1 Submissions, p. 6.

2 prosecutor v.krstic case No IT-98-33-a,.Decision on application FOR Subpoenas (AC), 1 July 2003, para. 10; prosecutor Halilovic case No.IT 01-48-AR73,decisionon the issuance of sub opens(AC),21 june 2004,para 7., “HalilovicDecision”); Bagosora et al., Decision on Request for a Subpoena (TC), 11 September 2006, para. 5; Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, Decision on Defence Motion for Issuance of Subpoena to Witness T (TC), 8 February 2006, para. 4.

3 Halilovic Decision, para. 7.

4 Id., para. 6.

5 Bagosora et ah, Decision on Request for a Subpoena (TC), 11 September 2006, para. 6; Karemera et al., Decision on Nzirorera's Ex Pane Motion for Order for Interview of De fence Witnesses NZ1, NZ2 and NZ3 (TC), 12 July 2006, para. 12; Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Assigned Counsel Application for Interview and Testimony of Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder (TC), 9 December 2005, paras. 30, 33.

6 Motion, paras. 11-13, 18-20, 24, 26-27.

7 Bagosora et al., Decision on Request for a Subpoena (TC), 11 September 2006 (General Marcel Gatsinzi, former Chief of Staff of Rwandan Army); Bagosora et al, Decision on Request for a Subpoena Compelling Witness DAN to Attend for Defence Cross-Examination (TC), 31 August 2006 (eye witness of conduct by soldiers allegedly under the command of the Accused); Bagosora et al., Decision on Request for a Subpoena for Major Jacques Biot (TC), 14 July 2006 (military observer present in Gisenyi from 6 to 13 April 1994); Bago sora et al., Decision on Motion Requesting Subpoenas to Compel the Attendance of Defence Witnesses DK 32, DK 39, DK 51, DK 52, DK 311 and DM 24 (TC), 26 April 2005; Bagosora et al., Decision on Defence's Request for a Subpoena Regarding Mamadou Kane (TC), 22 October 2004 (political adviser to the Special Representative of the Secre tary-General in Rwanda from December 1993 until May 1994); Bagosora et al., Decision on Prosecutor's Request for a Subpoena Regarding Witness BT (TC), 25 August 2004 (witness allegedly overheard statement made by one of the Accused); Bagosora et al., Decision on Request for Subpoena of Major General Yaache and Cooperation of the Republic of Ghana (TC), 23 June 2004 (subpoena to sector commander of UNAMIR).

8 Motion, para. 11.

9 Motion, Annex 4, p. 9.

10 Submissions, p. 4.

11 Motion, paras. 14-20.

12 Bagosora et al., Decision on Ntabakuze Motion for Informa tion From the UNHCR and a Meeting With One of Its Officials (TC), 6 October 2006 (denying requests for orders requiring the UNHCR to provide information concerning the report).

13 Motion, paras. 21-24.

14 Prosecution Response to “Bagosora Defence Urgent Motionfor Investigation and Production of (Additional) Evi dence … ”, etc., filed on 19 December 2005.

15 Motion, para. 22

16 Bagosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testi mony of Witness DBY (TC), 18 September 2003, paras. 4, 15, 18 (citations omitted).

17 Bagosora et al., Decision on Motions for Judgement of Acquit tal (TC), 2 February 2005, para. 15.

18 Bagosora et al., Decision on Disclosure of Defence Witness Statements in Possession of the Prosecution Pursuant to Rule 68 (A) (TC), 8 March 2006, para. 7.

19 This approach is confirmed in numerous decisions in relation to identically or similarly worded indictments: Kayishema, Decision (AC), 28 September 2000, p. 3 (“Considerant qu'au soutien de sa demande le Requérant affirme que le Mémorandum Hourigan donne des indications sur les auteurs presumes de l'attentat contre l'avion du President rwandais; que le Procureur du Tribunal de l'époque a cru devoir arrêter les enquêtes menéesàce sujet par M. Hourigan; que ces faits, qui n'étaient pas connus lors du process du Requérant, rouvriraient le débat sur la question de la culpabilitéde celui ci; Considerant que le Mé morandum Hourigan n'était bien entendu pas disponible lors du procés en première in stance, mais que sa teneur, que le Requérant cite, ne pouvait avoir un rapport avec les questions relatives au genocide sur lesquelles la Chambre de première instance devait se prononcer; qu'il n'est pas dès lors dans l'intérêt de la justice de l'admettre comme moyen de prevue supplémentaire en appel”); Bizimungu et al., Reconsideration of Oral Ruling of I June 2005 on Evidence Relating to the Crash of the Plane Carrying President Habyarimana (TC), 23 February 2006,paras. 10-11 (“The potential involvement or responsibility of the RPF or other forces not associated with the government of Rwanda cannot relieve the Accused of responsibility for the crimes they have been charged with. The Chamber is of the opinion that evidence as to who is responsible for the crash of the President's plane would not assist the Chamberin its decision as to the guilt or innocence of the Accused … the jurisprudence of the Tribunal shows that questions relating to the responsibility of the shooting down of the plane may be put to a witness provided that this line of questioning does not go into great detail”); Karemera et al., Decision Relative a la Requete de Joseph Nzirorera aux Fins d’ Obtenir 1 a Coopera tion du Gouvernement Franҫais (TC), 23 February 2005, para.11 (denying a motion for the Chamber to issue a request tothe government of France to disclose to the Defence a report concerning those responsible for shooting down the Presiden tial plane) Karemera et al., Decision on the Defence Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence (TC), 7 October 2003, para. 14 (“The Defence has not shown how such materials, if they exist, could suggest the innocence of the Accused, who is not charged with taking part in the assassination, or how such materials could tend to mitigate the Accused's per sonal guilt or affect the credibility of the prosecution evi dence”); Kabiligi, Decision on the Defence motion Seeking Supplementary Investigations (TC), 1 June 2000, para. 19 (“Defence Counsel has failed to establish any causal link between the requested investigation into the responsibility for the plane crash and the acts and omissions which form the basis of the charges against Kabiligi in the Indictment”).