Applicability of Rules 66 and 67 at the appellate stage
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Decision on Further Investigations - 08.12.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
The Appeals Chamber reiterated that Rule 66(B) applies to appellate proceedings and that, consequently, the Prosecution, on request of the Defence, has to permit the inspection of any material which is capable of being admitted on appeal or which may lead to the discovery of material which is capable of being admitted on appeal. It also noted that purely inculpatory material is not necessarily immaterial for the preparation of the Defence. 9. La Chambre d’appel rappelle que l’article 66(B) du Règlement s’applique en appel à la condition que les éléments de preuve visés par la demande d’examen de la Défense aient été indisponibles lors du procès[1]. L’applicabilité de l’article 66(B) à la procédure d’appel implique que le Procureur doive permettre à la Défense de prendre connaissance des éléments qui « soit sont nécessaires à la préparation de la défense de l’accusé, soit seront utilisés par le Procureur comme moyens de preuve au procès, soit ont été obtenus de l’accusé ou lui appartiennent »[2]. A cet égard, la Chambre d’appel rappelle que les pièces exclusivement à charge ne sont pas nécessairement inutiles à la préparation de la défense de l’accusé et que le Procureur devrait déterminer si « les questions auxquelles se rapportent les pièces en question sont […] l’objet d’un motif d’appel » ou si « les pièces en question peuvent raisonnablement permettre à la Défense de faire de nouvelles investigations et donner lieu à la découverte de moyens supplémentaires admissibles en vertu de l’article 115 du Règlement »[3]. Par conséquent, il appartient au Procureur de permettre à l’Appelant de prendre connaissance de « tout élément susceptible d’être admis en appel ou qui pourrait donner lieu à la découverte d’éléments de preuve susceptibles de l’être »[4]. [1] Georges Anderson Nderumbumwe Rutaganda c/ Le Procureur, affaire n°ICTR-96-3-A, Décision, sur “Prosecution’s Urgent Request for Clarification in Relation to the Applicability of Rule 66(B) to Appellate Proceedings and Request for Extension of the Page Limit Applicable to Motions”, 28 juin 2002, p. 3. [2] Le Procureur c/ Radislav Krstić, affaire n°IT-98-33-A, Décision [confidentielle] relative à la Requête de l’Accusation aux fins d’être dispensée de son obligation de communiquer des informations sensibles en application de l’article 66(C) du Règlement, 27 mars 2003, p. 4. [3] Ibid., p. 5, [Le Procureur c/ Radislav Krstić, affaire n°IT-98-33-A, Décision [confidentielle] relative à la Requête de l’Accusation aux fins d’être dispensée de son obligation de communiquer des informations sensibles en application de l’article 66(C) du Règlement, 27 mars 2003]. [4] Id., [Le Procureur c/ Radislav Krstić, affaire n°IT-98-33-A, Décision [confidentielle] relative à la Requête de l’Accusation aux fins d’être dispensée de son obligation de communiquer des informations sensibles en application de l’article 66(C) du Règlement, 27 mars 2003]. |
ICTR Rule Rule 66 ICTY Rule Rule 66 | |
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Decision on Rebuttal Material - 13.12.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
14. The Appeals Chamber reiterates that Rule 66(B) applies to appellate proceedings and that, consequently, the Prosecution, on request of the Defence, “has to permit the inspection of any material which is capable of being admitted on appeal or which may lead to the discovery of material which is capable of being admitted on appeal”.[1] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “purely inculpatory material is not necessarily immaterial for the preparation of the Defence”[2] and that the Prosecution shall provide the Defence with access to any documents that are material to the preparation of the Defence, with the exception of Rule 70 material and, if necessary, request from the Appeals Chamber permission to withhold any information provided by these sources under Rule 66(C) of the Rules.[3] […] [1] Decision of 27 November 2006, para. 16; Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Confidential Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to Be Relieved of Obligation to Disclose Sensitive Information Pursuant to Rule 66(C), 27 March 2003, p. 4. [2] Id. [3] Decision of 27 November 2006, para. 16. |
ICTR Rule Rule 66 ICTY Rule Rule 66 | |
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Decision on Additional Evidence - 01.12.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
