Case No. IT-95-9-T

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Judgement of:
2 October 2002

Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio
Mr. Philip Weiner
Mr. David Re

Mr. Igor Pantelic and Mr. Srdjan Vukovic for Blagoje Simic
Mr. Novak Lukic and Mr. Dragan Krgovic for Miroslav Tadic
Mr. Borislav Pisarevic and Mr. Aleksandar Lazarevic for Simo Zaric

THIS 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 "Motion Pursuant to Rule 127(A)(ii) to file Public Redacted Version of the Prosecutor’s Response to the Accused’s Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis AND Corrigendum to the Confidential Prosecutor’s Response to the Motions for Judgement of Acquittal made by the Accused Pursuant to Rule 98bis and filed on the 27^th September 2002" ("Prosecution Motion") filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 30 September 2002,

NOTING the "Defendant Blagoje Simic’s Motion for Judgement of Acquittal" filed on 13 September 2002, the "Motion for Judgement of Acquittal of the Accused Miroslav Tadic" filed confidentially on 13 September 2002 and the "Motion for Judgement of Acquittal filed by the Accused Simo Zaric pursuant to Rule 98bis" filed confidentially on 13 September 2002 (collectively "Motions"),

NOTING the Motion Requesting Extension of Time to Respond to Accused’s Motions for Acquittal Under Rule 98bis and to Exceed Page Limits Permitted for the Prosecution Response" filed by the Prosecution on 16 September 2002, and the decision of this Trial Chamber dated 19 September 2002,

NOTING the "Motion for Directions in relation to the Prosecution’s Public Filing of its Response to the Defence Motions for Rule 98bis Acquittal" filed by the Prosecution on 23 September 2002, and the order of this Trial Chamber dated 24 September 2002 ("Order of 24 September 2002"),

NOTING that the Order of 24 September 2002 ordered the Prosecution to file (i) a public redacted version ("Public Redacted Response") and (ii) a confidential version ("Confidential Response") of its response to the Motions "by 27 September 2002",

NOTING the "Motion Requesting Extension of Time to file Public Redacted Version of Prosecution Response to Accused’s Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis" filed by the Prosecution on 26 September 2002 and the decision of this Trial Chamber dated 27 September 2002 ("Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Redacted Response"), denying the Prosecution’s request for and extension of time on the grounds that "good cause" was not shown by the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules"),

NOTING that the Prosecution submits in its Prosecution Motion, inter alia, that (i) "both the Accused and the Trial Chamber have had access to the full confidential version of the Response within the time frame ordered by the Trial Chamber" and (ii) "that the full confidential version of the Response was not completed until two hours before the Registry closed and given that the resources of the Prosecution could not accomplish the task of redacting the confidential version of the Response in that time",

NOTING that Rule 127 (A)(i) and (ii) of the Rules allows the Trial Chamber, on a showing of "good cause" to (i) "enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these Rules" and (ii) "recognize as validly done any act done after the expiration of a time so prescribed on such terms, if any, as is thought just and whether or not the time has already expired",

CONSIDERING that the determination of "good cause" with respect to an "extension of time" and that of recognising "as validly done any act done after the expiration of a time so prescribed", involve different considerations,

RECALLING that the Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Public Redacted Version wherein the Trial Chamber considered that the "Prosecution should proceed in a diligent manner to make good its representation to this Trial Chamber in the light of the previous extension of time already granted",

STATING THEREFORE that the submission in the Prosecution Motion, "that the full confidential version of the Response was not completed until two hours before the Registry closed and given that the resources of the Prosecution could not accomplish the task of redacting the confidential version of the Response in that time", should not be considered,

CONSIDERING HOWEVER that the submission in the Prosecution Motion that "both the Accused and the Trial Chamber have had access to the full confidential version of the Response within the time frame ordered by the Trial Chamber" constitutes "good cause" for the purpose of Rule 127(A)(ii) of the Rules as the accused persons will not be prejudiced by the failure to file the Public Redacted Response by 27 September 2002,

CONSIDERING ALSO that it is just and proper for a public record for the Confidential Response to be filed in the form of the Public Redacted Response,

PURSUANT TO Rule 127(A)(ii) of the Rules,

HEREBY ALLOWS the Prosecution Motion and RECOGNISES the Public Redacted Response as validly filed.

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

_____________________________
Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Presiding

Done this second day of October 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.