Proprio motu order for production of evidence under Rule 98
|Decision on Additional Evidence - 07.02.2011||
BAGOSORA et al. (Military I)
9. […] In the absence of any material from Gatsinzi that Bagosora can legitimately seek to admit as “additional evidence”, the Appeals Chamber considers that Bagosora’s request for an order to call Gatsinzi as a witness pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules cannot be granted.
10. Gatsinzi’s testimony could, however, assist the Appeals Chamber’s adjudication of Bagosora’s submissions under his first ground of appeal in relation to the Trial Chamber’s alleged violation of his fair trial rights by failing to enforce a subpoena for Gatsinzi’s live testimony, in particular with regard to Bagosora’s superior responsibility between 6 and 9 April 1994. Given that the Trial Chamber indeed issued a subpoena for Gatsinzi’s appearance and that Gatsinzi never testified, the Appeals Chamber considers the circumstances in this case to be appropriate to summon Gatsinzi pursuant to Rules 98 and 107 of the Rules in order to determine whether or to what extent such failure to testify violated Bagosora’s right to a fair trial or caused him the prejudice he purports.
 Notice of Appeal, Ground 1(I), p. 7; Appeal Brief, paras. 101-114; Reply Brief, paras. 38-43.
|ICTR Rule Rule 98 ICTY Rule Rule 98|