Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T12:58:06.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Viren Mascarenhas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Viren Mascarenhas
Viren Mascarenhas*
Affiliation:
International Arbitration, Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Challenges of Transnational Legal Practice: Advocacy and Ethics
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 103 , 2009 , pp. 259 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Rpe R. 46(A).

2 See Rpe R. 46(B)-(E).

3 See Rpe art. 34.

4 See Stat. art. 16(4) and Rpe R. 34.

5 See Practice Direction on Allowances for Witnesses and Expert Witnesses art. 2.

6 The Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Decision on Sesay Motion to Request the Trial Chamber to Hear Evidence Concerning the Prosecution’s Witness Management Unit and its Payment to Witnesses (June 25, 2008).

7 The Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Decision on the Gbao and Sesay Joint Application for the Exclusion of the Testimony of Witness TF1-141 (Oct. 26, 2005).

8 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Decision on Defence Motion on Prosecution Practice of ‘Proofing’ Witnesses (Dec. 10, 2004).

9 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse and Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.8, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Witness Proofing (May, 11 2007).

10 The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Practice of Witness Familiarisation and Witness Proofing, Pre-Trial Chamber I (Nov. 8, 2006).

11 The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, Trial Chamber I (Nov. 30, 2007).

12 See The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Victims and Witnesses Unit report on practices used to prepare and familiarise witnesses for giving testimony at trial (Dec. 31, 2008).

13 The Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Written Reasons for Decision on Application of Third Accused to Dispense with the Mandate of Court Appointed Counsel, Mr. Andreas O’Shea (Dec. 6, 2007).

14 The Prosecutor v. Taylor, Tr. 17:28-29; 18:1-5 (June 4, 2007).

15 Id. at 20:23-28.

16 Id. at 24:18-20.

17 See The Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A-Ar77, Appeal Judgment on Allegations of Contempt against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin (Feb. 27, 2001).

18 See Code of Prof’l Conduct of Counsel, art. 15.