Case No.: IT-95-14-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
26 June 2003

PROSECUTOR
v.
TIHOMIR BLASKIC

_______________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON APPELLANTíS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS

______________________________________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr. Anto Nobilo
Mr. Russell Hayman
Mr. Andrew M. Paley

 

I, FAUSTO POCAR, the Pre-Appeal Judge in this case,

BEING SEIZED OF "Appellantís Request for Extension of Page Limits for Reply Brief Re Fourth Rule 115 Motion" filed on 23 June 2003 ("Request");

NOTING that, in his Request, the Appellant submits that he will not be able to adequately address the Prosecutorís arguments in 3,000 words, as set out in Practice Direction IT/184 Rev.1 ("Practice Direction"), and seeks the authorization to file a reply brief ("Reply Brief"), in relation to the "Prosecutionís Response to the Appellantís Fourth Additional Evidence Motion Pursuant to Rule 115" filed confidentially on 18 June 2003 ("Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion"), of up to 12,000 words in length;

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Response to the Appellantís Request for Extension of Page Limits for Reply Brief in Regards His Fourth Rule 115 Motion", filed confidentially on 25 June 2003 ("Prosecution Response to Request"), in which the Prosecution submits that the Appellant should be permitted to file a Reply Brief of no more than 15 pages or 4500 words; that the Appellantís claim that the Prosecutionís Annexes attached to the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion ("Annexes") are argumentative, is incorrect because there are no arguments, or factual or legal submissions contained therein; that the Appellantís claim that it cannot address the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion in 10 pages is unsubstantiated; and that the only reason provided by the Appellant is to respond to arguments in the Annexes, which relate to only one exhibit;

NOTING the "Appellantís Reply to Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Request for Extension of Page Limits for Reply Brief Re Fourth Rule 115 Motion" filed on 26 June 2003, in which the Appellant asserts, inter alia, that its Request is based on the volume and complexity of the issues presented in the Fourth Rule 115 Motion and the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, which it maintains is 70 pages in total and violates the Practice Direction and the Decision of 29 May 20031;

NOTING that the Appellant further submits that the request for leave to file a 12,000-word Reply Brief is reasonable in light of the above considerations, and that if the Appeals Chamber desires a reply that is half the length of the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, then the appropriate length would be 35 pages, not 15;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion is approximately 15,800 words in length, excluding three annexes;

CONSIDERING that, according to part (C) 7 of Practice Direction IT/184 Rev.1, a party must seek authorization in advance to exceed the page limits set out in the Practice Direction and must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversized filing;

CONSIDERING that, in light of the length and complexity of the Prosecution Response to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, an extension of page limits for the Appellantís Reply Brief is justified;

HEREBY GRANT in part the Request, and authorize the Appellant to file a Reply Brief up to but not exceeding 10,000 words in length, in conformity with the typeface set out in Practice Direction IT/184 Rev.1.

 

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

__________________
Fausto Pocar
Pre-Appeal Judge

Dated this 26th day of June 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.


1. Prosecutor v. Blaökić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, 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", 29 May 2003.