IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before:
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Presiding
Judge Lal Chand Vohrah
Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge Fausto Pocar
Registrar:
Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh
Decision of:
5 May 2000
THE PROSECUTOR
v.
ANTO FURUNDZIJA
_______________________________________________________________________
DECISION ON DEFENCE FILINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE
CLOSE OF THE APPEAL HEARING
_______________________________________________________________________
Counsel for the Prosecutor:
Mr. Upawansa Yapa
Ms. Brenda Hollis
Mr. Norman Farrell
Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Luka S. Misetic
Mr. Sheldon Davidson
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 ("the International Tribunal"),
NOTING the Judgement in The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, rendered on 10 December 1998;
NOTING the "Defendants Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Rule 108", filed on 22 December 1998, the "Defendants Amended Appellate Brief", filed on 14 September 1999, the "Respondents Brief of the Prosecution", filed on 30 September 1999, and the "Defendants Reply Brief", filed on 8 November 1999;
NOTING that, after the expiry of time-limits for the filing of briefs and pursuant to Rule 114 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("the Rules"), hearings on appeal in this case were held on 2 March 2000;
BEING SEISED OF the "Appellants Response to Inquiry of Judge Vohrah re: Application of Opinion and Judgement in Prosecutor v. Tadic to Oral Argument of Appellants Counsel filed on 7 March 2000, (the Appellants Response), and the Appellants Conviction of Anto Furundzija based upon alleged Torture of Witness D is void as being (1) Outside the Scope of the Jurisdiction of the ICTY and (2) Based upon an Alleged Crime not charged in the Indictment", filed on 8 March 2000 ("Appellants Challenge to Jurisdiction");
NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Appellants Filings Subsequent to the Close of the Hearing of the Appeal", filed on 10 March 2000;
CONSIDERING that sub-Rule 127(B) of the Rules permits the Appeals Chamber, on good cause being shown by motion, to recognise as validly done any act done after the expiration of a prescribed time-limit;
TREATING the Appellants Response as implying a motion to recognise the late filing as validly done;
CONSIDERING with respect to the Appellants Response that Judge Vohrahs request for information during oral hearings constitutes good cause for its admission;
CONSIDERING with respect to the Appellants Challenge to Jurisdiction that, in all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that written and oral arguments have now closed, good cause has not been shown to justify its late admission;
HEREBY ORDERS that:
Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.
________________________
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Presiding
Dated this fifth day of May 2000
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.
[Seal of the Tribunal]