Case: IT-98-29-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

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

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
16 March 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

STANISLAV GALIC

_______________________________________________

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT FOR THE PROSECUTIONíS RESPONSE TO GALICíS THIRD RULE 115 MOTION

_______________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms. Mara Pilipovic
Mr. Stéphane Pilleta-Zanin

 

I, Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, 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 ("Tribunal") and Pre-Appeal Judge in this case;1

BEING SEISED OF a "Request for Extension of Page Limit for the Prosecution Response to Galicís Third Rule 115 Motion" ("Request"), filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 14 March 2005, in which the Prosecution seeks an extension of page limit of 20 pages and 6000 words for its response to the "Defence Motion to Present Before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidence" ("Third Rule 115 Motion") filed on 20 January 2005 by Stanislav Galic ("Appellant");

NOTING that paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction on the Lengths of Briefs and Motions, IT/184/Rev.1 ("Practice Direction IT/184/Rev.1")2 provides that responses before a Chamber will not exceed 10 pages or 3000 words, whichever is greater;

NOTING that the Prosecution seeks an extension of page limit on the grounds that it is necessary in order for the Prosecution to properly respond to the volume of the material in the annexes sought to be admitted as additional evidence on appeal;3

NOTING the "Decision on Prosecutionís Request for an Extension of Pages", filed on 21 July 2004, in which the Prosecution was allowed an extension of page limit upon filing its response to the "Defence Motion to Present before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidence" ("First Rule 115 Motion"), filed confidentially by the Appellant on 18 June 2004;

NOTING the "Decision on Prosecutionís Requests for Extensions of Time and of Page Limit for the Response", filed on 21 February 2005, in which the Prosecution was allowed an extension of time and page limits when filing its response to the "Defence Motion to Present Before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidence" ("Re-filed Motion"), filed confidentially by the Appellant on 11 February 2005;4

CONSIDERING that Paragraph 7 of Practice Direction IT/184/Rev.1 provides that a party must seek authorisation in advance to exceed the page limit and must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversized filing;

CONSIDERING that the number of documents and potential witnesses sought to be admitted as additional evidence pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence may, in appropriate circumstances, justify the oversized filing of the Prosecutionís response;5

CONSIDERING that the Third Rule 115 Motion deals with the evidence of 2 witnesses who testified in Prosecutor v. Milosevic (Case No. IT-02-54), 14 documents and a newspaper excerpt;6

CONSIDERING FURTHER that the annexes to the Third Rule 115 Motion need not be wholly reproduced in the Prosecutionís response as mere references to the documents in the annexes would be sufficient;

FINDING that the volume of the annexes to the Third Rule 115 Motion does not constitute exceptional circumstances that justify an increase in the page limit;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

HEREBY DENY the Request.

 

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

Dated this 16th day of March 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

_____________________________
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. Order Assigning Judges to a Case before the Appeals Chamber and Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge, 18 December 2003.
2. Practice Direction on the Lengths of Briefs and Motions, IT/184/Rev.1, 5 March 2002.
3. Request, paras 3, 5 and 7.
4. According to the Prosecution at footnote 7 of the Request, the volume of the Re-filed Motion together with all the required translations comprised about 75 pages, and the material annexed to the Third Rule 115 Motion comprises about the same number of pages. The Pre-Appeal Judge has verified that the volume of the Re-filed Motion together with all required translations was 89 pages and that of the Third Rule 115 Motion with only the English translations is about 45 pages.
5. Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Decision on Prosecutionís Request for an Extension of Pages ("Decision on Extension for the Response to First Rule 115 Motion"), 21 July 2004.
6. The Prosecution relies on the Decision on Extension for the Response to First Rule 115 Motion. However, in the First Rule 115 Motion (and the Re-filed Motion), not only 14 documents were sought to be admitted as additional evidence, but also the evidence of 7 potential witnesses, and not 2, as is the case here.