Case: IT-98-33-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before: Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of: 25 March 2002

PROSECUTOR

v

Radislav KRSTIC

_______________________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

_______________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr Neneas Petrusic
Mr Tomislav Visnjic

 

I, DAVID HUNT, Pre-Appeal Judge

NOTING the "Motion for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications" filed on 8 March 2002 ("Motion") by Radislav Krstic ("Appellant");

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Motion for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications filed 8 March 2002" filed on 22 March 2002 ("Response"), in which the prosecution requests a variation of the time limit in which to respond to the Motion;

NOTING that the "Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal" (IT/155 Rev.1) ("Practice Direction") establishes a time limit for the filing of responses of ten days after the filing of the motion, which was also the situation prior to the revision of IT/155 being issued, and that the prosecutionís Response should have been filed on 18 March 2002;

NOTING that the explanation given by the prosecution for the late filing of the Response is that it interpreted the introduction of Rule 126bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") as being the provision establishing the time period in which responses and replies are to be filed. Rule 126bis provides that, unless otherwise ordered by a Chamber either generally or in the particular case, a response to a motion is to be filed within 14 days. Rule 19 provides that practice directions are to be consistent with the Rules. The prosecution interpreted Rule 126bis as overriding the obligation of the Practice Direction;

NOTING that the reference in Rule 126bis to orders by a Chamber generally is intended to include practice directions and that the prosecution was in error in the interpretation it made in relation to the effect of the introduction of Rule 126bis upon the Practice Direction;

CONSIDERING that Part VII of the Practice Direction allows the Appeals Chamber to recognise as validly down any act done after the expiration of a time limit prescribed by the Practice Direction;

PURSUANT to Part VII of the Practice Direction;

HEREBY grant the extension of time and recognise the filing of the Response on 22 March 2002 as validly done.

 

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

Dated this 25th day of March 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

________________________
Judge David Hunt
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]