|Decision on Reopening Prosecution Case - 01.07.2010||
GOTOVINA et al.
25. As to the standard applied by the Trial Chamber with respect to what constitutes fresh evidence, Čermak and Markač seem to argue that because the Prosecution had evidence in its possession showing that Bilobrk was a forensic technician involved in the work of the sanitation teams at Knin, his testimony could not constitute fresh evidence for the purposes of reopening the Prosecution’s case-in-chief. The Appeals Chamber does not agree with this interpretation. The evidence that the Prosecution seeks to introduce is Bilobrk’s specific testimony concerning Čermak’s or someone else’s alleged suggestion to plant weapons by the bodies of the victims in Grubori. In this respect, the fact that the Prosecution was unaware of this part of Bilobrk’s testimony until the results of the investigation conducted by the Croatian authorities became known, is uncontested by the parties. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber correctly focused its assessment on whether the specific testimony of Bilobrk may constitute fresh evidence for the purposes of reopening the Prosecution’s case-in-chief. […]
 Čermak Appeal [Ivan Čermak’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Reopen its Case, 17 May 2010 (confidential)], paras 11, 18; Markač Appeal [Defendant Mladen Markač’s Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s 21 April 2010 Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Re-Open its Case, 17 May 2010 (confidential)], para. 27.
 The Appeals Chamber further notes that the category of fresh evidence could include evidence in a party’s possession, which becomes significant only in the light of other fresh evidence (Popović Decision of 24 September 2008, para. 11).