Case No.: IT-04-82-PT
IN TRIAL CHAMBER IIBefore:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
5 May 2006
DECISION ON URGENT DEFENCE MOTION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PROSECUTION"S RESPONSE TO ACCUSED BOSKOSKIíS SECOND MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL RELEASE WITH ANNEXES A THROUGH H
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Dan Saxon
Mr. Anees Ahmed
Counsel for the Accused:
Ms. Edina Residovic for Ljube Boskoski
Mr. Antonio Apostolski for Johan Tarculovski
Trial Chamber II ("Trial 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 ("Tribunal") is seised of "Urgent Defecne Motion Seeking Extension of Time to Reply to Prosecutionís Response to Accused Boskoskiís Second Motion for Provisional Release with Annexes A through H" ("Motion"), filed confidentially by counsel for Ljube Boskoski ("Defence") on 3 May 2006. On 13 April 2006, the Accused filed his "Second Motion for Provisional Release". On 27 April 2006, the Prosecution filed "Response to Accused Boskoskiís ĎSecond Motion for Provisional Releaseí with Annexes A Through H" filed on 27 April 2006, and Corrigendum filed on 3 May 2006 (together "Response to Second Motion for Provisional Release").
In the Motion, the Defence requests, pursuant to Rules 54, 73 and 126bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules"), leave to file a reply to Response to Second Motion for Provisional Release and to be granted a minimum of fourteen days to reply. In support of its request for an extension of time the Defence argues that (i) Boskoski has requested to represent himself and counsel has asked to be withdrawn from the position of Lead Counsel as a result of the Registry decision concerning his financial contribution, and (ii) the Response to Second Motion for Provisional Release is 90 pages long.
On 5 May 2005, the Prosecution responded to the Motion in "Prosecutionís Response to Accused Boskoskiís Confidential ĎUrgent Defence Motion Seeking Extension of Time to Replyí" ("Response"). The Prosecution does not oppose the request to file a reply but opposes the extension of time arguing that the defence has not presented "good cause" as required by the Rules. The Prosecution argues that the formal status of Lead Counsel has not changed to date and that the Response to Second Motion for Provisional Release is not 90 pages long but 15 with 65 pages annexes.
The Trial Chamber considers the fact that Boskoski has requested to represent himself and counsel has asked to be withdrawn from the position of Lead Counsel not constituting good cause within the meaning of Rule 126bis of the Rules since Lead Counsel is still assigned. The Trial Chamber considers, however, that the Prosecutionís Response to Second Motion for Provisional Release is quite substantive, that the Trial Chamber would be assisted by the Defence Reply and that an extension would not delay the start of the case. In these particular circumstances, it considers an extension merited in this case. However, the Trial Chamber also takes this opportunity to point out that any future requests for extensions of time should be filed timely, as soon as a Party is aware that it needs more time Ė not as in this case, in the last minute.
PURSUANT TO RULES 54 AND 126bis HEREBY
GRANTS the Defence leave to file a reply by Friday, 12 May 2006.
Done in French and English, the English version being authoritative.
Dated this fifth day of May 2006,
At The Hague,
Judge Albin Eser
[Seal of the Tribunal]