Case No. IT-97-24-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Theodor Meron, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
30 October 2003

THE PROSECUTOR

v.

MILOMIR STAKIC

__________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

__________________________

 

Counsel for the Prosecutor

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Defence

Mr. Branko D. Lukic
Mr. John R. Ostojic

 

I, THEODOR MERON, President 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"),

BEING SEISED OF the “Appellant, Milomir Stakic’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Appellant’s Brief in Support of His Appeal” (“Motion”), filed on 14 October 2003, which seeks an extension of time for the filing of the Appellant’s Brief until 6 January 2004 or, in the alternative, until 31 January 2004;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to ‘Appellant, Milomir Stakic's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Appellant’s Brief in Support of His Appeal’" ("Response"), filed on 23 October 2003;

CONSIDERING that, under Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules"), the Appellant Milomir Stakić ("Appellant") is due to file his Appellant’s Brief on 17 November 2003;

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 127(A)(i) and (B) of the Rules, the time limit for the filing of the Appellant’s Brief may be enlarged on good cause being shown;

CONSIDERING that the Motion relies, inter alia, on the ground that (1) his counsel are unable to consult with him regarding the details of the appeal because he has not yet received a B/C/S translation of the judgement appealed from and (2) Mr. John R. Ostojic, co-counsel for the Appellant, is involved in a complicated trial in the United States scheduled to last through the middle of November;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution does not oppose the grant of an extension of time on these grounds;

CONSIDERING that, with regard to the first ground, it has been recognized that "it is in the interests of justice to allow an appellant adequate time to read the judgement and to consult with counsel before filing his appellant’s brief,"1 and that the Appeals Chamber has granted previous requests for extensions of time in similar situations;2

CONSIDERING, however, that a complete suspension of time until the translated judgement is available would not be appropriate, since counsel may commence preparation of the appeal and consult with the Appellant on several matters before that time;3

CONSIDERING that the Conference and Language Services Section has advised the Appeals Chamber that a B/C/S translation of the judgement will be available on 1 December 2003;4

CONSIDERING, therefore, that an extension until 6 January 2004 would give the Appellant over one month to read the translated judgement and to consult with counsel;

FINDING that there is good cause for granting an extension of time for the filing of the Appellant’s Brief until 6 January 2004;

FINDING, however, that the Motion does not show good cause for granting an extension beyond that date;

HEREBY GRANT the Motion in part; and

ORDER that the Appellant may file the Appellant’s Brief on or before 6 January 2004.

 

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

Dated this 30th day of October 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

__________________
Judge Theodor Meron
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. Prosecutor v. Naletilic et al., No. IT-98-34-A, Decision on Mladen Naletilić’s Motions for Extension of Time, 25 June 2003, p. 3; Prosecutor v. Naletilicet al., No. IT-98-34-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time, 12 June 2003, p. 4. See also Prosecutor v. Krstic, No. IT-98-33-A, Order Granting Extension of Time, 5 May 2001, p. 2.
2. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Kvocka, No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Second Request for an Extension of Time, 11 April 2002, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Appellant Requests for an Extension of Time, 1 February 2002, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Kordic et al., Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Decision on Motions to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Briefs, 11 May 2001, para. 18 ("Kordic").
3. Kordic para. 18.
4. See Prosecutor v. Stakic, No. IT-97-24-A, Decision on Motion for Extension of Time, 15 August 2003, p. 2.