In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Prosecution’s obligation to disclose to the Defence copies of the statements of its witnesses extends only to material in the possession of the Prosecution.
The Chamber noted that the accused was essentially asking the Prosecution to conduct his own investigations, rather than seeking its assistance on a case by case basis to obtain specific material should he encounter difficulties in doing so himself.
The Chamber refused to consider such a broad request.
At the same time, the Chamber expressed its trusts that should the Prosecution become aware of prior statements or testimony given by any of its witnesses to domestic bodies, it will alert the accused thereto.
Furthermore, should the accused encounter difficulties in obtaining such material from national courts or authorities, and the Prosecution be in a position to assist, this is also a matter for the parties to work out between themselves.
The Chamber also found erroneous the accused’s suggestion that he would direct to the authorities of the states in question broadly framed requests for any material relating to all Prosecution witnesses and that, absent the provision of such material, motions for binding orders would be filed.
The Chamber recalled that binding orders must satisfy a strict test of necessity and not be formulated in a manner which places too onerous a burden upon the state in question. Only if the accused is unable to obtain specific material relating to specific witnesses from the authorities of a particular state, he may seek the intervention of the Chamber.
Karadžić, Decision on the Accused’s Motion for Order to Obtain Witness Statements and Testimony from National Courts, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, T. Ch., 12 January 2011.