The ICTY has turned down the request of Gotovina's defence team that Croatia be permanently banned from inspecting the seized documents, which the defence maintains put it in subordinate position, or that an investigation into Gotovina's defence counsel should be banned. However, Croatia must return the seized documents and must not inspect them until a decision is made as to whether they are protected or not.

As soon as it was informed about the confiscation, the ICTY issued a temporary restraining order to Croatia to stop inspecting the documents.

The ICTY's new decision envisaged the establishment of an independent body that will help in deciding whether some documents are protected.

The trial chamber in the Gotovina case feels that the independent body could be established by the ICTY president.

The ICTY has decided that the general's defence team will see the seized documents and separate those it feels are protected. If Croatia disagrees with this opinion, the independent body and Gotovina's defence will inspect the contentious documents and determined whether they are protected.

The trial chamber will inform the ICTY president about the lack of a legal instrument that would give defence counsel functional immunity.

The tribunal turned down the defence team's request that Croatia be ordered to stop a preliminary criminal investigation and prosecution of counsel Marin Ivanovic and Jozo Ribicic, as well as the request that Croatia be banned from investigating defence counsel for Gotovina and co-defendant Mladen Markac without permission from the trial chamber.

Gotovina's defence team did not prove circumstances which would warrant those requests, according to an explanation of the March 12 decision.

Gotovina's defence claimed that ICTY chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz had ordered Croatia to take action against Ivanovic, which Croatia refuted. The trial chamber did not establish that there was any inciting to investigate or prosecute Gotovina's defence counsel. There were suggestions regarding an administrative investigation, but such suggestions are not inappropriate per se, according to the decision.

According to the tribunal, the defence did not prove that a criminal investigation and prosecution of Ivanovic and Ribicic would bring the defence in a significantly unfavourable position.

The defence argued that all its members must enjoy immunity and the trial chamber voiced concern about the lack of a legal instrument to give counsel functional immunity.

The tribunal rescinded its December 11 decision that Croatia must stop inspecting the defence team's seized documentation, and decided that Croatia must not inspect them until Gotovina's defence informs it as to whether the documents are protected or until an independent body decides on the matter.

Croatia has two weeks to give Gotovina's defence access to the seized material, while the defence has six weeks from being given access to identify the documents which it considers protected.

After that, the defence will have two weeks to approach the ICTY president about the establishment of an independent body that would decide whether the documents are protected or not. Croatia must return to the defence team, without inspecting them, all documents which the independent body decides are protected.

The tribunal reiterated that if the seized documents contain any information about protected witnesses or any other confidential information, Croatia must consider the information confidential.