Every detail of the annual revenue as well as expenditure status was disclosed. Concerning the expenditure, all contract methods, contents, and parties were disclosed. (...) Subsequently, in May 2015, the Local Finance Act was amended, and from November 2015, all local governments are mandated to disclose daily revenues and expenditures through the Internet.
Data Source: un
Your mortgage must be disclosed separately under ‘Liabilities’.
Q9. How do I disclose bank accounts?
(...) Please do not disclose account numbers or its value.
Q11. Should I disclose interest-bearing savings, checking accounts, and certificates of deposits (CDs)?
(...) Q19. Should I disclose defined benefit plans such as a pension plan?
Data Source: un
If a party or participant discovers that it has disclosed material which should not have
been disclosed or should have been disclosed in redacted form, it shall immediately
inform the receiving party or participant. (...) If a party or participant discovers that it has received material which it believes should
not have been disclosed or should have been disclosed in redacted form, it shall
immediately inform the party or participant who disclosed the material. (...) As soon as the disclosing party or participant informs the receiving party or participant
or confirms that the material should not have been disclosed or should have been
disclosed in redacted form, the receiving party or participant shall return the material to
the disclosing party or participant and shall return or destroy any copies.
Data Source: un
More specifically, the Prosecution submits that on 29 July 2005 it had disclosed all additional witness statements with the exception of the statements of three witnesses who were either rejected or whose statements were unavailable and that the B/C/S version of this material was disclosed to the Defence on 19 August 2005. (...) Their statements were first disclosed to the Defence in English on 29 July 2005. (...) This will need to be duly considered by the Defence together with a large amount of material that has been disclosed to the Defence in the last month. It is not possible to anticipate what will be further disclosed to the Defence before the commencement of the trial and whether that late disclosure will present any particular difficulties.
Data Source: un
Zeljko Olujic for Stjepan Seselj
TRIAL CHAMBER 1 of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal");
BEING SEISED of an "Application for the Issuance of a Protection Order for Rule 66(A)(i) Disclosure" filed confidentially by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 16 June 2005, in which the Prosecution, "out of an abundance of caution", seeks an Order that 1) specifically authorises the Prosecution to disclose the supporting material which "includes protected witness information", and 2) orders the Defence not to disclose any of the supporting material, including the identity of witnesses contained in the materials, to the public without prior application to this Chamber, on the basis that "the supporting materials contain verbatim statements and/or transcripts as well as witness identities that are still the subject to protection measures from previous ICTY proceedings" ("Application");
NOTING the Decision of 26 April 2005 confirming the Indictment charging Stjepan Seselj and Domagoj Margetic ("the Accused") with contempt of the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 77(A)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") whereby upon the Prosecution’s request that there be no public disclosure of the supporting material until further order of the Tribunal, the confirming judge ordered that the supporting material remain under seal until further order of the Tribunal;
CONSIDERING that it is not necessary under the Rules of the Tribunal to seek authorisation to disclose the supporting material accompanying the Indictment to the Accused or to apply before a Chamber for continuance of protective measures already granted in other cases before this Tribunal;
CONSIDERING that the whole of the supporting material is confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public; that however the Accused are entitled for the preparation of their defence to have the parts of the supporting material which are in the public domain, if any, identified from the parts of the supporting material which are confidential;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
PURSUANT TO Articles 21 and 22 of the Statute of the International Tribunal and Rules 54, 69, 75 and 79 of the Rules;
HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
For the purposes of the present disposition:
The term "public" shall be defined to include all persons, governments, organisations, entities, clients, associations, and groups other than the Judges of the Tribunal and the staff of the Registry (assigned to either Chambers or the Registry), the Prosecutor of the Tribunal and her staff, the accused Stjepan Seselj and Domagoj Margetic, their Defence counsel, legal advisers, legal assistants and other members of the Defence ("Defence"), their agents or representatives. (...) Any and all additions and deletions to the initial list in respect of any of the above categories of persons who are necessarily identified and properly involved in the preparation of the defence shall be notified to the Trial Chamber in similar fashion within seven days of such additions or deletions,
The term "media" shall be defined as all video, audio, and print media personnel, including journalists, authors, television and radio personnel, and their agents and representatives,
