Radovan Karadzic’s motion to exclude from evidence all intercepted conversations the BH security services recorded until 6 April 1992 has been rejected. In the judges’ view, the fundamental right to privacy the accused has invoked is not absolute

The Trial Chamber today dismissed the motion filed by former Republika Srpska president Radovan Karadzic to exclude from evidence all intercepted conversations the BH security services taped until 6 April 1992. The intercepted conversations were later handed over to the Tribunal’s prosecution.

In his first motion to exclude the intercepted conversations from evidence, Karadzic invokes Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which provides that no evidence is admissible ‘if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission (...) would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings’. According to Karadzic’s reading, the conditions from Article 95 have been met because the BH Security Service resorted to ‘illegal methods’ and thus ‘violated universal principles of the right to privacy’ that all citizens enjoy, including Karadzic who is ‘a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina’ too.

As Karadzic put it, the ‘illegality’ of audio surveillance stems from the fact that the Serb members of the pre-war BH Presidency were not informed about this activity of the State Security Service. According to Karadzic’s interpretation of the pre-war legislation, the Security Service ought to have notified those who were under surveillance about the fact.

In its decision, the Trial Chamber notes that Karadzic ‘misinterpreted Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and failed to show in his motion how the admission of the evidence that has allegedly been obtained illegally might jeopardize the integrity of the proceedings. On the contrary, the judges believe that ‘in the light of the Tribunal’s mandate to try persons charged with serious violations of international humanitarian law it would be inappropriate to exclude relevant and valid evidence as long as a fair trial is guaranteed’.

The Trial Chamber considers that the admission into evidence of intercepted conversations in which Karadzic took part will not threaten his right to privacy to a degree which would threaten the integrity of the trial. In the judges’ view, the fundamental right to privacy which Karadzic has invoked ‘is not absolute’ and can be restricted in some ‘urgent’ situations. This is why the Trial Chamber contends that the admission of evidence Karadzic claims has been ‘illegally’ obtained is not at odds with the need to ensure a fair trial.

Sharing