Case: IT-00-39-T

IN TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before:
Judge Alphons Orie, Presiding
Judge Joaquín Martín Canivell
Judge Claude Hanoteau

Registrar:
Mr Hans Holthuis

Date:
2 December 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

MOMCILO KRAJISNIK

___________________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON DEFENCE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION ON SCHEDULING OF 18 NOVEMBER 2005
___________________________________________________________________________

Office of the Prosecutor
Mr Mark Harmon
Mr Alan Tieger

Counsel for the Defence
Mr Nicholas Stewart, QC
Mr David Josse

TRIAL CHAMBER I (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;

BEING SEIZED of the “Defence application for certification pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to appeal against decision on scheduling made 18 November 2005”, filed on 25 November 2005 (the “Application”);

RECALLING the Trial Chamber’s amendment, of 18 November 2005, to the 26 April 2005 Scheduling Order, granting the Defence a seven-week extension up till 28 April 2006 to prepare and present its case and stating that no further extension will be granted unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated (the “Amendment”);

NOTING that, in accordance with Rule 73ter (E), “[a]fter having heard the defence, the Trial Chamber shall determine the time available to the defence for presenting evidence”, and that the Trial Chamber has done so by means of its Amendment;

NOTING that Rule 73(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that certification may be granted “if the decision involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings”;

NOTING that the Defence has not requested any further extension of time beyond 28 April 2006 for preparing and presenting its case but has merely asserted that the Trial Chamber’s standard for the grant of any such request, as set out in the Amendment, “is wrong in principle and should be set aside”;

CONSIDERING that the Defence has not argued, in its Application, and the Trial Chamber does not find, that the Amendment raises any issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or an immediate resolution of which would materially advance the proceedings;

DENIES the application.

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

___________________
Judge Alphons Orie
Presiding Judge

Dated this 2nd day of December 2005
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]