Admission of new evidence in a retrial
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Scope of Partial Retrial - 31.05.2011 |
HARADINAJ et al. (IT-04-84bis-AR73.1) |
|
|
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”.[1] 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.”[2] 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. [1] 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). [2] 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) | |
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on a Prosecution Motion for Enforcement of Order for Retrial - 14.12.2018 |
STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ (IRMCT) |
|
|
9. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism (“Rules”) do not provide for interlocutory appeal as of right of a decision taken by a trial chamber concerning the admission of evidence. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 80(B) of the Rules, decisions by the trial chamber, other than those for which appeal as of right is provided in the Rules, are without interlocutory appeal save with certification by the trial chamber.[1] Consequently, appellate review of decisions related to the admission of evidence is limited to where the issue arises in an interlocutory appeal certified by a trial chamber or in an appeal against a conviction or acquittal.[2] Footnote [1] See Rule 79(B) of the Rules (concerning certification to appeal with respect to preliminary motions). Footnote [2] Cf. Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić, Case No. IT-04-83-Misc.1, Decision on Prosecution’s Appeal, 1 November 2006, p. 3 (considering that the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has no inherent authority to intervene in an interlocutory decision of a trial chamber not subject to a right of appeal and to which certification to appeal has been denied). See also Pauline Nyiramasuhuko v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-42-AR73, Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Request for Reconsideration, 27 September 2004, para. 10 (noting that certification of an appeal has to be the absolute exception when deciding on the admissibility of the evidence, and that it is first and foremost the responsibility of trial chambers, as triers of fact, to determine which evidence to admit during the course of the trial).
|
IRMCT Rule Rule 80(B) IRMCT Rules of Procedure and Evidence | |