Vukovar Hospital, Prosecutor v. Mrksic et al., Decision Denying Mrksic's Request for Leave to File a Reply, IT-95-13/1 (ICTY TC, Nov. 21, 2003)

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:
21 November 2003

PROSECUTOR

MILE MRKSIC
MIROSLAV RADIC
VESELIN SLJIVANCANIN

___________________________________

DECISION DENYING MRKSIC’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 “Defense Request to File a Reply to Prosecution’s Response to Motions by Accused Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin Alleging Defects in the Form of the Consolidated Amended Indictment dated 13 November 2003” (“Motion”), filed by counsel for the Accused Mile Mrksic (“Mrksic”) on 17 November 2003;

NOTING that, in the Motion, Mrksic seeks leave to file a reply to the “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” ("Prosecution’s Response") filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 13 November 2003, on the basis that the Prosecution has raised "a number of important issues" which require his comment in writing;¹

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-first day of November 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

_________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Motion, paras. 2-3.

Home | Terms & Conditions | About