IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER
Judge David Hunt, Presiding
Judge Fouad Riad
Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia
Judge Mohamed Bennouna
Judge Fausto Pocar
Mr Hans Holthuis
1 February 2001
Zejnil DELALIC, Zdravko MUCIC (aka "PAVO"), Hazim DELIC
and Esad LANDZO (aka "ZENGA")
DECISION ON HAZIM DELICS MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF
Counsel for the Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr Upawansa Yapa
Mr Norman Farrell
Mr Roeland Bos
Counsel for the Defence:
Mr John Ackerman for Zejnil Delalic
1. On 24 January 2001, the Appeals Chamber issued a Scheduling Order in which it announced that the judgment on appeal in these proceedings would be delivered on 20 February 2001.1 The hearing of oral argument in relation to the appeal had concluded on 8 June 2000.
2. Six days after the Scheduling Order, on 30 January 2001, counsel for Hazim Delic filed a motion for leave to file a supplementary brief in relation to the appeal ("Motion"). The proposed supplementary brief ("Supplementary Brief") was included with the Motion.2 The Supplementary Brief discusses an article from the International Review of the Red Cross, which is annexed to it.3 The article is a critical scholarly analysis of the judgment of the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal in The Prosecutor v Tadic.4 The Motion notes that the article discusses three issues "the legal standard used to determine if a conflict is an international armed conflict", the "interpretation of international humanitarian law" and "the definition of protected persons for purposes of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to Civilians" which it states are relevant to the current appeal.5
3. The Appeals Chamber accepts that these issues, and the conclusions of the Appeals Chamber in relation to these issues in the Tadic Appeal Judgment, are relevant to grounds of appeal filed by Delic and the other accused.6 These grounds of appeal and the issues they raise have already been the subject of extensive written and oral submissions made by Delic and the other accused, in their briefs and in the hearing of oral argument on the appeal held from 5 to 8 June 2000. The Supplementary Brief refers to the analysis of the issues in the article as supporting or "echo[ing]"7 arguments he has already made in these submissions.
4. As is evident from the Scheduling Order issued by the Appeals Chamber, the judgment on the appeals in these proceedings is in the stages of finalisation. Only an important new issue of substance or compelling new information relating to one of the grounds of appeal could justify the grant of leave to file further supplementary submissions at this extraordinarily late stage.
5. After considering the material supplied, it is clear to the Appeals Chamber that the submissions in the Supplementary Brief add nothing of substance at all to the submissions which have already been made. This is effectively acknowledged by Delic in his Motion:
The supplemental brief makes no new arguments but simply shows that the arguments made by Delic and his co-defendants are similar to those made by scholars in the ICRC International Review and why the Appeals Chamber should give weight to this scholarly article in deciding the issues before it.8
6. The fact that the views of two authors expressed in an academic forum may support submissions already made by Delic is not a new matter of substance. Reference to such scholarly writing, although in no way binding on the Appeals Chamber, may in general be of assistance in its consideration of the issues before it. However it is not new information of sufficiently compelling importance to justify the admission of an additional brief at this extraordinarily late stage in the appellate proceedings. There is no unfairness to Delic in refusing leave at this time to admit submissions based on a piece of academic writing which was published in late September last year, and which in any case has been available to the Appeals Chamber from public sources.
7. The Appeals Chamber therefore refuses leave to file the Supplementary Brief and dismisses the Motion.
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
Done this 1st day of February 2001
At The Hague,
Judge David Hunt
[Seal of the Tribunal]