Concurrent evidence

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Joinder - 25.10.2006 GOTOVINA et al.
(IT-01-45-AR73.1, IT-03-73-AR73.1, IT-03-73-AR73.2)

The Appeals Chamber recalled that “the presentation of concurrent evidence or evidence that may not relate to an accused in the course of a joint trial does not, in and of itself, constitute serious prejudice to an accused.  In determining the guilt or innocence of an accused, it is to be expected that Judges of the International Tribunal will only take into account that evidence adduced to establish guilt with respect to that accused only.”[1]

[1] Decision, para. 38, referring to Pandurević Decision on Joinder, para. 25.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 48 ICTY Rule Rule 48
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 14.12.2015 NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare)

115. […] Moreover, Rule 82(A) of the Rules does not, as a matter of principle, bar trial chambers from relying on the evidence presented by a co-defendant where that evidence supports the Prosecution case. Trial chambers are tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused and must do so in light of the entirety of the evidence admitted into the record.[1] As noted by the Trial Chamber, the Rules provide for remedies where the presentation of incriminating evidence through co-accused after the close of the Prosecution case may prejudice one of the co‑accused. In the instant case, the evidence of Witnesses Reyntjens and Karemano upon which the Trial Chamber relied was already part of the Prosecution case‑in-chief and was only accepted as corroborative of Prosecution evidence.[2] The record shows that Nyiramasuhuko was also afforded the opportunity to cross‑examine these witnesses at length and Nyiramasuhuko does not show that she requested further cross-examination, recall, or the presentation of rejoinder evidence. Accordingly, Nyiramasuhuko does not demonstrate how the Trial Chamber’s reliance on this evidence violated her fair trial rights or caused her prejudice.

[1] The Appeals Chamber also highlights that a joint trial may give rise to adverse defence strategies and that “the mere possibility of mutually antagonistic defences does not in itself constitute a conflict of interests capable of causing serious prejudice” within the meaning of Rule 82(B) of the Rules. See Gotovina Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 37. See also infra, Section V.D.

[2] See Trial Judgement, paras. 879, 884, 888, 896, 897, 931, 932.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 82 ICTY Rule Rule 82