Case No. IT-95-13/1-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding Judge
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
28 November 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

MILE MRKSIC
MIROSLAV RADIC
VESELIN SLJIVANCANIN

_______________________________________

DECISION DENYING RADIC’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY

_______________________________________

 

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Jan Wubben
Mr. Mark J. McKeon

Counsel for the Accused Mile Mrksic:

Mr. Miroslav Vasic

Counsel for the Accused Miroslav Radic:

Mr. Borivoje Borovic
Ms. Mira Tapuskovic

Counsel for the Accused Veselin Sljivancanin:

Mr. Novak Lukic
Mr. Momcilo Bulatovic

 

TRIAL CHAMBER II ("Trial 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 ("Tribunal"):

BEING SEISED OF the "Request by the Accused Radic’s Defence to Trial Chamber to Grant Leave to File a Reply to Prosecution’s Consolidated Response to Motions by Accused Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin Alleging Defects in the Form of the Consolidated Amended Indictment filed 13.11.2003" ("Motion"), filed by counsel for the Accused Miroslav Radic ("Radic") on 20 November 2003;

NOTING that, in the Motion, Radic seeks leave to file a reply to the “Prosecution’s Consolidated Response to Motions by Accused Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Šljivancanin Alleging Defects in the Form of the Consolidated Amended Indictment" ("Prosecution’s Response") filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 13 November 2003, on the grounds that:

  1. the Prosecution has "incorrectly interpreted" some of Radic’s submissions on the proposed Consolidated Amended Indictment and

  2. a number of other submissions in the Prosecution’s Response require Radic’s additional comments;1

NOTING that the Trial Chamber’s Order for Filing Motions and Related Matters provides inter alia that "[a] party must seek, in writing, and be granted leave to file a reply or a supplement to a previous filing prior to the filing of such further responses";2

CONSIDERING that a reply would only be justified in order to address any new issues raised in the Prosecution’s Response;

CONSIDERING further that the Motion does not identify which are the new issues raised in the Prosecution’s Response that would necessitate a reply;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS

PURSUANT TO Rule 126 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

HEREBY DENIES the Motion.

 

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

Dated this twenty-eighth day of November 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

___________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Motion, paras. 2-3.
2. Prosecutor v Mile Mrksic and Miroslav Radic, Case IT-95-13/1-PT, Order for Filing of Motions and Related Matters, 13 June 2003; See also Prosecutor v Mile Mrksic, Case IT-95-13/1-PT, Order for Filing of Motions and Related Matters, 2 Sept 2002 and Prosecutor v Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Šljivancanin, Case IT-95-13/1-PT, Order for Filing of Motions and Related Matters, 28 Nov 2003.