Case No. IT-02-60-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Pre-Trial Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
20 March 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

VIDOJE BLAGOJEVIC
DRAGAN OBRENOVIC
DRAGAN JOKIC
MOMIR NIKOLIC

________________________________________

DECISION ON ACCUSED OBRENOVIC’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO REPLY TO PROSECUTION RULE 92 BIS AND RULE 94 BIS MOTIONS

________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Peter McCloskey

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Michael Karnavas and Ms. Suzana Tomanovic for Vidoje Blagojevic
Mr. David Wilson and Mr. Dusan Slijepcevic for Dragan Obrenovic
Mr. Miodrag Stojanovic and Ms. Cynthia Sinatra for Dragan Jokic
Mr. Veselin Londrovic and Mr. Stefan Kirsch for Momir Nikolic

 

I, WOLFGANG SCHOMBURG, a Judge 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"),

HAVING BEEN DESIGNATED pre-trial Judge in these proceedings,

BEING SEISED OF “Accused Obrenovic’s Motion for Extension of Time in which to Reply to Prosecution’s Rule 92 and Rule 94 Motions,” filed 7 March 2003 (“Motion”), in which the Defence for Dragan Obrenovic (“Defence”) seeks an extension of time of one week to file its responses to two motions filed by the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 92 bis1 and 94 bis2 (collectively, "Prosecution Motions"),

NOTING that the Prosecution did not file a response to the Motion, but that the Defence indicates in the Motion that the Prosecution “has authorized us to represent that [it] does not object to this request,”3

NOTING that the Trial Chamber has already granted an extension of time to all defence teams in this case to file responses to the Prosecution Motions,4

CONSIDERING however, that the Defence was not present in The Hague to receive the supporting materials to the Prosecution Motions, and that the supporting materials were therefore shipped to the Defence and were received approximately two weeks after the filing of the Prosecution Motions,

CONSIDERING that the Defence must be present in The Hague during the week of 24 March 2003 to attend a 65ter(D) meeting and a two-day Status Conference/Pre-Trial Conference, and that due to the volume of the supporting material, it is not possible for the Defence to transport the supporting materials to The Hague to work on during the week of 24 March 2003,

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution will receive the responses from the other three defence teams to the Prosecution Motions by 31 March 2003, and will not be unduly burdened to file its reply by the deadline ordered by the Trial Chamber of 17 April 2003, if the extension of time is granted to the Defence,

PURSUANT TO Rules 92 bis, 94 bis, 126 bis and 127

HEREBY GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS and the Defence to file its response to the Prosecutions Motions by 7 April 2003.

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

_____________________
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg
Pre-Trial Judge

Dated this twentieth day of March 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]
1. Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony Pursuant Testimony Pursuant to Rule 92 bis and Incorporated Motion In Limine to Admit Related Exhibits, dated 14 February 2003 and filed confidentially 18 February 2003.
2. Prosecution’s Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witness Statements under Rule 92 bis, dated 14 February 2003 and filed 17 February 2003.
3. Motion, para. 8.
4. Order for Filings Related to 92 bis and 94 bis Motions, 20 February 2003.