Case No. IT-03-67-PT
IN TRIAL CHAMBER II
Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Jean Claude Antonetti
Judge Kevin Parker
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
13 May 2005
PROSECUTOR
v.
VOJISLAV SESELJ
_____________________________________________
DECISION ON ACCUSED’S SUBMISSION NO. 93
_____________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff
Mr. Ulrich Mussemeyer
Mr. Daniel Saxon
The Accused:
Mr. Vojislav Seselj
Standby counsel:
Mr. Tjarda Eduard van der Spoel
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 Submission No. 93, filed by Vojislav Seselj ("Accused") on 6 April 2005, wherein the Accused requests certification by the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") to appeal the Trial Chamber’s "Decision on the Accused’s Motion to Re-Examine the Decision to Assign Standby Counsel" of 1 March 2005, as amended by the "Corrigendum to Decision on the Accused’s Motion to Re-Examine the Decision to Assign Standby Counsel" of 11 March 2005 ("First Request");1 furthermore, the Accused requests certification pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules to appeal the Trial Chamber’s "Decision on Request for Order to the Registry" of 14 March 2005 ("Second Request");2 moreover, the Accused submits to "have a /illegible/ need to comment on the Prosecution’s response" to Submission No. 75 and that he "was deprived of this because Trial Chamber II regularly denied my requests to familiarise myself with all the cases tried by this Tribunal so far" ("Third Request");3
NOTING FURTHER the Accused’s submission that the Prosecution has "no right to respond" to his earlier request for certification to appeal a Trial Chamber’s decision4 pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules;5
CONSIDERING that the Accused does not put forward arguments supporting the First Request and Second Request; in addition, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the impugned decisions involve issues that would "significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings", as provided for Rule 73(B);
CONSIDERING that the submissions made under the Third Request lack comprehensibility, however, the Trial Chamber understands his submissions to mean that the Accused seeks leave to reply to the Prosecution’s response to his Submission no. 75, a request which is moot because the Trial Chamber on 21 April 2005 already rendered a decision on Submission no. 75;6
CONSIDERING that the submission by the Accused that the Prosecution has no right to respond to his is earlier request for certification for appeal pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules is ill-founded since both parties enjoy the right to respond;
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS
PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 73 of the Rules
HEREBY REJECTS the First Request, the Second Request and the Third Request.
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
Dated this thirteenth day of May 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands
______________________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge
[Seal of the Tribunal]
Home | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.