14. It is well established in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal that Trial Chambers exercise discretion in many different situations, including “when deciding points of practice or procedure”.[1] The Impugned Decision, which ruled on the form of materials to be disclosed by the Prosecution under Rules 66 and 68 of the Rules, was such a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber must accord deference. Such deference is based on the recognition by the Appeals Chamber of “the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case.”[2] As previously held by the Appeals Chamber, “[w]here an appeal is brought from a discretionary decision of a Trial Chamber, the issue in that appeal is not whether the decision was correct, in the sense that the Appeals Chamber agrees with that decision, but rather whether the Trial Chamber has correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that decision”.[3] Thus, when challenging a discretionary decision, the moving party must establish that the Trial Chamber committed a “discernible” error resulting in prejudice to that party.[4] The Appeals Chamber will only overturn a Trial Chamber’s exercise of its discretion where it is found to be “(1) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (2) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (3) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.”[5]

9. As the Appeals Chamber has previously noted, a Trial Chamber exercises its discretion in “many different situations – such as when imposing sentence, in determining whether provisional release should be granted, in relation to the admissibility of some types of evidence, in evaluating evidence, and (more frequently) in deciding points of practice or procedure.”[1] A Trial Chamber’s assignment of counsel fits squarely within this last category of decisions.  It draws on the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case, and requires a complex balancing of intangibles in crafting a case-specific order to properly regulate a highly variable set of trial proceedings. The Appeals Chamber therefore reviews the Trial Chamber’s decision only to the extent of determining whether it properly exercised its discretion in imposing counsel on Milošević.

39. […] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber emphasizes the large measure of discretion afforded under the Rules to Trial Chambers in establishing the authenticity of a document.[1] Considering that Trial Chambers’ decisions on issues of evaluation of evidence must generally be given a margin of deference,[2] it is only where an abuse of such discretion can be established that the Appeals Chamber should reverse such decisions.[3]

The standard of review for discretionary decisions had been set in previous decisions. The Appeals Chamber, in the present case, re-stated it clearly and applied it to decisions on provisional release:

21. The Trial Chamber’s decision on provisional release is a discretionary one, so the Appeals  Chamber, on review, must ask not whether it agrees with the decision but whether the Trial Chamber “correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that opinion”.[1]

22. The party challenging a provisional release decision bears the burden of showing that the Trial Chamber committed a “discernible error”.[2] In order to do so, it must show either that  the Trial Chamber (1)  “misdirected itself […] as to the principle to be applied”; (2) misdirected itself “as to the law which is relevant to the exercise of discretion”; (3) “gave weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations”; (4) “failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations”; (5)  “made an error as to the facts upon which it has exercised its discretion”; [3] or (6) rendered a decision “so unreasonable and plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the Trial Chamber must have failed to exercise its discretion properly”.[4]

23. The Appeals Chamber has also ruled that a Trial Chamber must provide a reasoned opinion in rendering a decision on provisional release.[5] The Trial Chamber must therefore “indicate all those relevant factors which a reasonable Trial Chamber would have been expected to take into account before coming to a decision”, in light of circumstances obtaining both at the time of the provisional release decision and “at the time the case is due for trial and the accused is expected to return to the International Tribunal”.[6]

At para. 4, the Appeals Chamber recalled that Trial Chambers exercise discretion in different types of decisions and qualified again those decisions:

4. The Appeals Chamber has held that Trial Chambers exercise discretion in different types of decisions – “such as when imposing sentence, in determining whether provisional release should be granted, in relation to the admissibility of some types of evidence, in evaluating evidence, and (more frequently) in deciding points of practice or procedure.”[1] Deference is afforded to the Trial Chamber’s discretion in these decisions because they “draw[] on the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case, and require[] a complex balancing of intangibles in crafting a case-specific order to properly regulate a highly variable set of trial proceedings.”[2]

See also Pandurević Decision on Provisional Release, para. 4.

6. A trial chamber’s decision on defects in the form of the indictment is a matter which relates to the general conduct of trial proceedings and thus falls within the discretion of the trial chamber. 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. The Appeals Chamber will only overturn a trial chamber’s discretionary decision where it is found to be: (i) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (ii) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (iii) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the trial chamber’s discretion.

