|Review Decision - 14.07.2010||
On 5 May 2009, the Appeals Chamber issued a judgement which, inter alia, upheld the conviction of Veselin Šljivančanin (“Šljivančanin”) for aiding and abetting torture as a violation of the laws or customs of war and added, Judges Pocar and Vaz dissenting, a new conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. The new conviction was based in part on the Appeals Chamber’s new factual findings concerning a conversation between Šljivančanin and Mile Mrkšić (“Conversation”).
In an application for review filed on 28 January 2010, Šljivančanin asserted that Miodrag Panić was prepared to offer testimony that invalidated Šljivančanin’s conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war, and that the content of the Conversation that would be the subject of this testimony constituted a “new fact” in the context of Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal.
At page 4, the Appeals Chamber stated:
CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Rule 120 of the Rules, a hearing to consider evidence on the Panić New Fact (“Review Hearing”) will be held;
CONSIDERING that the Review Hearing will allow the parties to provide supporting and rebuttal evidence concerning the Panić New Fact and that, before setting the date and structure of the Review Hearing, it is appropriate to consider the scope of evidence, if any, the parties wish to present;
ORDERS the parties to submit in writing, no later than 30 July 2010, a list of evidence and witnesses, if any, each proposes to introduce at the Review Hearing;
FURTHER ORDERS the parties to include with respect to each piece of evidence or witness: (i) a brief description of anticipated relevance; and (ii) the proposed time allocation for any witness;
EMPHASISES to the parties that all evidence they propose to submit must be limited to supporting or casting doubt on the Panić New Fact;
 Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Judgement, 5 May 2009 (“Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement”), para. 62.
 Application on Behalf of Veselin Šljivančanin for Review of the Appeals Chamber Judgment of 5 May 2009, 28 January 2010.
 Cf. Rules 54 and 107 of the Rules.
|ICTR Rule Rule 121 ICTY Rule Rule 120|
|Decision on Review - 12.03.2009||
46. The Appeals Chamber is not in a position to properly assess the merits of Niyitegeka’s request regarding the Additional Statements since he did not provide them. In the absence of the relevant material, the Appeals Chamber is not only unable to fully assess whether they constitute “new facts”, but is also unable to order their admission into the record. While an applicant may have legitimate concerns regarding the security of potential witnesses, those concerns are not justified when it comes to disclosing information to the Appeals Chamber. As regards disclosures to the Prosecution, the Appeals Chamber reminds Niyitegeka that he could have requested the application of protective measures by the Appeals Chamber pursuant to Rule 75 of the Rules prior to filing his Request. Further, Niyitegeka elected not to attach the Additional Statements to his request on the additional ground that he intended to first give the material to his assigned counsel. In doing so, Niyitegeka hindered the Appeals Chamber’s ability to provide a thorough analysis of his claim that the Additional Statements constitute “new facts” and thwarted his own request to have the statements admitted for purposes of review. Similarly, Niyitegeka prevented the Appeals Chamber from considering his claim that the Prosecution violated its disclosure obligations under Rule 68 of the Rules and his related request for disciplinary action.
 The Appeals Chamber recalls that a request for protective measures pursuant to Rule 75 of the Rules must demonstrate a real likelihood that the person may be in danger or at risk. See The Prosecutor v. André Ntagerura et al., Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, Order, 2 June 2004, p. 2 and decisions cited therein.
|ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTR Rule Rule 120 ICTY Rule Rule 119|