Overlap between cases
|Decision on Access to Confidential Material - 22.04.2009||
23. In its Impugned Decision [The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Renzaho, Case No. ICTR-97-31, Decision on Request for Closed Session Testimony and Sealed Exhibits, 3 April 2008], the Trial Chamber noted that “a significant factual, geographical and temporal overlap” between the cases constitutes a legitimate forensic purpose. The Appeals Chamber emphasises that a requesting party is not required to establish a “significant” overlap between the cases - be it factual, geographic or temporal - in order to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose. However, the Appeals Chamber further notes that the Trial Chamber, having reviewed the requested material, went on to conclude that the Appellant’s conviction in relation to Cyahafi concerned the distribution of weapons, and that since the requested material shed no light on the Appellant’s conduct in this regard, it was unlikely to materially assist him. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied with the Trial Chamber reasoning in this respect. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded by the Appellant’s contention that the lack of reference to him in the evidence of Witness AWE in and of itself makes this evidence exculpatory within the meaning of Rule 68 and is therefore of “material assistance” to his case. The Appeals Chamber accordingly finds that the Trial Chamber did not abuse its discretion and dismisses this ground of appeal.
 Impugned Decision, para. 6 (internal citations omitted).
 Impugned Decision, para. 6, referring to Trial Judgement, paras. 174 et seq. See also Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, paras. 294-341, 589 and Disposition.
|ICTR Rule Rule 75 ICTY Rule Rule 75|
|Decision on a Request for Access and Review - 09.04.2018||
9. […] As to the nexus, […] Given the relatively low threshold for establishing this criterion, […]
 See Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-R, Decision on Georges A.N. Rutaganda's Appeal Against Decision on Request for Closed Session Testimony and Sealed Exhibits, 22 April 2009, para. 23 ("The Appeals Chamber emphasises that a requesting party is not required to establish a 'significant' overlap between the cases – be it factual, geographic or temporal – in order to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose.")