Allegedly contradictory testimony in a later trial
|Decision on Additional Evidence - 13.02.2009||
MRKŠIĆ & ŠLJIVANČANIN
Download full document
15. Vojnović did not testify in the Šešelj case until after the Trial Judgement had been rendered; however, in determining whether the information was available at trial, the Appeals Chamber must also consider whether any of the information sought to be admitted was available in any other form during trial or could be obtained through due diligence. The Appeals Chamber considers that unless Vojnović specified in his testimony in the Šešelj case that he learned about new information after his testimony in the Mrkšić et al. case, it may be presumed that all the information adduced in his testimony in the Šešelj case was also available at the time of his testimony in the Mrkšić et al. case. Apart from Vojnović’s testimony that he met the chief of the Security Administration in 2008, it has not been shown that any of the information contained in Vojnović’s testimony became available to Mrkšić after the closure of his case and is therefore found to have been available at trial. However, to the extent that evidence sought to be admitted relates to Vojnović’s credibility, the Appeals Chamber considers that, while at trial Mrkšić had the opportunity to cross-examine Vojnović on all relevant points, any statements or testimony given by Vojnović after the closure of the Mrkšić et al. case that allegedly contradict his testimony at trial were prima facie not available for the purposes of testing his credibility. As a result if Vojnović’s testimony in Šešelj did undermine the credibility of his evidence in Mrkšić et al., it will be considered to be new evidence.
See also para. 27.
|ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115|