|
International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions |
||||
BEFORE THE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before:
Judge David Hunt, Presiding
Judge Fouad Riad
Judge Wang Tieya
Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia
Judge Mohamed Bennouna
Registrar:
Mrs Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh
Order of:
15 September 1999
PROSECUTOR
v
ZEJNIL DELALIC
ZDRAVKO MUCIC
HAZIM DELIC
ESAD LANDZO
_____________________________________________
ORDER ON PROSECUTION APPLICATION FOR SCHEDULING ORDER FOR APPELLATE MOTIONS
_____________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr Upawansa Yapa
Ms Brenda Hollis
Mr Christopher Staker
Mr Norman Farrell
Mr Rodney Dixon
Counsel for the Defence:
Mr John Ackerman, Counsel for Zejnil Delalic
Mr Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Mr Howard Morrison, Counsel for Zdravko Mucic
Mr Salih Karabdic and Mr Thomas Moran, Counsel for Hazim Delic
Ms Cynthia Sinatra and Mr Peter Murphy, Counsel for Esad Lando
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 ("International Tribunal");
BEING SEISED of the "Prosecution Application for Scheduling Order for Appellate Motions", filed on 13 August 1999 ("Application") in which the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") requests the Appeals Chamber to issue a scheduling order requiring that any further appeal motions in the present proceedings be filed by a specified date;
NOTING the "Response of Appellant, Esad Landzo, to Prosecutions Application for Scheduling Order for Appellate Motions and Hazim Delics Response to the Prosecution Application for Scheduling Order for Appellate Motions, filed on 20 August 1999 and 23 August 1999, respectively, opposing the Application;
NOTING Rule 73(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal, made applicable to the Appeals Chamber by Rule 107 of the Rules, which permits motions for appropriate rulings or relief to be filed at any time;
AND NOTING, by analogy, Rule 5 of the Rules (which requires the grant of relief in the event of non-compliance with the Rules where material prejudice would otherwise be caused to a party) and Rule 127 of the Rules (which permits a variation of time limits prescribed by the Rules on good cause being shown);
CONSIDERING that a Scheduling Order as sought by the Prosecution would, in the interests of justice, have to be expressed so as to exclude from its operation any motion where the circumstances to which it applied arose after the date specified in that order;
NOTING that only one group of motions filed by the appellants in the present appeal has not related to circumstances which had arisen within a reasonable time before they were filed;
AND CONSIDERING, therefore, that no good purpose would be served in making the order sought;
HEREBY DENIES the Application.
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
____________________
David Hunt
Presiding Judge
Dated this 15th day of September 1999,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.
[Seal of the Tribunal]
Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.