Case No. IT-95-14-R77.2
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before:
Judge O-Gon Kwon, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge
Iain Bonomy
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
8 July 2005
PROSECUTOR
v.
IVICA MARIJACIC
MARKICA REBIC
________________________________________________
DECISION ON (1) DEFENCE FOR THE ACCUSED MARKICA REBIC MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND (2) DEFENDANT IVICA MARIJACIC’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE TRIAL CHAMBER
________________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. David Akerson
Counsel for Ivica Marijacic
Mr. Marin Ivanovic
Counsel for Markica Rebic
Mr. Kresmir Krsnik
I, O-GON KWON, Judge 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"),
HAVING BEEN DESIGNATED as pre-trial Judge in this matter by virtue of an Order of 27 May 2005,
BEING SEISED of a "Defence for the Accused Markica Rebic Motion for Extension of Time” filed by the Defence of Markica Rebic on 5 July 2005 (“Rebic’s Application”), seeking an extension of the time limit to file a response to the "Motion for Leave to Amend Indictment" filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 23 June 2005 ("Motion to Amend the Indictment"),
BEING SEISED ALSO of a "Defendant Ivica Marijacic’s Emergency Motion for Clarification from the Trial Chamber” filed by the Defence of Ivica Marijacic on 7 July 2005 (“Marijacic’s Application”), seeking an "order clarifying the current procedural status of the case and to clarify which motions Defendant Marijacic must respond to and by what date",1
(1) Rebic’s Application
NOTING the arguments advanced in support of Rebic’s Application that (i) the Motion to Amend the Indictment "is partially based on supporting materials" which were only received by the Defence on 4 July 2005, and (ii) since the supporting materials "could […] influence the response of the Defence to the Prosecution’s motion", the Defence should be entitled to the complete period of time provided in Rule 126 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules") for filing a response to the Motion to Amend the Indictment, that is, 14 days from 4 July 2005,
NOTING that, pursuant to Rule 126 bis of the Rules, the last day to file a response, if any, to the Motion to Amend the Indictment is 7 July 2005, and that, pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules, the time limit may be extended on good cause being shown,
NOTING that the Motion to Amend the Indictment seeks leave to amend the Indictment to include "additional detail on the protection orders that were violated, as well as clarifying the provisions of Rule 77 the accused is alleged to have violated",2 and does not purport to introduce a new charge, nor does it seek to produce additional supporting materials,
CONSIDERING that there is good cause to extend the time limit in view of the fact that the supporting materials were received by the Defence on 4 July 2005, three days prior to the deadline for filing of a response to the Motion to Amend the Indictment, and that, as a matter of principle, an accused must have adequate opportunity to review the supporting materials when faced with an application to amend an indictment against him,
CONSIDERING that a period of 7 days, after receipt of the supporting materials, is sufficient time for the Defence to review the materials and file a response to the Motion to Amend the Indictment,
(2) Marijacic’s Application
NOTING that Marijacic’s Application specifically requests the Trial Chamber to "A. Issue an Order directing Mr. Marijacic as to whether and by what date he need file a Reply in support of his Motion to Dismiss and whether in that Reply he need address matters concerning the proposed Amended Indictment raised in the Prosecution’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; B. Issue an Order explaining whether Mr. Marijacic need file a Response to the Motion to Amend the Indictment, and by what date; C. Issue an Order explaining whether Mr. Marijacic need file a Response in the Motion for Extension of Time, and by what date; D. Such other and further relief as this Honourable Trial Chamber deems appropriate,"3
NOTING the "Decision on Prosecution Motion for Extension of Time" issued on 28 June 2005, in which the Prosecution’s application of 27 June 2005 was denied,
CONSIDERING that it is for the party to determine whether to file a response, or to request leave to file a reply, and what it wishes to address in the filing,
CONSIDERING that, in light of the date of disclosure of the supporting materials, it would be appropriate for the Defence of Ivica Marijacic to be allowed the same extension of time as the Defence of Markica Rebic,
PURSUANT TO Rules 54, 65 ter,126 bis and 127 of the Rules,
HEREBY GRANT Rebic’s Application in part, DENY Marijacic’s Application, and ORDER the Defence of Markica Rebic and the Defence of Ivica Marijacic to file the response to the Motion to Amend the Indictment, if any, no later than Monday, 11 July 2005.
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
__________________________
O-Gon Kwon
Pre-Trial Judge
Dated this eighth day of July 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]