Case: IT-97-24-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Theodor Meron, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
10 February 2004

THE PROSECUTOR

v.

MILOMIR STAKIC

_____________________________________________

DECISION ON MILOMIR STAKIC’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING OF COPIES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO HIS MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 115

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Branko D. Lukic
Mr. John R. Ostojic

I, THEODOR MERON, President 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"),

BEING SEISED OF “Milomir Stakic’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing of Copies of Documentary Evidence Attached to His Motion for Admission of Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115," filed on 6 February 2004 (“Motion”), which seeks an enlargement of time in which to file English translations of the B/C/S-language documents included in Annex 2 of Milomir Stakic’s motion under Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal, filed on 3 February 2004 ("Rule 115 Motion filed on 3 February 2004");

NOTING the "Order Assigning Judges to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber and Appointing Pre-Appeal Judge" filed on 14 August 2003 which, inter alia, designated me to serve as Pre-Appeal Judge in this case;

CONSIDERING that pursuant to Rule 127(A)(i) and (B) of the Rules, the time limit for any step to be taken in connection with an appeal may be enlarged on good cause being shown by motion;

CONSIDERING that the Motion states that counsel for Milomir Stakic (“Appellant”) submitted the documents in Annex 2 for translation and was informed that the translations would be completed in two months;

FINDING that good cause has been shown for granting the enlargement sought;

CONSIDERING that the Motion also seeks "additional time to prepare a supplement to ₣Appellant’sğ Rule 115 Motion" in order to seek admission of further evidence that, the Motion claims, could not have been submitted with the Rule 115 Motion filed on 3 February 2004;

CONSIDERING that, under Rule 115, motions for admission of additional evidence on appeal are due seventy-five days after the date of the Trial Chamber’s judgement, "unless good cause is shown for further delay";

CONSIDERING that any supplemental evidence not addressed in the Rule 115 Motion filed on 3 February 2004 should be the subject of a separate motion under Rule 115, which motion should additionally demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing;

CONSIDERING that it would be premature to determine whether good cause was shown for a delay in filing any subsequent Rule 115 motion until such a motion is actually filed;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

HEREBY GRANT the Motion in part;

ORDER that the Appellant file the official English translations of the B/C/S documents in Annex 2 of the Rule 115 Motion filed on 3 February 2004 on or before (1) the seventh day following receipt of all of the translations by counsel for the Appellant or (2) 16 April 2004, whichever is earlier; and

DISMISS the request for an enlargement of time for the filing of additional Rule 115 material, without prejudice to renewal of the request upon filing of a subsequent motion under Rule 115.

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

Dated this 10^th day of February 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

___________
Theodor Meron
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]