Upon disclosing material to the Defence under Rules 66(A)(ii) and 68, the Prosecutor shall identify clearly which parts of the disclosed material are already in the public domain and which parts include statements from victims and witnesses that have not been used before in other proceedings of the Tribunal or have been subject to continuing protective measures and are therefore not in the public domain,
Unless directly and specifically necessary for the preparation and presentation of the Defence case, the Defence or the Accused shall not disclose to the public any material disclosed pursuant to Rules 66(A)(i) and 68 (including material that previously covered by Rule 70), that has been identified by the Prosecutor as being in the public domain, including
the identities and whereabouts of witnesses to the extent that these are known to the Defence or the Accused,
any evidence (including documentary, physical or other evidence) or any written statement of a witness or potential witness, or the substance, in whole or in part, of any non-public evidence, statement or prior testimony disclosed to the Defence or the Accused pursuant to Rules 66(A)(ii) and 68 of the Rules,
If the Defence or the Accused find it directly and specifically necessary for the preparation and presentation of the case to disclose protected information to a member of the public, they shall inform each person among the public to whom non-public material or information is shown or disclosed, that that member of the public shall not copy, reproduce or publicise such material or information, in whole or in part, or show or disclose it to any other person and they shall obtain non disclosure agreements from third parties as a precondition for the release of the material to them. If provided with the original or any copy or duplicate of such material, such member of the public shall return it to the Defence when the material is no longer necessary for the preparation and presentation of the Accused’s cases,
If the Defence teams in this case, or a member thereof, withdraw from the case, any confidential or non-public material in their possession shall be returned to the Registry of the Tribunal including all disclosed material and copies thereof which are not included in the public record,
Any breach of this Order shall be dealt with in accordance with Rule 77 of the Rules ("Contempt of the Tribunal").
Data Source: un
On the contrary, she states that she did disclose Milinfosum No. 170 on 10 March 1997 to which the cease-fire agreement in question was attached. (...) The remaining point of contention relates to the scope of the Prosecutions obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules which states:
"The Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence the existence of evidence known to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence" .
13. (...) First, the passages of Milinfosum No. 170 disclosed to the Defence (Exhibit A attached to the Motion) clearly indicate the existence of a cease-fire agreement signed by the accused on 18 April 1993.
Data Source: un
The Request seeks: 7
] a blanket order that it may, with respect to the disclosure of witnesses, redact from the statements/proffers:
(a) any information which discloses the current whereabouts of the maker of the statement/proffer and/or his family;
(b) any information contained within that statement/proffer which discloses the current whereabouts of other persons named within the said statement/proffer who have made witness statements which the Prosecution has already or intends to disclose;
(c) any information contained within statements/proffers which discloses the current whereabouts of other individuals who were present at the events described but who have either not been contacted by the Prosecution or who have been contacted and [have] declined to assist.
(...) The prosecution would not have much difficulty in obtaining an order under Rule 53(C) that such information not be disclosed to the public. However, a witness statement on the face of it is a document which is intended to be disclosed to the accused and his defence teams, and the prosecution may have some difficulty in obtaining an order that the confidential information not be disclosed to the very persons to whom the statement was intended to be disclosed. (...) It will therefore be for the prosecution to determine which events in the statements to be disclosed are or may be relevant to the issues in the trial.
Data Source: un
It pointed out that the Blaskic Decision does not require the Prosecution to disclose verbatim transcripts and stated that, in accordance with the Blaskic Decision, it has never disclosed portions of verbatim transcript of any interviews that are the subject of Brdjanin’s Motion.
(...) In short, the following question needs to be clarified: is the Prosecution obliged under Rule 68 to disclose exculpatory material in its original form or may the Prosecution disclose exculpatory material in a summarised form?
(...) The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that disclosing exculpatory material in summarised form is not in compliance with Rule 68.
Data Source: un
IT-95-5/18-T 20 March 2015 3
It submits that it was not required to disclose the first of the Letters (“First Letter”) pursuant to
Rule 68 as it is a summary of an interview with Tomislav Kovač.10 In addition, this interview
had already been disclosed to the Accused on 7 May 2009.11 Thus, the Accused failed to
demonstrate a disclosure violation.12
4. (...) The Interview was only disclosed to the Accused on 5 September 2014, even though the
Rule 70 provider gave consent for its disclosure in November 2011. (...) Given that the Prosecution has disclosed the material referred to in the Letters, including
the Interview, the first part of the Accused’s request is now moot.
