Case No.: IT-02-60/1-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Mehmet Güney

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision:
11 January 2005

Momir NIKOLIC

v.

PROSECUTOR

_____________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTIONíS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

_____________________________________

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms. Virginia C. Lindsay  

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

 

I, Mehmet Güney, Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal 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") and Pre-Appeal Judge in this case,

NOTING the "Appellantís Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Notice of Appeal" and the confidential "Appellantís Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" filed by Momir Nikolic ("Appellant") on 23 December 2004 (respectively, "Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal" and "Second Motion for Additional Evidence");

BEING SEISED OF the "Motion for Extension of Time for Prosecution Responses to Second Additional Evidence Motion and Second Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Appeal" filed by the Prosecution on 29 December 2004 ("Motion for Extension of Time"), whereby the Prosecution requests leave to file its responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence no later than Monday, 7 February 2005;

NOTING that the Prosecution submits, inter alia, that:

  1. the two motions raise a number of complex legal and factual issues;

  2. the Appellantís arguments lack precise references to the 200 pages of material, attached to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence, which makes it difficult and time-consuming for the Prosecution to respond;

  3. the Appellant challenges parts of his guilty plea, which raises important procedural issues;

  4. to ensure that all relevant information is before the Appeals Chamber, the Prosecution is likely to obtain evidence from former Lead Counsel and Co-counsel for the Appellant, which could probably not be possible before the second half of January 2005;

  5. the Prosecution needs time to properly assess the allegations that it was under a duty to amend the indictment or inform the Trial Chamber after it was provided with certain material, and to collect information and evidence from the Senior Appeals Counsel and the senior Prosecution investigator against whom allegations are made;

  6. as allegations are being made against the present Senior Appeals Counsel on this case and as he may become a witness, the Prosecution will have to make a decision on whether to assign a new Senior Appeals Counsel on the case; moreover, if a new Senior Appeals Counsel is assigned, he would need time to acquaint himself with the allegations and the case in general before the Prosecution can file its responses;

  7. the Appeals Section of the Prosecution is holding a joint advocacy training programme from 21 to 24 January 2005;

  8. the Prosecution needs to respond to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and the Second Motion for Additional Evidence together since they are inter-linked;

  9. the Appellant will not be prejudiced by the extension of time requested;

NOTING that the Appellant did not file a response;

NOTING that under paragraph 11, Section IV, of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal1 ("Practice Direction"), a response to a motion filed during appeals from judgement is due within ten days of the filing of the motion;

NOTING that Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal provides that "on good cause being shown by motion" the Appeals Chamber may "enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these Rules", and that paragraph 16, Section VII, of the Practice Direction provides that the Appeals Chamber "may vary any time-limit prescribed under this practice direction";

NOTING that the responses were due on 4 January 2005, but that the Motion for Extension of Time was filed before the expiration of the time-limit on 29 December 2004;

FINDING that the Prosecution has shown good cause to be granted the extension of time requested for the filing of its responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence;

CONSIDERING that the complexity of the issues at stake also requires an extension of time for filing the reply, if any;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time; and

ORDER the Prosecution to file the responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence no later than Monday, 7 February 2004;

ORDER the Appellant to file his reply to the Prosecutionís responses, if any, within fifteen days of the filing of the responses.

 

Done both in English and French, English text being authoritative

Done this day of 11 January 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

______________________
Mehmet Güney
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. IT/155/Rev.1, 7 March 2002.