32. […] Any request for an order for production of documents issued under Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Statute, whether before or after the commencement of a trial, must:

(i) identify specific documents and not broad categories. In other words, documents must be identified as far as possible and in addition be limited in number. […] [W]here the party requesting the order for the production of documents is unable to specify the title, date and author of documents, or other particulars, this party should be allowed to omit such details provided it explains the reasons therefor, and should still be required to identify the specific documents in question in some appropriate manner. The Trial Chamber may consider it appropriate, in view of the spirit of the Statute and the need to ensure a fair trial referred to in Rule 89 (B) and (D), to allow the omission of those details if it is satisfied that the party requesting the order, acting bona fide, has no means of providing those particulars;

(ii) set out succinctly the reasons why such documents are deemed relevant to the trial; if that party considers that setting forth the reasons for the request might jeopardise its prosecutorial or defence strategy it should say so and at least indicate the general grounds on which its request rests;

(iii) not be unduly onerous. As already referred to above, a party cannot request hundreds of documents, particularly when it is evident that the identification, location and scrutiny of such documents by the relevant national authorities would be overly taxing and not strictly justified by the exigencies of the trial; and

(iv) give the requested State sufficient time for compliance; this of course would not authorise any unwarranted delays by that State. Reasonable and workable deadlines could be set by the Trial Chamber after consulting the requested State.

[ON 17 NOVEMBER 1999, RULE 54BIS WAS ADOPTED.]