13. The duty Judge’s decision as to whether to deal with an application out of normal Registry hours is a discretionary one once the Judge is satisfied as to its urgency.[1] […] [T]he finding of fact as to whether the matter is or is not urgent is, however, the same as any other finding of fact. The finding by the duty Judge that there was no urgency in the Appellant’s application cannot be reversed on appeal unless it is one which no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached.[2] This is so whether the finding related to the application being dealt with out of, or during, normal Registry hours.

The Appeals Chamber has reiterated the standard of review applicable to interlocutory appeals against discretionary decisions of a Trial Chamber:

11. The Appeals Chamber recalls that an interlocutory appeal is not a de novo review of the Trial Chamber’s decision.[1] Since decisions on matters relating to the calling of witnesses and assignment of counsel at trial fall squarely within the discretion of the Trial Chamber,[2] the question before the Appeals Chamber is not whether it “agrees with that decision” but “whether the Trial Chamber has correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that decision.”[3] The party challenging a discretionary decision by the Trial Chamber must demonstrate that the Trial Chamber has committed a “discernible error”.[4] The Appeals Chamber will overturn a Trial Chamber’s exercise of its discretion where it is found to be “(1) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (2) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (3) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion”.[5]

11.     The decision to admit or exclude evidence pursuant to Rule 89(C) is one within the discretion of the Trial Chamber and, therefore, appellate intervention is warranted only in limited circumstances. The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) has summarized the applicable standard of review as follows: “It is for the party challenging the exercise of a discretion to identify for the Appeals Chamber a ‘discernible’ error made by the Trial Chamber. It must be demonstrated that the Trial Chamber misdirected itself either as to the principle to be applied, or as to the law which is relevant to the exercise of the discretion, or that it has given weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or that it has failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations, or that it has made an error as to the facts upon which it has exercised its discretion.”[1] If the Trial Chamber has properly exercised its discretion, the Appeals Chamber may not intervene solely because it may have exercised the discretion differently.[2]

[…]

16.     The Appeals Chamber affirms that the Trial Chamber has a broad discretion to direct the course of the proceedings in accordance with its fundamental duty to ensure a fair and expeditious trial pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Statute. In pursuit of these goals, the Trial Chamber may choose to exclude otherwise relevant and probative evidence where its prejudicial effect will adversely affect the fairness or expeditiousness of the proceedings. […]

174. Rule 73bis(E) of the Rules provides that after the commencement of the trial, the Prosecutor, if he considers it to be in the interests of justice, may move the trial chamber for leave to reinstate the list of witnesses or to vary his decision as to which witnesses are to be called. The rule does not impose a time limit to validly raise a request under this provision. However, the jurisprudence of both the Tribunal and the ICTY indicates that, when assessing whether it is in the interests of justice to permit the Prosecution to vary its witness list, the trial chamber shall take into account the potential prejudice to the Defence and the stage of the proceedings among other factors.[1] The Appeals Chamber nonetheless emphasises that decisions concerning the variation of a party’s witness list are among the discretionary decisions of the trial chamber to which the Appeals Chamber must accord deference.[2]

[…]

178. […] [T]he purpose of Rule 73bis(E) of the Rules is to allow the Prosecution to correct its prior assessment of which witnesses to call “after the commencement of [t]rial”. Nothing in Rule 73bis(E) of the Rules requires that the addition of new witnesses be conditioned upon the removal of witnesses who were expected to testify about the same facts.[3] […]

179. […] Furthermore, while the Appeals Chamber observes that trial chambers of the ICTY have previously emphasised considerations such as the stage of the proceedings and the justification provided in support of requests for the amendment of witness lists,[4] the Appeals Chamber finds that Ntahobali’s reliance on the Mrkšić et al. decisions is not pertinent. The Appeals Chamber stresses that the manner in which the discretion to manage trials is exercised by a trial chamber should be determined in accordance with the case before it; what is reasonable in one trial is not automatically reasonable in another.[5] The question of whether a trial chamber abused its discretion should not be considered in isolation, but rather by taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case at hand.[6] It can therefore not be held that granting a request for the addition of witnesses in the last stages of a party’s presentation of its case is per se unreasonable and prejudicial to the opposing party; such an assessment rather requires a careful balancing of various interests and circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

