15. [W]here both parties were present and were allowed to make oral representations in relation to the issue raised by the motion, the non-compliance with the requirement embodied in Sub-rule 71(B) [that a motion for the taking of a deposition must be in writing] is merely of a technical nature and has no adverse effects upon the integrity of the proceedings or the rights of the accused.^[…] 

[…]

19. […] Rule 71 must be construed strictly and in accordance with its original purpose of providing an exception, with special conditions, to the general rule for direct evidence to be furnished, especially in the context of a criminal trial.  In the result, any relaxation of Rule 71 or deviation from the purpose for which it was originally designed must require the consent of the accused. 

20. [T]he taking of deposition from witnesses is to be effected away from the seat of the Tribunal only in cases where witnesses because of exceptional circumstances are unable to physically appear before the Trial Chamber to give evidence.  […]

21. […] A Trial Chamber’s commendable desire to discharge its obligation to ensure that a trial is expeditious does not justify departure from the general rule of direct evidence without express support in the Rules or the consent of the accused. […]

22. […] However, this is not to say that the deposition procedure established in Rule 71 may not be used in situations to which the provision does not directly apply – for example to facilitate the continuation of the proceedings by way of receiving deposition evidence when a member of a Trial Chamber due to illness is unable to participate in the work of the Chamber, in the case where the accused gives his consent.[1] 

[RULE 71 OF THE ICTY’S RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE WAS AMENDED ON 17 NOVEMBER 1999]