Data Source: un
TRIAL CHAMBER II of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("Chamber");
"Prosecution’s Motion for Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses", filed on 24 March 2005 ("First Motion"), requesting, inter alia, leave to redact identifying information of victims and witnesses (i.e. information regarding the current whereabouts of victims and witnesses and the personal identification numbers which appear on statements of victims and witnesses that are taken by the Bosnian authorities), when fulfilling its disclosure obligations to the defence for Mico Stanisic ("Defence") pursuant to Rule 66(A)(i) of the of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"); 1
NOTING the "Decision on Prosecution’s Motions for Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses", filed on 6 June 2005 ("Decision"), whereby the Chamber, while granting the motion in part, did not consider the Prosecution’s request to redact identifying information of victims and witnesses when fulfilling its disclosure obligations to the Defence pursuant to Rule 66(A)(i), as, on 18 April 2005, the Prosecution had notified the Chamber that it had fulfilled its disclosure obligations pursuant to Rule 66(A)(i) of the Rules; 2
NOTING that, while it is not permissible for the Prosecution to redact material it must disclose to the Defence under Rule 66(A)(i) of the Rules, without having prior authorization of a chamber, it now appears that the material disclosed by the Prosecution pursuant to that Rule was in a redacted form; 3
NOTING the "Prosecution’s Third Motion for Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses", filed on 16 June 2005 ("Third Motion"), requesting de novo leave to redact identifying information of victims and witnesses (i.e. personal identification number and current whereabouts of victims and witnesses) from (a) supporting material to the Indictment ("Rule 66(A)(i) material") and from (b) statements, affidavits of victims and witness or potential witnesses, when fulfilling its disclosure obligations to the Defence;
NOTING the "Motion Objecting to the Prosecution’s Third Motion for Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses", filed on 27 June 2005 ("Response"), by which the Defence objects to the Third Motion, as the Prosecution (a) has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying an order for non-disclosure as is required by Rule 69(A) of the Rules, 4 and (b) is trying to obtain retroactive authorization from the Chamber to redact identifying information of victims and witnesses from material it has already disclosed to the Defence; 5
NOTING that, in the Third Motion, the Prosecution submits that the unauthorized redactions it made of identifying information of victims and witnesses from the material it disclosed pursuant to Rule 66(A)(i) of the Rules was to ensure the continued protection of potential witnesses in the case, pending the outcome of its motions on protective measures, while enabling the Accused to have the supporting materials within the time specified by Rule 66(A)(i) of the Rules; 6
NOTING that Rule 69(A) of the Rules provides that, in exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor may apply to a Chamber to order the non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal;
NOTING that Rule 75(A) of the Rules, provides that, a Chamber may at the request of either party, order appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses, provided that the rights are consistent with the rights of the accused;
NOTING that, in the Third Motion, the Prosecution submits that it is in the interest of justice to maintain the safety and security of the victims and witnesses by redacting information relating to their current whereabouts and their identity numbers, and that the requested redactions are the minimum protective measures required to address the legitimate fears and concerns of the witnesses; 7
CONSIDERING that the redactions sought in the Third Motion will not preclude the Defence from requesting disclosure of the redacted information upon a reasonable showing;
CONSIDERING that the situation in the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, remains a hostile and difficult environment for potential witnesses; 8
CONSIDERING therefore that, in accordance with Rule 69(A) of the Rules, exceptional circumstances have been shown;
ORDERS pursuant to Rules 54, 69(A) and 75(A) of the Rules that:
1) in respect of the material already disclosed by the Prosecution, the disclosure be accepted as a sufficient compliance with Rule 66(A)(i), notwithstanding the unauthorised redaction of identifying information from the material disclosed,
2) the Prosecution may redact from statements, affidavits of potential witnesses or other documents which are to be disclosed to the Defence:
(a) any information which discloses the current whereabouts of the maker of any such document and/or his or her family;
(b) any information contained within such documents which discloses the current whereabouts of other individuals named within them who have made witness statements which the Prosecution intends to disclose;
(c) any information contained within such documents which discloses the current whereabouts of other individuals who are named in such documents, other than those individuals who are described in any document as having been present at any of those events referred to in the documents which are or which may be relevant to the issues in the trial; and
(d) the personal identification number given to citizens of the former Yugoslavia which appears on statements taken by the Bosnian authorities.
3) nothing herein shall preclude the Defence from requesting full disclosure of the material mentioned above, including Rule 66(A)(i) material, upon a reasonable showing.
4) nothing herein shall preclude any party or person from seeking such other or additional protective measures or measures as may be appropriate concerning a potential witness, or other evidence.
Data Source: un