Case: IT-98-29-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
7 February 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

Stanislav GALIC

______________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING OFFICIAL TRANSLATIONS OF DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE DEFENCE THIRD MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

______________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Accused:

Ms. Mara Pilipovic
Mr. Stéphane Pilleta-Zanin

I, FLORENCE NDEPELE MWACHANDE MUMBA, 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 ("Tribunal"),

NOTING the "Order Assigning Judges to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber and Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge", filed on 18 December 2003, which, inter alia, designates me to serve as Pre-Appeal Judge in this case;

BEING SEISED OF the "Prosecution Request for Extension of Time and for Order Requiring Official Translations of Documents Attached to Defence Additional Evidence Motion" ("Prosecution’s Request"), filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 26 January 2005, in which the Prosecution seeks:

1. an order that Stanislav Galic ("Appellant") obtain from the Conference and Language Services Section ("CLSS") of the Registry of the Tribunal official English translations of the documents attached to the "Defence Motion to Present Before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidence" ("Third Motion"), filed by the Appellant on 20 January 2005; and

2. a suspension of time limits for the filing of its response to the Third Motion until ten days after the Prosecution receives the aforementioned official English translations;¹

NOTING the "Defence Response on Prosecution Request for Extension of Time and for Order Requiring Official Translations of Documents Attached to the Defence Additional Evidence Motion" ("Appellant’s Response"), filed by the Appellant on 31 January 2005, in which the Appellant opposes the order and the extension of time sought by the Prosecution, on the basis that the Prosecution has not shown good cause because, inter alia:

1. pursuant to a decision of the Pre-Trial Judge, only the relevant parts of the documents need to be translated; and

2. the Prosecution is already aware of the content of the documents, having provided them to the Appellant pursuant to Rules 67 and 68 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal ("Rules");²

NOTING that the Third Motion seeks the admission on appeal of a total of 42 pages in the Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian language ("BCS"), consisting of 14 documents from the Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska and a newspaper excerpt, together with English transcripts from the trial of the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Case Number IT-02-54-T;

NOTING that paragraph 11 of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal, IT/155/Rev.1³ ("Practice Direction IT/155/Rev.1"), provides that where a motion has been filed by a party wishing to move the Appeals Chamber for a specific ruling or relief, "₣tğhe opposite party shall file a response within ten days of the filing of the motion";

NOTING that the Prosecution submits that it is unable to respond to the Third Motion within the ten day limit set out in Practice Direction IT/155/Rev.1 because the translations into English of the documents which the Appellant seeks to present as additional evidence are inaccurate and incomplete and, in addition, because there are a large number of documents that the Prosecution needs to review prior to filing a response;⁴

NOTING that the Appellant recognises that some of the documents in BCS which he seeks to present as additional evidence have only been translated into English in part, and submits that this accords with the decision of the Pre-Trial Judge and the practice followed at trial;⁵

NOTING that the "Order on Appellant’s Confidential Motion to Present Additional Evidence Before the Appeals Chamber Under Rule 115", issued on 2 February 2005, also dealt with the recurring problem of partial translation in this case and directed the Registry to provide the parties with full and official translations into English of the partially translated documents that the Appellant was seeking to present as additional evidence in a different motion;

CONSIDERING that documents and exhibits in motions applying to present additional evidence shall be translated into one of the working languages of the Tribunal;⁶

CONSIDERING that Rule 127 of the Rules, on variation of time-limits, provides in relevant part as follows:

1. […][A] Trial Chamber may, on good cause being shown by motion,

1. enlarge or reduce any time prescribed by or under these Rules;

2. recognise as validly done any act done after the expiration of a time so prescribed on such terms, if any, as is thought just and whether or not that time had already expired.
2. In relation to any step falling to be taken in connection with an appeal or application for leave to appeal, the Appeals Chamber or a bench of three Judges of that Chamber may exercise the like power as is conferred by paragraph (A) and in like manner and subject to the same conditions as are therein set out.

CONSIDERING the Prosecution’s argument that, since documents sought to be presented as additional evidence have not been fully translated, it cannot regard these documents as accurate or complete unless and until it is provided with official English translations;

CONSIDERING that this argument constitutes "good cause" within the meaning of Rule 127 of the Rules to extend the time for the filing of the Prosecution’s response to the Third Motion;(7)

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

1. GRANT the Prosecution’s Request and ORDER the Appellant:
1. to request from the Registry of the Tribunal official translations into English of all the documents in BCS attached to the Third Motion; and

2. to file the official English translations with the Registry as soon as they become available;

2. AND FURTHER ORDER the Prosecution to file its response to the Third Motion, no later than 10 days after the filing of the official English translations of the documents.

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

__________________________
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

Dated this 7^th day of February 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

[Seal of the Tribunal]