Case No.IT-98-29-A
Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Theodor Meron
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
14 July 2006
___________________________________________
DECISION ON DEFENCE MOTION REGARDING NEW EVIDENCE___________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Ms. Helen Brady
Ms. Michelle Jarvis
Ms. Shelagh McCall
Counsel for the Defence:
Ms. Mara Pilipovic
Mr. Stephane Piletta-Zanin
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
Dated this 14th day of July 2006,
__________________________
At The Hague, Judge Fausto Pocar,
The Netherlands. Presiding
[Seal of the Tribunal]
1 - Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal, 18 December 2003.
2 - Notice of Appeal, 4 May 2004.
3 - Defence Motion, p. 1.
4 - Ibid., p. 1.
5 - Ibid., pp. 1&2.
6 - Ibid., p. 2.
7 - Ibid.
8 - Ibid.
9 - Ibid.
10 - Rule 113 of the Rules states that an “appellant may file a brief in reply within fifteen days of the filing of the Respondent’s brief.” In this case, the Prosecution Response Brief was filed on 6 September 2004. Stanislav Galic’s Respondent’s Brief was filed on 2 April 2004.
11 - Defence Motion, p. 2.
12 - Ibid.
13 - Ibid.
14 - C.f. Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., Case No. IT-03-66-A, Decision on Extension of Time to File Response, 5 April 2006, para. 10 (“[I]n the first instance, accused should address concerns about legal aid-related matters to the Registry”).
15 - As mentioned in paragraph 3 supra, connected with the translation-related request is the statement that the Defence should be ordered to file a Rule 115 Motion within 10 days after “that” is “done”. In connection with this statement, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Defence does not need its permission to file a Rule 115 motion. If the Defence is requesting that the Appeals Chamber treat as timely any Rule 115 motion filed within 10 days of a certain event, the request is denied for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 supra.
16 - Scheduling Order for Appeal Hearing, 21 June 2006, p. 1 (scheduling the hearing of the Appeals in the present case for 29 August 2006).