Case No. IT-02-60/1-A
BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE
Judge Mehmet Güney
Mr. Hans Holthuis
8 March 2005
DECISION ON MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING OF REPLIES RELATING TO APPELLANTíS SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Rock Tansey, Q.C.
Counsel for the Prosecutor:
Mr. Norman Farrell
I, MEHMET GÜNEY, Judge of the Appeals 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 ("International Tribunal"),
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 ("Appellantís Motions");
NOTING my confidential Decision of 7 February 2005 authorizing the Prosecution to file its response to the Appellantís Motions by 21 February 2005 and instructing the Appellant to file his reply to the Prosecutionís response, within twenty days of the filing of the Prosecutionís response, namely, by 14 March 2005;1
BEING SEISED OF the "Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing of Replies Relating to Appellantís Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal" filed on 4 March 2005 by the Appellant ("Motion for Extension of Time"), whereby the Appellant seeks an extension of four weeks to file his replies to the Prosecutionís responses to the Appellantís Motions;
NOTING that pursuant to Article 19(A)(i) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel, the Deputy Registrar withdrew the assignment of Ms. Virginia Lindsay and assigned Mr. Rock Tansey as lead counsel for the Appellant;2
NOTING that in support of his Motion for Extension of Time the Appellant submits, inter alia, that (i) Mr. Rock Tansey was not assigned to represent the Appellant until 16 February 20053; (ii) the entire appellate record must be fully reviewed and analysed by his new counsel before he is able to "meaningfully consult with ₣the Appellantğ in relation to the issues presented in the two pending motions"4; (iii) the issues presented and the procedural history of the case are complex5; and (iv) prejudice will not result if the extension of time sought is granted6;
NOTING that pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal and paragraph 19, Section VIII, of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal7, the Appeals Chamber may vary any time-limit prescribed for the filing of written submissions;
NOTING that the Prosecution has indicated that it does not object to the Motion for Extension of Time;
CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice to allow newly appointed lead counsel to familiarize himself with the case;
FINDING that the Appellant has shown good cause for granting the extension of time sought;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time; and
ORDER the Appellant to file his replies to the "Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" and the "Prosecutionís Response to Appellantís Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Notice of Appeal" filed confidentially on 21 February 2005, no later than Monday 11 April 2005.
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
Dated this eighth day of March 2005
At The Hague,The Netherlands.
[Seal of the International Tribunal]