|Decision on Admission of Evidence - 12.01.2009||
PRLIĆ et al.
17. The Appellant’s submission according to which relevance can only be assessed after conclusion of the trial contradicts the logic of Rule 89(C) of the Rules which refers to relevance as one of the main criteria of admissibility of evidence throughout the trial. This submission therefore stands to be rejected. The evaluation of relevance at the stage of admissibility of evidence has been defined by the Appeals Chamber as a consideration of “whether the proposed evidence sought to be admitted relates to a material issue”. When the relevance is assessed during the course of a trial, the material issues of the case are found in the indictment. The Appeals Chamber is further of the view that it is for the party tendering the material to show that it has the required indicia of relevance in order to be admissible under Rule 89(C) of the Rules. Finally, the criteria for admission of evidence are cumulative, which means that the given evidence cannot be admitted if all the criteria are not fulfilled. Therefore, the Appellant’s argument that the Trial Chamber could not reject the admission on the sole basis that the tendered material lacked relevance, without inviting him to clarify the issue, cannot prosper.
 Rule 89(C) of the Rules: “A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value”.
 Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellants Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s and Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motions for Leave to Present Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 12 January 2007, paras 7, 13, 18-20.
 Cf. The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-AR73, Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Request for Reconsideration, 27 September 2004, para. 12: “The Trial Chamber has the discretion under Rule 89(C) to admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value, to the extent that it may be relevant to the proof of other allegations specifically pleaded in the Indictment”.
|ICTR Rule Rule 89(C) ICTY Rule Rule 89(C)|
|Appeal Judgement - 20.05.2005||
189. […] [I]t was proper for the Chamber to apply Rule 89 of the Rules, which is the general provision that governs the admission of evidence at trial, providing at paragraph (C) that “a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.” The Appeals Chamber affirms that Rule 94 of the Rules is not a mechanism that may be employed to circumvent the ordinary requirement of relevance and thereby clutter the record with matters that would not otherwise be admitted. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber concludes that the Trial Chamber did not err in applying Rule 89 in addition to Rule 94 of the Rules.
 Rule 89(C).
 Momir Nikolic v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-002-60/1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice, 5 April 2005, para. 17.
Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 89(C);