6. […] when the Appeals Chamber becomes seised of an appeal against a trial judgement, it becomes the Chamber “seised of the first proceedings” within the meaning of Rule 75(G)(i) of the Rules.[1] The Appeals Chamber, therefore, finds that the Applicant, as a party to the second proceedings,[2] properly filed his Motion before the Appeals Chamber.

7. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that, pursuant to Rule 75(F) of the Rules, protective measures that have been ordered in any proceedings before the Tribunal continue to have effect mutatis mutandis in any other proceedings before the Tribunal unless and until they are rescinded, varied or augmented. Rule 75(G) confers the competence to consider requests to vary protective measures on the Chamber seised of the first proceedings.[3] As previously observed by the Appeals Chamber, if the Chamber seised of the first proceedings were to transfer this competence to the Chamber seised of the second proceedings by way of a general referral, “the regulatory regime of Rule 75(G)(i) of the Rules would be frustrated and an important protection feature for victims and witnesses before the Tribunal would be circumvented”.[4]

8. The Krajišnik Decisions do not contradict the above interpretation.[5] These decisions concerned applications to, inter alia, rescind or vary the measure of delayed disclosure to the accused of witness identities, ordered by the Chamber seised of the first proceedings pursuant to Rule 69 of the Rules.[6] The question addressed in the Krajišnik Decisions is materially different from the present situation, where the Applicant seeks a general referral that any protective measure ordered by the Chamber seised of the first proceedings pursuant to Rule 75 of the Rules may subsequently be varied by the Chamber seised of the second proceedings.[7]

9. On the basis of the above, the Appeals Chamber reiterates that Rule 75(G) of the Rules clearly defines the procedure to be followed if a party seeks to vary protective measures ordered in previous proceedings.[8] As the Motion seeks a de facto circumvention of this Rule, it shall be denied without further consideration.

230. The Appeals Chamber recalls that trial chambers enjoy considerable discretion in relation to the management of the proceedings before them,[1] including on decisions concerning disclosure of evidence and protective measures for witnesses.[2] In order to successfully challenge a discretionary decision, a party must demonstrate that the trial chamber has committed a discernible error resulting in prejudice to that party.[3]

See also para.251.

231. Rule 66(A)(ii) of the ICTY Rules provides in relevant part that, subject to Rules 53 and 69 of the ICTY Rules and within the time-limit prescribed by a trial chamber or a pre-trial Judge appointed pursuant to Rule 65 ter of the ICTY Rules, the Prosecution shall disclose to the Defence copies of the statements of all witnesses whom the Prosecution intends to call to testify at trial. At the time of the Decision on Disclosure Violation of 8 February 2012, Rule 69 of the ICTY Rules provided that:

(A) In exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor may apply to a Judge or Trial Chamber to order the non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal.

[…]

(C) Subject to Rule 75, the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed in sufficient time prior to the trial to allow adequate time for preparation of the defence.[4]

Rule 69(C) of the ICTY Rules was amended on 28 August 2012 to read:

Subject to Rule 75, the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed within such time as determined by the Trial Chamber to allow adequate time for preparation of the Prosecution or defence.[5]

This remains the operative language of Rule 69(C) of the ICTY Rules. Rule 75(A) of the ICTY Rules provides that “[a] Judge or a Chamber may, proprio motu or at the request of either party, or of the victim or witness concerned, or of the Victims and Witnesses Section, order appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses, provided that the measures are consistent with the rights of the accused”.[6]

232. The Appeals Chamber observes that in the Šešelj Decision of 24 January 2008, the ICTY Appeals Chamber stated that it did “not accept […] that Rule 69(C) must be interpreted as authorising delayed disclosure prior to the commencement of the opening of the trial only”.[7] It reasoned that the purpose of Rule 69(C) of the ICTY Rules is to allow a trial chamber to grant protective measures that are necessary to protect the integrity of its victims and witnesses, subject to the caveat that such measures are consistent with the rights of the accused to have adequate time for the preparation of his defence. The ICTY Appeals Chamber then stated that “[t]here is no rule that the rights of the defence to have adequate time for preparation mandate that delayed disclosure be granted only with reference to the beginning of trial”.[9] It concluded that “[t]he matter rather falls under the discretion of the Trial Chamber”.[10] 

233. On 14 December 2011, the ICTR Appeals Chamber in the Bagosora and Nsengiyumva case held that the trial chamber in that case had erred in ordering the prosecution to disclose the identity of protected victims and witnesses and their unredacted statements no later than 35 days before the expected date of their testimony, rather than prior to trial. In interpreting a provision of the ICTR Rules that was identical to Rule 69(C) of the ICTY Rules, the ICTR Appeals Chamber stated that, while a trial chamber has discretion to order protective measures where it has established the existence of exceptional circumstances, “this discretion is still constrained by the scope of the Rules”.[12] It emphasized that at the time of the trial chamber’s decision in that case, the phrase “prior to the trial” was part of Rule 69(C) of the ICTR Rules. It further stated that it did not consider that the trial chamber’s “disregard for the explicit provision of the Rules was necessary for the protection of witnesses”.[14] It noted a protective measures decision in the Nsengiyumva case prior to the joinder of the two cases[15] in which the trial chamber had ordered the temporary redaction of identifying information until witnesses were brought under the protection of the ICTR, but had nonetheless required that the defence be provided with unredacted witnesses statements within sufficient time prior to the trial.[16] It continued that “[a]t no point did the Trial Chamber indicate that any problems had arisen from this previous arrangement justifying a more restrictive disclosure schedule”.[17]

[…]

235. […] While the ICTR Appeals Chamber stated that a trial chamber’s discretion to order protective measures is constrained by the scope of the Rules, which provided that such disclosure be made “prior to the trial”, it did not rule out a deviation from this requirement for the purposes of a more restrictive disclosure schedule required for the protection of witnesses. Thus, the Appeals Chamber does not consider that the Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement overruled the Šešelj Decision of 24 January 2008 in which the ICTY Appeals Chamber concluded that the allowance for delayed disclosure until after the commencement of trial falls within a trial chamber’s discretion to allow such protective measures that are necessary for the protection of witnesses, subject to safeguarding the rights of the accused.[19] In this respect the Appeals Chamber notes that the ICTR Appeals Chamber in the Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement did not refer to the decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Šešelj case and did not propose to depart from its reasoning. […]