This is the defense's June 2, 1995 response to the prosecutor's motion requesting anonymity for certain witnesses and victims in the Dusko Tadic case. The prosecution wants the war crimes tribunal to withhold identities from the public including the defense. Since many of the witnesses have friends and family in areas controlled by Bosnian Serbs, the prosecution says that witnesses may be intimidated from testifying. The defense supports withholding identities from the public so long as it is privy to such information.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

CASE NO.IT-94-I

Before:

Judge McDonald Judge Deschenes Judge Vorah

 Date filed: 2 June 1995

 THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL

v.

DUSKO TADIC

 RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF THE PROSECUTOR REQUESTING PROTECTIVE
MEASURES FOR VICTIMS AND WITNESSES 

 The Prosecutor

Mr Grant Nieman Mr Brenda Hollis

 Counsel for the Accused

Mr Michail Wladimiroff Mr Milan Vujin

 Witnesses in this response are the persons that were given the
pseudonyms A, F, G, H, I, J and K in the indictment and in the
evidence supporting the indictment. 

By motion of 18 May 1995, the Prosecutor has requested the Trial
Chamber to issue orders for specific protective measures for these
witnesses of crimes alleged in Charges 4, 5 and 11 and to issue orders
for general protective measures for victims of the conflict in former
Yugoslavia. 

In general the Defence supports any reasonable measure to respect the
privacy of witnesses. 

Considering the rights of both the accused and each of the witnesses
the Defence is prepared to accept a non-disclosure to the public of
the names of the persons given pseudonyms by the prosecutors office . 

Any measure however that may unnecessarily limit the right of the
accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him without
adequate compensation, should be rejected. 

In the following application all numbers between brackets refer to the
equivalent numbers of the requested orders as set out in the motion of
the Prosecutor. 

 RULINGS REQUESTED

The Defence requests the Trial Chamber to rule as follows: 

I. To admit the requested orders as set out in (1) subject to the
dismissal of the requested order as set out in (11) or otherwise as
the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the interest of the accused. 

II.  To dismiss the requested order (2) in connection with witness J
and/or K or otherwise as the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the
interest of the accused. 

III. To dismiss the requested order (3) in connection with witness A
and/or F and/or G and/or H and/or I and/or J and/or or otherwise as
the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the interest of the accused. 

IV.  To admit the requested orders as set out in (4), (5), (6), (9),
(10), (12) and (13) subject to the dismissal of the requested order as
set out in (11) or otherwise as the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the
interest of the accused. 

V.  To dismiss the requested orders as set out in (7) and (8), in
connection with witness A and/or F and/or G and/or H and/or I and/or J
and/or K, or otherwise as the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the
interest of the accused. 

VI.  To dismiss the requested order as set out in (11) by confirming
the obligation of the Prosecutor to make available to the Defence the
name(s), address(es), whereabouts and other identifying data
concerning witness A and/or F and/ or G and/or H and/or I and/or J
and/or K together with the unredacted statement(s) of this/these
person(s) in compliance with Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence or otherwise as the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the
interest of the accused. 

VII. To admit the requested order as set out in (12) and (13) subject
to the dismissal of the requested order as set out in (11) or
otherwise as the Trial Chamber may deem fit in the interest of the
accused. 

VIII. To admit the requested order as set out in (14). 

 /s/Michail Wladimiroff Defence Counsel