Case No.: IT-02-60/1-A
BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE
Before:
Judge Mehmet Güney
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision:
11 January 2005
Momir NIKOLIC
v.
PROSECUTOR
_____________________________________
DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
_____________________________________
Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Virginia C. Lindsay
Counsel for the Prosecutor:
Mr. Norman Farrell
I, Mehmet Güney, Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal 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") and Pre-Appeal Judge in this case,
NOTING the "Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Notice of Appeal" and the confidential "Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" filed by Momir Nikolic ("Appellant") on 23 December 2004 (respectively, "Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal" and "Second Motion for Additional Evidence");
BEING SEISED OF the "Motion for Extension of Time for Prosecution Responses to Second Additional Evidence Motion and Second Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Appeal" filed by the Prosecution on 29 December 2004 ("Motion for Extension of Time"), whereby the Prosecution requests leave to file its responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence no later than Monday, 7 February 2005;
NOTING that the Prosecution submits, inter alia, that:
NOTING that the Appellant did not file a response;
NOTING that under paragraph 11, Section IV, of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal1 ("Practice Direction"), a response to a motion filed during appeals from judgement is due within ten days of the filing of the motion;
NOTING that Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal provides that "on good cause being shown by motion" the Appeals Chamber may "enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these Rules", and that paragraph 16, Section VII, of the Practice Direction provides that the Appeals Chamber "may vary any time-limit prescribed under this practice direction";
NOTING that the responses were due on 4 January 2005, but that the Motion for Extension of Time was filed before the expiration of the time-limit on 29 December 2004;
FINDING that the Prosecution has shown good cause to be granted the extension of time requested for the filing of its responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence;
CONSIDERING that the complexity of the issues at stake also requires an extension of time for filing the reply, if any;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time; and
ORDER the Prosecution to file the responses to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal and to the Second Motion for Additional Evidence no later than Monday, 7 February 2004;
ORDER the Appellant to file his reply to the Prosecution’s responses, if any, within fifteen days of the filing of the responses.
Done both in English and French, English text being authoritative
Done this day of 11 January 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.
______________________
Mehmet Güney
Pre-Appeal Judge
[Seal of the Tribunal]
Home | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.