection to Revised Notice of Presentation of Prosecution Case in Chief: First Segment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 515 |Likes:
Published by ICTY News
Mladic Defence requests changes to next week's OTP witness list.
Mladic Defence requests changes to next week's OTP witness list.

More info:

Published by: ICTY News on Jul 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALFOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIACase No. IT-09-92-TIN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before:
Judge Alphons Orie, PresidingJudge Bakone Justice MolotoJudge Christoph Flügge
 Registrar:
Mr. John Hocking
 Date Filed:
29 June 2012
THE PROSECUTOR v.RATKO MLADI
Ć
 
 PUBLIC 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
DEFENSE RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REVISEDNOTICE OF PRESENTATION OF PROSECUTION CASE INCHIEF: FIRST SEGMENT
 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Dermot GroomeMr. Peter McCloskey
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Branko Luki
ć
 Mr. Miodrag Stojanovi
ć
 
41143IT-09-92-TD41143 - D4113102 July 2012 SF
 
 
Case No: IT-09-92-T 2 29 June 2012
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALFOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIAPROSECUTOR v.RATKO MLADI
Ć
 
 PUBLIC 
DEFENSE RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REVISEDNOTICE OF PRESENTATION OF PROSECUTION CASE INCHIEF: FIRST SEGMENT
 NOW COMES, The Accused,
RATKO MLADI
Ć
, by and through his Defense Counsel of record, hereby files the instant
 DEFENSE RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REVISED NOTICE OF PRESENTATION OF PROSECUTION CASE IN CHIEF: FIRST SEGMENT 
, and insupport thereof states as follows:
 I.
 
INTRODUCTION
1.
 
On 26 June 2012 the Prosecution filed their 
NOTICE OF PRESENTATIONOF PROSECUTION CASE IN CHIEF: FIRST SEGMENT
. (Hereinafter referred to as the“Prosecution Notice”). Said Prosecution Notice proposed a total of seven witnesses to be called by the Prosecution before the summer recess, beginning 9 July 2012.2.
 
The Prosecution Notice confirms that when the Prosecution consulted with thedefense about these proposed witnesses, the Defense maintained concerns regarding its ability tofully prepare for the cross-examination of these witnesses in light of disclosure problems.
1
 
1
Prosecution Notice, para. 2
41142
IT-09-92-T
 
 
Case No: IT-09-92-T 3 29 June 2012
3.
 
On 28 June 2012 the Defense sent a comprehensive correspondence to theChambers and Prosecution outlining the objections as to specific witnesses from the proposedseven, who presented greater concerns than the remainder. A copy of the correspondence isattached hereto as Public Annex A. The instant Response and Objection will illuminate for theRecord the specifics of objections the Defense raises as to the first seven witnesses.
 
4.
 
The Defense raises objection not only due to disclosure issues, but also due to pending motions that have not been ruled upon and whose ruling will change drastically themethod of preparations for several of the first seven witnesses. For the Record, the Defense doesnot object to witnesses RM350 and RM255 being called, as the problems with these two
vivavoce
witnesses are not as significant as the remaining Rule 92ter witnesses or the one expertlisted under Rule 94bis.
 
II.
 
SUBMISSIONS
 A.
 
 Pending and Unresolved Rule 92ter Applications areOutstanding for All of the Rule 92ter Witnesses in the FirstGroup of Seven
5.
 
As a preliminary matter, it should be pointed out for the record that the Defensehas continually stressed the need to conduct these proceedings in a fair manner, in accord withthe previous jurisprudence and practice of the Tribunal. General Mladic only wishes to betreated as fairly as every prior Accused, as is promised by the Statute and Rules of the Tribunal.There should not be a rush to abbreviate the rights of the accused in order to re-start Trial early.6.
 
As the Defense has made clear through numerous filings, the start of trial and thestart of hearing of evidence are unreasonably pre-mature in light of the full circumstances in thiscase, including not only the problems with late and incomplete disclosures on the part of theProsecution but also in light of the significant amount of outstanding and unresolved motionsrelating to witnesses. The Defense previously sought an adjournment of trial to permit all parties
41141
IT-09-92-T

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->