Case No. IT-98-34-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
3 February 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

MLADEN NALETILIC, aka “TUTA”
VINKO MARTINOVIC, aka “STELA"

_________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON MLADEN NALETILIC’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

__________________________________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Defense:

Mr. Matt Hennessy and Mr. Christopher Y. Meek for Mladen Naletilic
Mr. Zelimir Par and Mr. Kurt Kerns for Vinko Martinovic

 

I, FAUSTO POCAR, Pre-Appeal Judge in this case,

BEING SEIZED OF the "Motion for Extension of Time" filed on 2 February 2005 ("Motion"), by Counsel for Mladen Naletilic ("Appellant"), wherein Counsel indicate that the Appellant wishes to file an Amended Second Rule 115 Motion, but that Counsel need additional time for preparing the filing due to the substantial case load that they maintain in their respective jurisdictions, and request that they be granted 30 days from 2 February 2005 to file said Amended Second Rule 115 Motion;

NOTING that the Prosecution has indicated that it does not, in principle, object to the Motion, but states that an additional 30 days for filing said Motion could be considered excessive;

RECALLING the “Decision on Naletilic’s Motion for Leave to File His Second Motion to Present Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115" issued on 27 January 2005, wherein the Appeals Chamber found that the Appellant’s Second Rule 115 Motion was filed out of time having been filed approximately 364 days after the extended deadline of 15 August 2003 as set by the Pre-Appeal Judge, but that nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the Appellant is invited to file an Amended Second Rule 115 Motion no later than 10 days from the issuance of that decision, that is by 6 February 2005;

NOTING that under Rule 115(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"), the Appellant must demonstrate good cause for further delay in filing his Amended Second Rule 115 Motion;

EMPHASIZING that the reason submitted by Counsel for the Appellant in support of their request for an extension of time to file the Appellant’s Amended Second Rule 115 Motion does not constitute good cause pursuant to Rule 115(A);

FINDING however, that in light of the Prosecution’s indication that it would not be prejudiced by Counsel for the Appellant’s further delay, and because it is important for the Appeals Chamber to have all additional evidence admissible under Rule 115 before it in reviewing this appeal;

GRANT the Motion in part and: ORDER Counsel for the Appellant to file the Appellant’s Amended Second Rule 115 Motion no later than 15 days from the issuance of this decision, that is, by 18 February 2005; ORDER the Prosecution to file its response to the Appellant’s Amended Second Rule 115 Motion, if any, within 10 days of the filing of the Amended Second Rule 115 Motion; and ORDER Counsel for the Appellant to file the Appellant’s reply, if any, within four days of the filing of the Prosecution’s response.

 

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

Done this 3rd day of February 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

_________________
Fausto Pocar
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]