The accused objected to the admission of the intercepts of telephone conversations involving various individuals, including the accused.
He argued that that they were intercepted in violation of Bosnian law and universal principles of the right to privacy.
According to the Chamber, the Tribunal jurisprudence is clear that evidence obtained illegally is not, a priori, inadmissible, but rather that the manner and surrounding circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, as well as its reliability and effect on the integrity of the proceedings, will determine its admissibility.
The Chamber noted that admitting intercepts of conversations that may have been obtained in contravention of domestic law would not violate the accused’s right to privacy to such an extent that the integrity of the proceedings would be damaged.
It was recalled that the fundamental right to privacy is not absolute and may be derogated from in times of emergency.
The Chamber also stated that the admission of evidence that may have been obtained illegally would not conflict with the need to ensure a fair trial.
Considering the jurisdiction that the Tribunal has to prosecute and adjudicate serious violations of international law as well as the charges brought against the accused, the Chamber considered that intercepted evidence, even if it may have been obtained in violation of applicable domestic law, should not automatically be excluded from admission into evidence.
Karadžić, Decision on the Accused’s Motion to Exclude Intercepted Conversations, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, T. Ch., 30 September 2010