|Appeal Judgement - 18.03.2010||
Download full document
101. The Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber could have taken into account the fact that the request was made late in the proceedings in assessing, for example, whether the facts sought to be judicially noticed were relevant to the Appellant’s case. However, the Trial Chamber erred in rejecting the Defence Motion for Judicial Notice solely on the basis of its late filing. The Trial Chamber should have considered whether the facts at issue were facts of common knowledge and, if so, whether they were relevant to the Appellant’s case. While the Trial Chamber erred in dismissing the application on the grounds that it was untimely, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the facts submitted by the Appellant were capable of being judicially noticed by the Trial Chamber. The information contained in these documents regarding the movements of the troops of Operation Turquoise would certainly not qualify as facts that are commonly accepted or universally known or beyond reasonable dispute. As a consequence, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in rejecting the Defence Motion for Judicial Notice for lateness but considers that this error did not invalidate the decision.
|ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94|