Case No.: IT-98-29-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
21 July 2004

STANISLAV GALIC

v.

THE PROSECUTOR

__________________________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF PAGES

_________________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for Stanislav Galic:

Mr. Stéphane Piletta-Zanin
Ms. Mara Pilipovic

I, FLORENCE NDEPELE MWACHANDE MUMBA, Pre-Appeal Judge,

NOTING the Judgement and Opinion rendered by the Trial 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 ("Tribunal") in this case on 5 December 2003;

NOTING the "Defence Motion to Present Before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidences", filed on behalf of the Appellant Mr. Stanislav Galic on 18 June 2004 pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rule 115 Motion" and "Rules");

NOTING the Decision on Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Additional Evidence Motion of 18 June 2004, issued on 28 June 2004 by which the Appeals Chamber granted the Prosecution an extension of time until 12 July 2004 by which to file its response to the Rule 115 Motion;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Defence Motion to Present Additional Evidence Dated 18 June 2004", filed on 12 July 2004 ("Rule 115 Response"), which consists of 28 pages;

BEING SEIZED OF the "Motion for Extension of Page Numbers" ("Prosecution’s Motion", or "Motion") contained in the Prosecution’s Response by which the Prosecution seeks leave to exceed the 10 pages’ limit set fourth by the "Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions" ("Practice Direction IT/184"),¹ on the grounds that the Prosecution has considered each of the 14 documents and seven potential witnesses referred to in the Rule 115 Motion in turn in order to assist the Chamber and adequately respond to that Motion;²

NOTING that the Prosecution acknowledges that its Motion should most properly have formed part of the Prosecution’s earlier request for an extension of time and requests the Appeals Chamber to regard the Rule 115 Response as properly filed, pursuant to Rule 127 (B) of the Rules;³

NOTING the "Defence’s Request for the Approval for Replay (sic) under Rule 126 Bis", filed on 19 July 2004 ("Defence Motion"), by which the Appellant primarily responds and objects to the Motion and requests the Appeals Chamber to reject it;

NOTING that, paragraph 10 of the "Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submission in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal" ("Practice Direction IT/155 »),⁴ relating to motions filed during appeals from Judgement, provides that the opposite party shall file a response within ten days of the filing of the motion;

CONSIDERING that the first part of the Defence Motion has been validly filed within 10 days of the filing of the Prosecution Motion;

CONSIDERING that the second part of the Defence Motion seeking leave to reply to the Prosecution’s Response within seven days following the Decision of the Appeals Chamber pursuant to Rule 126 bis of the Rules, and to exceed the page limit will be dealt with in a separate decision;

CONSIDERING that paragraph 5 of Practice Direction IT/184 provides that "SmCotions and replies and responses before a Chamber will not exceed 10 pages or 3,000 words, whichever is greater";

NOTING that paragraph 7 of Practice Direction IT/184 provides for the party moving for an extension of the page limits to seek authorization in advance from the Chamber and to provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate an oversized filing;

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 127 (B) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber may upon "good cause" being shown by motion recognize as validly done any act done after the expiration of any time prescribed and that the Prosecution’s submission that it only became aware of the difficulties entailed in responding to the Rule 115 Motion within the prescribed limit constitutes such "good cause" in the particular circumstances of this case;

CONSIDERING that the number of documents and potential witnesses sought to be admitted as additional evidence by the Appellant pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the oversized filing of the Prosecution’s response;

HEREBY RECOGNIZE the Prosecution’s Motion as validly filed and GRANT the extension of page limit sought.

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

Done this 21^st day of July 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

__________________
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]