Case No.: IT-96-23 & 23/1-A

I, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, 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 ("the Appeals Chamber") and Pre-Appeal Judge in this matter,

BEING SEIZED of the "Prosecution’s Request for Clarification", filed confidentially by the Prosecution on 26 September 2001 ("the Clarification Request"), in which the Prosecution seeks clarification of the "Decision on Prosecution Request for Extension of Time, Notice of Filing Respondent’s Briefs over 100 pages and, if necessary Motion to Exceed page limit on Prosecution’s Response Briefs" dated 3 September 2001 ("Decision");

NOTING that the Clarification Request (i) seeks clarification that the Prosecution’s Consolidated Respondent’s Brief is applicable not only to Kunarac and Kovac, but also to Vukovic; and (ii) and states "that if the lack of response of the Appellant Vukovic is due to a mistaken view that the Consolidated Response Brief of the Respondent does not apply to him, time be allowed to him to respond to the same";

NOTING that the Decision related to the "Prosecution Request for Extension of Time, Notice of Filing Respondent Briefs over 100 Pages and, if Necessary Motion to Exceed Page Limit of Prosecution’s Response Briefs" ("original Request");

NOTING that the original Request, which was filed on Friday 10 August 2001, sought inter alia an extension of time for filing a response to the Appellant Vukovic’s Appellant’s Brief, the time for filing the response being due to expire on Monday 13 August 2001, that is to say, on the working day next after the day on which the original Request was made;

NOTING that, in paragraph 6 of the Clarification Request, the Prosecution correctly described its original Request as "belated", and then expressed itself as "recognising that a ruling from the Appeals Chamber was not forthcoming before the stipulated date of filing, that is 13 August 2001"; and noting that, in practice, such a ruling could not be made before the stipulated date of filing unless it was made on the day on which the extension was requested, the latter day being the last working day before the former, as mentioned above;

NOTING that on 13 August 2001 the Prosecution filed confidentially its Respondent’s brief separately relating to the Appellant Vukovic, and that it filed confidentially a Consolidated Respondent’s Brief on 15 August 2001 relating in part to that Appellant and otherwise to the two other Appellants and not only to the last two as incorrectly stated in the Decision;

NOTING that on 28 August 2001 the Appellant Vukovic filed his reply to the Prosecutor’s Respondent’s Brief separately relating to him, but that he has not replied to relevant parts of the Prosecutor’s Consolidated Respondent’s Brief;

CONSIDERING that, in general, it is inconvenient for a party to see the case relating to him presented by another party at the same stage partly in one brief and partly in another;

CONSIDERING, however, that it is desirable that a total view of the matter is available to the Appeals Chamber, and that the Appellant Vukovic (like the other Appellants) has not responded to the Clarification Request;

HEREBY ORDER as follows:

1. the Prosecution’s Consolidated Respondent’s Brief is deemed and accepted as having been validly filed on 15 August 2001 in respect of all three Appellants with the authorisation of the Appeals Chamber;

2. the Appellant Vukovic is given leave to reply within 15 days of the filing of this order to those parts of the Prosecution’s Consolidated Respondent’s Brief which concern him;

3. the Decision is varied to give effect to the above.

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

_____________________________
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Pre-Appeal Judge

Dated this 11th day of October 2001
At The Hague
The Netherlands