Admission of new evidence in a retrial
|Decision on Scope of Partial Retrial - 31.05.2011||
HARADINAJ et al.
24. Haradinaj is mistaken in his contention that the Impugned Decision’s finding that the Prosecution may seek the admission of evidence beyond that of the two witnesses who were the focus of the Appeal Judgement undermines principles of law geared to “securing certainty and finality in criminal litigation”. The Muvunyi Decision held that “a retrial […] inherently includes the possibility of hearing evidence that was not presented during the initial proceedings” and underscored that the scope of a retrial is determined “by the Appeals Chamber in a particular instance.” Thus the Appeals Chamber is able to set out the appropriate parameters of a retrial, taking into account the specific context of each case, including whether the retrial follows conviction or acquittal, as well as relevant principles of law.
 Appeal [Appeal Brief on Behalf of Ramush Haradinaj on Scope of Partial Retrial, 10 February 2011], para. 2. See also ibid., paras 22, 24, 28-29, 51, 54. These legal principles include res judicata, non bis in idem, and issue estoppel (collateral estoppel).
 The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-AR73, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Appeal Concerning the Scope of Evidence to be Adduced in the Retrial, 24 March 2009 (“Muvunyi Decision”), paras 12-13.
|ICTR Rule Rule 118(C) ICTY Rule Rule 117(C)|