Case No.: IT-95-14-A

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding Judge
Judge Florence Mumba
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg
Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca

THE APPEALS 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 ("International Tribunal"),

RECALLING the Scheduling Order of 31 October 2003 issued by the Appeals Chamber in the present proceedings, ordering the parties to file, if they so wish, a supplementary brief in the light of the admitted additional evidence and rebuttal material, by 1 December 2003;

NOTING that, on 21 November 2003, the Appellant applied to the Appeals Chamber for leave to file a supplementary brief of 35 pages (10,500 words) in reliance on provisions (C) (5) and (7) of the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions, IT/184 Rev.1 ("Practice Direction"), and that the Prosecution did not oppose the application;

NOTING that, on that occasion, the Pre-Appeal Judge granted the application on the ground that the circumstances in the present case may require an oversized filing;

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Page Limit for its Supplemental Filing pursuant to the Appeals Chamber’s Scheduling Order of 31 October 2003" filed by the Prosecution on 1 December 2003 ("Prosecution’s Request"), wherein the Prosecution sought leave to file a Supplemental Filing of 165 pages in length;

NOTING the "Decision on Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Page Limit for Its Supplemental Filing" issued on 4 December 2003 ("Decision of 4 December 2003") rejecting the Prosecution’s Request and instructing the Prosecution to file a supplementary brief of up to 50 pages;

NOTING that on 8 December 2003, the Prosecution filed confidentially the "Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing" which is 50 pages in length (excluding annexes) but consists of approximately 22,099 words ("Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing");

BEING SEISED OF the "Appellant’s Objection to Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing of 8 December 2003" filed by the Appellant on 12 December 2003 ("Appellant’s Objection"), whereby the Appellant formally objects to the Prosecution’s Supplemental Filing on the basis that it exceeds the permissible word limit of 15,000 words (the equivalent of 50 pages) as specified in the Appeals Chamber’s order "by at least 7,000 words, or approximately 21 pages"¹; submits that both parties must observe the same procedural requirements; and requests that the Prosecution’s Supplemental Re-filed Filing be stricken in its entirety;

NOTING that in the Appellant’s Objection, the Appellant states that he "does not object to the fact that the Prosecution’s pages average more than 300 words; [but that] in order for this to be permissible, the Prosecution must necessarily have submitted fewer pages in order to be in compliance with the Practice Direction [and that] the Prosecution failed to do so;"²

NOTING that provision I (B) of the Practice Direction sets out the typeface to be used and provides that “[a]n average page should contain fewer than 300 words";

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing does not adhere to this requirement and is more than 7,000 words in excess of the limit;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

HEREBY REJECTS the Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing in its entirety.

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

___________
Fausto Pocar
Presiding Judge

Dated this sixteenth day of December 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.