9. Pursuant to Rule 86(F)(i) of the Rules, protective measures ordered before the ICTY, the ICTR, or the Mechanism (“first proceedings”), continue to have effect in any other proceedings before the Mechanism (“second proceedings”) unless and until they are rescinded, varied or augmented. The Appeals Chamber observes that Kamuhanda requested rescission of protective measures granted to a witness in his own case and, therefore, the Single Judge became seised of the “first proceedings”. In contrast, Rules 86(F)(i), 86(H) and 86(I) of the Rules which form the basis of the Impugned Decision, govern the continuation of protective measures in a “second proceedings” and the conditions for their rescission upon a request from a party to the “second proceedings”, a domestic jurisdiction, or a protected victim or witness.

10. Since Kamuhanda is a party to the “first proceedings” seeking rescission of protective measures in his own case, neither Rule 86(F)(i) nor Rule 86(H), and consequently Rule 86(I) of the Rules, apply in relation to Kamuhanda’s request. Notwithstanding, the Appeals Chamber considers that it was within the Single Judge’s discretion to take into account the conditions for rescission of protective measures set out in Rule 86(I) of the Rules, as the consent of the witness concerned, the existence of exigent circumstances or the potential for a miscarriage of justice may be relevant factors in balancing the interests of the convicted person and the need for the continued protection of victims and witnesses.[1] However, the conditions set out in Rule 86(I) of the Rules are not required as a matter of law in the circumstances of this case where a party is seeking the modification of protective measures granted to one of its witnesses in its own case.

11. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that, pursuant to Rule 86(A) of the Rules, a Chamber may, at the request of either party, order appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses.[2] Rule 86(A) of the Rules is applicable mutatis mutandis to matters of rescission or variation of protective measures sought by a party in its own case.[3] In assessing whether protective measures should be rescinded or varied under Rule 86(A) of the Rules, a Chamber should take into consideration any information relevant to the requested modification. In such cases, the consent of the witness is not necessarily required if the Chamber is otherwise satisfied that the modification or rescission is justified in the circumstances of the case.

7.       As to Karadžić’s request for participation in the Rule 86 proceedings referred to in the Motion, the Appeals Chamber notes that the proceedings concern requests for variation of protective measures granted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with regard to Prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, when deciding whether to vary the existing protective measures, the Appeals Chamber considered it appropriate to seek information from the Prosecution. The Appeals Chamber did not consider it necessary to lift the ex parte status of the Rule 86 Applications in respect of Karadžić and invite him to make submissions because it did not consider that Karadžić would be in a position to supplement the witness protection information from the Witness Support and Protection Unit of the Mechanism or offer other information relevant to witness protection concerns of Prosecution witnesses. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that the Rule 86 Applications concern the application of witness protection measures in domestic proceedings, not Karadžić’s appeal. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber finds that Karadžić has failed to demonstrate that he has standing to participate in the Rule 86 proceedings identified in the Motion.