8.       The Trial Chamber’s determination of whether the engagement of certain staff would lead to actual bias or the appearance of bias is a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber must accord deference.[1] […]

[…]

23.     […] The Appeals Chamber considers that the Impugned Decision concerns the engagement of staff to assist the Trial Chamber and recalls that a trial chamber’s determination in this respect is a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber must accord deference.[2] However, the Appeals Chamber emphasizes that trial chambers must exercise their discretion consistently with Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute, which require trial chambers to ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious.[3]

12.     […] Requiring Kamuhanda to appeal an interim order before being able to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from that order would necessarily inhibit his ability to appeal the discretionary determination at issue and would result in a needless expenditure of judicial resources.[1]

116. The Appeals Chamber recalls that decisions on taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts fall within the discretion of trial chambers.[1] In order to successfully challenge a discretionary decision, a party must demonstrate that the trial chamber committed a discernible error resulting in prejudice to that party.[2]

117. Rule 94(B) of the ICTY Rules provides that, at the request of a party or proprio motu, a trial chamber, after hearing the parties, may take judicial notice of adjudicated facts or documentary evidence from other proceedings of the ICTY relating to the matter at issue. Adjudicated facts are “facts that have been established in a proceeding between other parties on the basis of the evidence the parties to that proceeding chose to introduce, in the particular context of that proceeding”.[3] Judicial notice should not be taken of adjudicated facts relating to the acts, conduct, and mental state of an accused.[4]

118. It is not disputed that the practice of taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts is well-established in the jurisprudence of the ICTY and the ICTR,[5] and it is accepted as a method of achieving judicial economy while ensuring the right of an accused to a fair and expeditious trial.[6] In this respect, a number of procedural safeguards are set out in the jurisprudence,[7] which are intended to ensure that trial chambers exercise their discretion cautiously and in accordance with the rights of the accused, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty pursuant to Article 21(3) of the ICTY Statute.[8]

119. […] Karadžić challenges the “constitutionality” of the practice of taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts, notwithstanding the express provision for it in the ICTY Rules.[9] The Appeals Chamber recalls that, where the respective Rules or Statute of the ICTY are at issue, it is bound to consider the relevant precedent when interpreting them.[10] This Appeals Chamber is presently being called upon to assess the propriety of decisions taken by an ICTY trial chamber, that was bound by the ICTY Rules and the ICTY Statute as well as by decisions of the ICTY Appeals Chamber.[11] Bearing this context in mind, the Appeals Chamber is guided by the principle that, in the interests of legal certainty and predictability, it should follow previous decisions of the ICTY and the ICTR Appeals Chambers and depart from them only where cogent reasons in the interests of justice exist, that is, where a previous decision has been decided on the basis of a wrong legal principle or has been “wrongly decided, usually because the judge or judges were ill‑informed about the applicable law”.[12] Therefore, in order to succeed on appeal, Karadžić must demonstrate that there are cogent reasons in the interests of justice that justify departure from jurisprudence on judicial notice of adjudicated facts.

120. The Appeals Chambers of the ICTY and the ICTR have consistently held that judicial notice of adjudicated facts is merely a presumption that may be rebutted by defence evidence at trial.[13] Judicial notice of adjudicated facts “does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion, which remains with the Prosecution” but only relieves the Prosecution of the initial burden to produce evidence on the given point.[14]

121. The Appeals Chamber notes that the concern that accused in other cases may have focused their defence on arguing that they were not responsible for the perpetrators of crimes rather than on contesting the existence of crimes is one of the reasons why judicial notice may not be taken of adjudicated facts from other cases relating to the acts, conduct, and mental state of the accused.[15] It is, nevertheless, permissible to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts relating directly or indirectly to an accused’s guilt,[16] for example, of facts relating to the existence of a joint criminal enterprise, the conduct of its members other than the accused, and the conduct of physical perpetrators of crimes for which an accused is alleged to be criminally responsible.[17] This is as long as the burden remains on the Prosecution to establish the actus reus and the mens rea supporting the responsibility of the accused for the crimes in question by evidence other than judicial notice.[18] In addition, the discretion to accept adjudicated facts is limited by the need to ensure the accused’s right to a fair and expeditious trial.[19] Apart from disagreeing with the case law, Karadžić fails to demonstrate that there are cogent reasons in the interests of justice to depart from consistent jurisprudence of the ICTR and the ICTY on this matter.

