Relevance

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Evidence \| Relevance	Decision on Admission of Evidence - 12.01.2009	PRLIĆ et al. (IT-04-74-AR73.13)
17. The Appellant’s submission according to which relevance can only be assessed after conclusion of the trial contradicts the logic of Rule 89(C) of the Rules which refers to relevance as one of the main criteria of admissibility of evidence throughout the trial.[1] This submission therefore stands to be rejected. The evaluation of relevance at the stage of admissibility of evidence has been defined by the Appeals Chamber as a consideration of “whether the proposed evidence sought to be admitted relates to a material issue”.[2] When the relevance is assessed during the course of a trial, the material issues of the case are found in the indictment.[3] The Appeals Chamber is further of the view that it is for the party tendering the material to show that it has the required indicia of relevance in order to be admissible under Rule 89(C) of the Rules. Finally, the criteria for admission of evidence are cumulative, which means that the given evidence cannot be admitted if all the criteria are not fulfilled. Therefore, the Appellant’s argument that the Trial Chamber could not reject the admission on the sole basis that the tendered material lacked relevance, without inviting him to clarify the issue, cannot prosper. show footnotes [1] Rule 89(C) of the Rules: “A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value”. [2] Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellants Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s and Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motions for Leave to Present Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 12 January 2007, paras 7, 13, 18-20. [3] Cf. The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-AR73, Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Request for Reconsideration, 27 September 2004, para. 12: “The Trial Chamber has the discretion under Rule 89(C) to admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value, to the extent that it may be relevant to the proof of other allegations specifically pleaded in the Indictment”. Download full document		ICTR Rule Rule 89(C) ICTY Rule Rule 89(C)
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Evidence \| Relevance	Appeal Judgement - 20.05.2005	SEMANZA Laurent (ICTR-97-20-A)
189. […] [I]t was proper for the Chamber to apply Rule 89 of the Rules, which is the general provision that governs the admission of evidence at trial, providing at paragraph (C) that “a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.”[1] The Appeals Chamber affirms that Rule 94 of the Rules is not a mechanism that may be employed to circumvent the ordinary requirement of relevance and thereby clutter the record with matters that would not otherwise be admitted.[2] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber concludes that the Trial Chamber did not err in applying Rule 89 in addition to Rule 94 of the Rules. show footnotes [1] Rule 89(C). [2] Momir Nikolic v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-002-60/1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice, 5 April 2005, para. 17. Download full document		ICTR Rule Rule 89(C); Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 89(C); Rule 94
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Evidence \| Tu quoque \| Relevance \| Crimes committed by adversaries	Appeal Judgement - 19.03.2019	KARADŽIĆ Radovan (MICT-13-55-A)
321. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the ICTY Rules, trial chambers have discretion to admit relevant evidence that has probative value.[1] The admissibility of evidence related to crimes committed by adversaries depends on the purpose for which it is adduced and whether it tends to refute allegations made in the indictment, while it is for the defence to clarify to the trial chamber the purpose of tendering such evidence.[2] In determining the admissibility of evidence, trial chambers enjoy considerable discretion and the Appeals Chamber must accord deference to their decisions in this respect.[3] The Appeals Chamber’s examination of challenges concerning a trial chamber’s refusal to admit material into evidence is limited to establishing whether the trial chamber abused its discretion by committing a discernible error.[4] 322. […] Considering that it is for the party tendering material to show the indicia of relevance required for it to be admissible under Rule 89(C) of the ICTY Rules,[5] […]. 323. […] [C]onsidering that the criteria for admission of evidence set out in Rule 89(C) of the Rules are cumulative, that the tendering party bears the burden of showing that these are met, and the deference accorded to trial chambers on matters related to the admissibility of evidence,[6] […]. show footnotes [1] Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 564; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 31. [2] See, e.g., Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 88, n. 104. Cf. Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-T, Decision on Praljak Defence Motion for Admission of Documentary Evidence, 1 April 2010 (originally filed in French, English translation filed on 23 April 2010), para. 80; Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT‑01-47-T, Decision on Defence Motion for Clarification of the Oral Decision of 17 December 2003 Regarding the Scope of Cross-Examination Pursuant to Rule 90 (H) of the Rules, 28 January 2004 (originally filed in French, English translation filed on 4 February 2004), p. 4; Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić et al., Case No. IT-95-16-T, Decision on Evidence of the Good Character of the Accused and the Defence of Tu Quoque, 17 February 1999, p. 5. [3] Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 143, 151; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 152, 161. [4] Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 152, 161, referring to [Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-AR73.13, Decision on Jadranko Prlić’s Consolidated Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Orders of 6 and 9 October 2008 on Admission of Evidence, 12 January 2009 (“Prlić et al. Decision of 12 January 2009”)], para. 5. [5] Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 162, referring to Prlić et al. Decision of 12 January 2009, para. 17. [6] Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 143; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 163, referring to Prlić et al. Decision of 12 January 2009, para. 17. Download full document		ICTY Rule Rule 89(C)