Case No.: IT-95-14-A 

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
29 May 2003

PROSECUTOR
v.
TIHOMIR BLASKIC
_______________________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTIONíS REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR AUTHORISATION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT FOR ITS RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANTíS FOURTH RULE 115 MOTION

_______________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr. Anto Nobilo
Mr. Russell Hayman
Mr. Andrew Payley

 

I, Fausto Pocar, Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal"),

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Request for Suspension of the Briefing Schedule in Relation to the Appellantís Fourth Additional Evidence Motion" filed on 19 May 2003, in which the Prosecution requested that the briefing schedule be suspended in light of the fact that at the time of the filing of the motion it had not received the exhibits proffered as additional evidence, submitted that the Fourth Additional Evidence Motion was incomplete and therefore the time frame for filing a response should only commence when the exhibits were filed, and informed the Appeals Chamber that upon receipt of the additional evidence it would file a request for an extension of time and page limits;

BEING SEISED of the "Prosecutionís Request for an Extension of Time and for Authorisation to Exceed the Page Limit for its Response to the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion" filed on 22 May 2003 ("Prosecutionís Request for Extension"), in which the Prosecution seeks an extension of time for the filing of its response until 25 June 2003, and authorisation to exceed the page limit set out in the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions IT/184 Rev.1 ("Practice Direction IT/184 Rev.1") to a maximum of 50 pages total;

NOTING the "Appellantís Response to Prosecutionís Request for Extension of Time and for Authorization to Exceed Page Limit for its Response to Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion" filed on 26 May 2003 ("Appellantís Response"), in which the Appellant states that he does not oppose the request for authorization to exceed the page limit, but submits that an extension of time for the Prosecution to file its response to the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion until 11 June 2003, is sufficient;

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Reply Regarding the Prosecutionís Request for an Extension of Time and for Authorisation to Exceed the Page Limit for its Response to the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion" filed on 28 May 2003, in which the Prosecution: (a) states that the exhibits were not delivered to the Prosecution or the Registry until after filing hours on 19 May 2003 and not on the 16th as the Appellantís Response asserts, (b) claims that the Appellant fails to address the actual reasons for the request, (c) raises the same arguments advanced in the Prosecutionís Request for Extension with respect to the pressing commitments and schedule of lead Counsel, and (d) points out that the Appellant has not indicated that there is any prejudice suffered by him in case the extension sought by the Prosecution is granted;

NOTING that Counsel for the Prosecution received the exhibits proffered as additional evidence with the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion from the Registry only on 20 May 2003;

NOTING that the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion seeks the admission on appeal of approximately 40 documents disclosed by the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules, 6 documents discovered in the Croatian State Archives, 13 trial exhibits from the Kordic and Cerkez trial, and excerpts from the closed session testimony of 2 witnesses who testified in the Kordic and Cerkez trial, and it comprises 924 pages in total;

NOTING that the Prosecution submits that it is unable to respond to the Appellant's Fourth Rule 115 Motion within the 10 day time limit set out in the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal, IT/155 Rev.1 ("Practice Direction" IT/155 Rev.1) in view of the delay in the receipt of the additional evidence, the volume and the complexity of the motion, and due to other work commitments of Senior Appeals Counsel;

CONSIDERING that the delay in the receipt of the additional evidence as well as the volume and complexity of the motion constitute good cause that justifies an extension of time;

CONSIDERING that the evidence dealt with in the present case requires the oversized filing;

PURSUANT to provision VII.16 of Practice Direction IT/155 Rev.1, and provision (C) 7 of Practice Direction IT/184 Rev.1;

HEREBY GRANT the authorisation sought by the Prosecution to exceed the applicable page limit set out in Practice Direction IT/184 to a maximum of 50 pages total, ALLOW the Prosecution to file a response to the Appellantís Fourth Rule 115 Motion by 18 June 2003, and ORDER counsel for the Appellant to file a Reply no later than 30 June 2003.

 

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

Dated this twenty-ninth day of May 2003
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

_____________________
Fausto Pocar
Pre-Appeal Judge