________________________________________________

THIS BENCH 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 Order to the Republic of Croatia for the Production of Documents issued by Trial Chamber III on 22 January 1999 ("Order"), whereby the Trial Chamber denied in part an application for such an order filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 24 July 1998;

NOTING the Prosecutor’s Motion for Reconsideration concerning Binding Order to the Republic of Croatia for the Production of Documents filed before Trial Chamber III on 29 January 1999 ("Motion for Reconsideration");

NOTING the Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Enlargement of Time for Appealing Under Rule 127, filed on 4 February 1999 ("Application"), and the response thereto filed by the Republic of Croatia on 9 February 1999;

NOTING the Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion for Reconsideration, rendered by Trial Chamber III on 15 February 1999, in which the Trial Chamber rejected the Motion for Reconsideration;

FINDING that the Application was not filed within the time limit provided for by Sub-rule 73(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules");

NOTING that the Application seeks an enlargement of this time limit, or alternatively recognition of service of the Application as validly done, pursuant to Sub-rules 127(A) and (B) of the Rules;

NOTING ALSO that the Prosecution in this respect appears to contend that the filing of its Motion for Reconsideration before Trial Chamber III constitutes good cause within the meaning of Rule 127 of the Rules;

WITHOUT PASSING ON whether motions for reconsideration properly form part of the procedures of the International Tribunal as motions falling within the scope of Sub-rule 73(A) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that the filing of such a motion in any event does not ipso facto extend the time limit established by Sub-rule 73(C) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that applications for enlargements of time pursuant to Sub-rule 127(A)(i) of the Rules must be made prior to the expiration of the time limit sought to be extended;

CONSIDERING that whereas the Prosecution filed its Motion for Reconsideration before Trial Chamber III within the time-limit established by Sub-rule 73(C), it omitted to file before the Appeals Chamber a timely application pursuant to Sub-rules 127 (A)(i) and (B) for an extension of time for the filing of its application for leave to appeal pending the Trial Chamber’s decision on that motion;

CONSIDERING, therefore, that the Application does not show good cause why the filing of the Application should be recognised as validly done pursuant to Sub-rules 127(A)(ii) and (B);

HEREBY, UNANIMOUSLY, REJECTS the Application as being untimely.

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

______________________________

Gabrielle Kirk McDonald
Presiding

Dated this seventeenth day of March 1999
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.