At para. 16, the Appeals Chamber sets clearly the criteria of determination of the documents which are material to the preparation of the defence: 16. In addition, while the parties do not refer to Rule 66(B) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant’s request appears to fall under this provision since he is seeking access to documents that would be material to the preparation of his defence with respect to the cross-examination of Witness EB at the evidentiary hearing or might be intended for use by the Prosecution as evidence on that occasion. It has already been clarified that Rule 66(B) applies to appellate proceedings and that, consequently, the Prosecution, on request of the Defence, “has to permit the inspection of any material which is capable of being admitted on appeal or which may lead to the discovery of material which is capable of being admitted on appeal”.[1] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “purely inculpatory material is not necessarily immaterial for the preparation of the Defence” and that the Prosecution should instead consider “(a) whether the issues to which the material relates are subject of a ground of appeal” or “(b) whether the material could reasonably lead to further investigation by the Defence and the discovery of additional evidence admissible under Rule 115 of the Rules”.[2] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber proprio motu directs the Prosecution to apply the above-mentioned criteria in order to determine whether it is in possession of any documents that are material to the preparation of the Defence, with the exception of Rule 70 material as discussed above, and then return, if necessary, to the Appeals Chamber for permission to withhold any information provided by these sources under Rule 66(C) of the Rules.
[1] Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Confidential Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to Be Relieved of Obligation to Disclose Sensitive Information Pursuant to Rule 66(C), 27 March 2003, p. 4. [2] Id. |
ICTR Rule Rule 66 ICTY Rule Rule 66 | |
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Decision on Motions - 26.09.2000 |
BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir (IT-95-14-A) |
|
15. Before considering what the Prosecution’s duty of disclosure is under sub-Rule 66 (A) (ii) of the Rules, it is necessary to consider whether the testimony given by a witness in a case can constitute a “witness statement” within the meaning of the sub-Rule. The Rules do not define what constitutes a witness statement. The usual meaning of a witness statement in trial proceedings is an account of a person’s knowledge of a crime, which is recorded through due procedure in the course of an investigation into the crime. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that when a witness testifies during the course of a trial before the Tribunal, the witness’s verbal assertions recorded by the Registry’s technical staff through contemporaneous transcription, are capable of constituting a witness statement within the meaning of sub-Rule 66 (A) (ii). The testimony will constitute such a witness statement and therefore be subject to disclosure, only if the witness is intended to be called, in accordance with the sub-Rule, to testify in subsequent proceedings in relation to the subject-matter of the testimony. In other words, the testimony is a witness statement for the subsequent proceedings. 16. It follows that the Prosecution does have a duty to disclose such witness statements to the Defence under certain conditions. Whether or not they should be “made available” pursuant to sub-Rule 66 (A) (ii) depends upon the stage of the proceedings that a case has reached. […] [T]he sub-Rule should be given its plain meaning that, once a witness has given evidence in court, the Prosecution can no longer intend to call that witness to testify, and that there is therefore no obligation to make available any subsequent statements from the witness, unless the witness will be recalled as an additional Prosecution witness in the sense of the sub-Rule. […] 17. The Appeals Chamber is also of the view that sub-Rule 66 (A) (ii) can be applied, mutatis mutandis, in appeals, pursuant to Rule 107. Additional evidence may be admitted on appeal by way of Rule 115, and prior to the presentation of such evidence through witnesses under the rule, the presenting party shall follow the procedure of sub-Rule 66 (A) (ii) to disclose witness statements to the other party. [RULE 66(A)(II) WAS AMENDED ON 1 DECEMBER 2000, 13 DECEMBER 2000, AND 13 SEPTEMBER 2006.] |
ICTR Rule
Rule 66(A)(ii) ICTY Rule Rule 66(A)(ii) |