Case No. IT-98-29-A

Before:
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
28 July 2004

PROSECUTOR

v.

STANISLAV GALIC

______________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

______________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms. Mara Pilipovic and Mr. Stéphane Piletta-Zanin

I, FLORENCE NDEPELE MWACHANDE MUMBA, a Judge of 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");

BEING SIEZED OF a "Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time to File Respondent’s Brief" filed on 27 July 2004 by the Prosecution, in which it seeks an extension of two weeks to file its Respondent’s brief, until Monday 13 September 2004 ("Motion");

NOTING the Defence Appellant’s Brief filed on 19 July 2004;

NOTING that the Defence expressed its opposition to the Motion during the second status conference in this case held on 28 July 2004;

NOTING the oral decision taken by the Pre-Appeal Judge during the status conference;

CONSIDERING that, under Rule 112 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"), "SaC Respondent’s brief of argument and authorities shall be filed within forty days of the filing of the Appellant’s brief." In the present case, the Appellant’s brief would be due on or before 28 August 2004, however since it is a Saturday, the deadline is Monday 30 August 2004;

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Rule 127(B) of the Rules, the time-limit for a filing may be extended on "good cause" being shown;

CONSIDERING that "good cause" has not been shown by the Prosecution’s arguments that

1. the Appellant appealed almost every factual and legal finding in the Trial Judgement resulting in a very labour-intensive exercise for the Prosecution,
2. the Appellant was granted an extension of the page limit and filed a 145-pages long Appellant’s brief,
3. with fewer staff available during the recess, the Prosecution will meet a number of deadlines in other cases pending before the Appeals Chamber, and
4. the Prosecution is engaged in its disclosure obligation under Rule 68(B) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING HOWEVER that it is in the interests of justice that the parties file the best pleading possible to assist the Appeals Chamber and that in the present case, the Appeals Chamber would be assisted by the Prosecution’s response;

CONSIDERING that, in the present case, this constitutes "good cause" within the meaning of Rule 127 of the Rules;

CONSIDERING FURTHER that an extension of one week will not unduly delay the appeal proceedings,

HEREBY GRANT the Motion in part; and

ORDER that the Prosecution files its Respondent’s brief no later than Monday 6 September 2004.

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

Done this 28^th day of July 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

________________
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge