No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICTY or the United Nations.
1 This figure refers only to the time spent by the prosecution for the direct and reexamination of prosecution witnesses and excludes the time devoted to cross-examination, questions from the bench, and procedural and evidentiary matters.
2 The rules are available on the ICTY’s Web site, <http://www.icty.org>.
3 Boas himself acknowledges that the terms of rule 73 bis are “inadequate and are not a good precedent for how such rules should be formulated” (p. 283). But that is not, in itself, the question I am addressing, for Boas does support the goal of rule 73 bis in significantly narrowing the scope of ICTY trials.
4 Under the ICTY’s current structure, indictments are confirmed by a single judge, and the defense may challenge the form of the indictment, but not the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charges.
5 Again, the experience of the ICTY in this regard is instructive. Since not all of the perpetrators for a given crime are in custody and ready to resume trial at the same time, a significant number of crime bases have had to be repeatedly litigated—as in the case of Srebrenica and Prijedor.