122. The Appeals Chamber does not consider that by taking judicial notice of the existence of a crime committed by Karadžić’s alleged subordinates,[20] for example, the Trial Chamber relieved the Prosecution from proving the actus reus of the crimes charged in the Indictment. The Appeals Chamber recalls that there is a distinction between facts related to the conduct of physical perpetrators of a crime for which an accused is being alleged criminally responsible through another mode of liability and those related to the acts and conduct of the accused himself.[21] The burden remained on the Prosecution to establish by evidence other than judicial notice that Karadžić possessed the relevant mens rea and engaged in the required actus reus to be held responsible for the crimes established by way of judicial notice of adjudicated facts.  

123. Finally, the Appeals Chamber finds without merit Karadžić’s submission that judicial notice of adjudicated facts deprives an accused of the possibility that a trial chamber would reach a different conclusion had it heard the evidence itself. The Appeals Chamber recalls that adjudicated facts are not accepted as conclusive in proceedings involving parties who did not have the chance to contest them,[22] and, as noted above, are merely presumptions that may be rebutted with evidence at trial.[23]

[…]

219. The Appeals Chamber recalls that taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts or documentary evidence under Rule 94(B) of the ICTY Rules is a method of achieving judicial economy while ensuring the right of the accused to a fair, public, and expeditious trial.[24] Rule 94(B) of the ICTY Rules requires a trial chamber to hear the parties before deciding to take judicial notice.[25] Moreover, facts admitted under Rule 94(B) of the ICTY Rules are merely presumptions that may be rebutted by the defence with evidence at trial.[26] Consequently, judicial notice of adjudicated facts does not shift the ultimate burden of proof or persuasion, which remains squarely on the Prosecution.[27]

220. […] The fact that the Trial Chamber took judicial notice of considerably more adjudicated facts than in other cases does not, in itself, render the trial unfair as long as the Trial Chamber followed the procedure provided for in the ICTY Rules. In this respect, Karadžić’s comparison of the number of judicially noticed adjudicated facts in his case with other cases fails to account for factors such as the unprecedented scope and size of his own trial in relation to others.

See also paras. 221, 222.

143. The Appeals Chamber turns […] to Karadžić’s contentions concerning the decisions denying […] his request to subpoena the Eight Witnesses. These decisions relate to the general conduct of the trial, which are matters that fall within the discretion of the trial chamber.[1] In order to successfully challenge a discretionary decision, the appealing party must demonstrate that the trial chamber committed discernible error resulting in prejudice to that party.[2]

See also paras. 230, 276, 330.

[…]

148. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber observes that Rule 54 of the ICTY Rules provides, inter alia, that a trial chamber may issue subpoenas “as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for the preparation or conduct of the trial”. In interpreting this provision, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has stated:

The applicant seeking a subpoena must make a certain evidentiary showing of the need for the subpoena. In particular, he must demonstrate a reasonable basis for his belief that the prospective witness is likely to give information that will materially assist the applicant with respect to clearly identified issues in the forthcoming trial. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant may need to present information about such factors as the position held by the prospective witness in relation to the events in question, any relationship the witness may have had with the accused which is relevant to the charges, any opportunity the witness may have had to observe or to learn about those events, and any statements the witness made to the Prosecution or others in relation to them. The Trial Chamber is vested with discretion in determining whether the applicant succeeded in making the required showing, this discretion being necessary to ensure that the compulsive mechanism of the subpoena is not abused. As the Appeals Chamber [of the ICTY] has emphasized, “[s]ubpoenas should not be issued lightly, for they involve the use of coercive powers and may lead to the imposition of a criminal sanction.”

In deciding whether the applicant has met the evidentiary threshold, the Trial Chamber may properly consider both whether the information the applicant seeks to elicit through the use of subpoena is necessary for the preparation of his case and whether this information is obtainable through other means. The background principle informing both considerations is whether, as Rule 54 requires, the issuance of a subpoena is necessary “for the preparation or conduct of the trial.” The Trial Chamber’s considerations, then, must focus not only on the usefulness of the information to the applicant but on its overall necessity in ensuring that the trial is informed and fair.[3]

The Appeals Chamber adopts this interpretation.[4]

See also para. 277.

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. […]