Testimony by video-link
|Appeal Judgement - 20.10.2010||
221. In its Decision of 11 September 2007, the Trial Chamber recalled:
the general principle articulated in Rule 90(A) [is] that “witnesses shall [...] be heard directly by the Chamber.” Nonetheless, the Chamber has the discretion to hear testimony by video-link in lieu of physical appearance for purposes of witness protection under Rule 75, or where it is in the interests of justice to do so. In determining the interests of justice, the Chamber has to assess the importance of the testimony, the inability or unwillingness of the witness to travel to Arusha, and whether a good reason has been adduced for that inability and unwillingness. The burden of proof lies with the party making the request.
[…] This standard is consistent with the approach taken by the Appeals Chamber.
 Decision of 11 September 2007 [The Prosecutor v. Emmanuel Rukundo, Case No. ICTR-2001-70-T, Decision on the Defence Motions for Additional Time to Disclose Witnesses’ Identifying Information, to Vary its Witness List and for Video-Link Testimony, and on the Prosecution’s Motion for Sanctions, 11 September 2007 ], para. 23 (internal citations omitted).
 See Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Prosecution’s Request for Testimony by Video-Conference Link and Protective Measures, filed confidentially on 2 July 2004, p. 3 (“the Appeals Chamber will ‘only allow video-link testimony if certain criteria are met, namely that testimony of a witness is shown to be sufficiently important to make it unfair to proceed without it and that the witness is unable or unwilling to come to the International Tribunal’”).