[1] Prlić Decision on Cross-Examination, p. 3; Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-AR73, Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 February 1999, para. 27 (“Aleksovski Decision on Admissibility of Evidence”) (finding that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine occasioned by the admission of hearsay evidence was tempered by the previous cross-examination of the witness in other proceedings and that any residual disadvantage was outweighed by the disadvantage which would be occasioned to the Prosecution by the exclusion of the evidence in the circumstances of the case); Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Prosecution’s Rule 92bis Motion, 4 July 2006, para. 11; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-T, First Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92bis, 12 June 2003, para. 14 (referring to Rule 92bis (E), “the right to cross-examine witnesses is not an absolute right, although the decision to accept evidence without cross-examination is one which the Trial Chamber shall arrive at only after careful consideration”); Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision on the Motion of the Joint Request of the Accused Persons Regarding the Presentation of Evidence, 24 May 1998 (“Čelebići Exclusion Decision”), para. 32; Impugned Decision, para. 56.

[2] Decision on Radivoje Miletić’s Interlocutory Appeal, para. 29, referring to the Trial Chamber’s discretion pursuant to Rule 90(F) to regulate the examination of witnesses so as to avoid repetitive questioning during cross-examination.

[3] Aleksovski Decision on Admissibility of Evidence, para. 25, see also Čelebići Exclusion Decision, para. 44 (“compliance with the specific rights set out in Article 21 alone may not necessarily guarantee that there has been a fair trial” and that “a fair trial can only be considered within the plenitude of the trial as a whole”).