Case No. IT-02-60-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Pre-Trial Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
27 March 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

VIDOJE BLAGOJEVIC
DRAGAN OBRENOVIC
DRAGAN JOKIC
MOMIR NIKOLIC

________________________________________

DECISION ON ACCUSED JOKIC’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A RESPONSE 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 “Dragan Jokic’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to “Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Statements and Prior Testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis and Incorporated Motion in limine to Admit Related Exhibits” and “Prosecution’s Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witness Statements under Rule 94 bis”,” filed 24 March 2003 (“Motion”), in which the Defence for Dragan Jokic (“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 “is unopposed to an extension of time to file these responses,”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

NOTING FURTHER that the Trial Chamber granted an additional extension of time for one defence team due to the specific circumstances of that defence team,5

RECALLING that in the Order for an Extension of Time, the Prosecution is required to file its reply to the defence responses to the Prosecutions Motions by 17 April 2003, and that this date is based on the Prosecution receiving the defence responses by 31 March 2003,6

NOTING that the Defence had already filed a motion for an extension of time in relation to the Prosecution Motions,7 in which it requested an extension of time of forty days from 14 February 2003, namely 26 March 2003 – a date which the Trial Chamber notes falls before the extension of time granted by the Trial Chamber in its Order for an Extension of Time, namely 31 March 2003,

NOTING FURTHER that the Defence withdrew the First Motion following receipt of the Order for an Extension of Time,8 stating therein that the request was “moot” and that the time-period specified by the Trial Chamber in that Order “more appropriately protects the rights of Mr. Jokic pursuant to Article 21 of the Statute of the Tribunal,”9

NOTING that in the Motion, the Defence submits that the extension of time is necessary, as, it further submits, one set of materials were sent by the Registry to lead counsel “by regular mail”, and did not arrive until the first week of March, and that a second set of materials was deposited in the defence locker in The Hague “however, no counsel for the Accused was present in the Hague to receive them,”10

CONSIDERING that the Registry does not have any record of materials being sent to the lead counsel in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the Trial Chamber accepts the Defence submission that the materials were received by the lead counsel in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first week of March,

RECALLING that in the First Motion, the Defence requested that “the Registry be ordered [by the Trial Chamber] to deliver to counsel for the defense the accompanying attachments and annexes to the [Prosecution Motions] by the Prosecution immediately, by placing the materials in the designated defence boxes at the Tribunal,”11

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber has been informed by the Registry that the materials in relation to the Prosecution Motion were deposited in the defence locker in The Hague upon the request of the Defence, and that the Defence team could have commenced review of the materials upon delivery of the materials by the Registry to the Defence locker, as requested, during the week of 24 February 2003,

NOTING that in the Motion, the Defence further submits that, in relation to the set of materials delivered to lead counsel, “the documents were not able to be translated in BSC ?sicg for review by lead counsel and Mr. Jokic,”12

CONSIDERING that much of the material in relation to the Prosecution Motions has been translated into BCS,13 and that the Trial Chamber therefore does not see an impediment to the lead counsel and Mr. Jokic having commenced their review of materials upon receipt of such materials,

FINDING therefore, that no good cause has been shown to warrant a further extension of time for the Defence to file its responses to the Prosecution Motions,

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

HEREBY DENY the Motion.

 

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

__________________
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg
Pre-Trial Judge

Dated this twenty-seventh 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 94 bis, dated 14 February 2003 and filed 17 February 2003.
3 - Motion, para. 7. Footnote 2 states “Mr. McCloskey [Senior Trial Attorney] stated that he had no objection to an extension of time during a telephone conversation with co-counsel on 20 March.”
4 - Order for Filings Related to 92 bis and 94 bis Motions, 20 February 2003 (“Order for an Extension of Time”).
5 - Decision on Accused Obrenovic’s Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Reply to Prosecution Rule 92 bis and Rule 94 bis Motions, 20 March 2003 (“Obrenovic Decision”).
6 - The Trial Chamber further recalls that in the Obrenovic Decision, it found that the Prosecution will not be “unduly burdened” to file its reply by 17 April 2003 if a one week extension were given to the Obrenovic defence team to file its response, based on the fact that the Prosecution would receive the responses from the other three defence teams by 31 March 2003.
7 - Dragan Jokic’s Motion for Extension of Time to File his Responses to Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis and Incorporated Motion in limine to Admit Related Exhibits and Prosecution’s Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witness Statements under Rule 94 bis, dated 22 February 2003 and filed 24 February 2003 (“First Motion”).
8 - Dragan Jokic’s Motion to Withdraw Motion for Extension of Time to File his Responses to Prosecution’s Motion for Extension of Time to File his Responses to Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Witness Statements and Prior Testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis and Incorporated Motion in limine to Admit Related Exhibits and Prosecution’s Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witness Statements under Rule 94 bis, dated 25 February 2003 and filed on 26 February 2003.
9 - First Motion, para. 1.
10 - Motion, para. 3.
11 - First Motion, para 6(3).
12 - Motion, para. 4.
13 - In relation to the 92 bis motion, the Trial Chamber notes that while the 92 bis (D) materials may not have previously been supplied to the Defence in BCS, the 92 bis (B) materials, which at this stage consist of materials also submitted pursuant to Rule 94 bis or to witness statements that should have been disclosed in BCS pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii), BCS copies of all materials should be in the possession of the Defence; the Trial Chamber has not been specifically informed by the Defence to the contrary.