Case No.: IT-01-48-PT

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Patrick Robinson, Presiding
Judge O-Gon Kwon
Judge Iain Bonomy

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
14 January 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

SEFER HALILOVIC

_____________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTIONíS SUPPLEMENTARY EXPLANATION TO ITS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

_____________________________________

Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Philip Weiner
Ms. Sureta Chana
Mr. David Re
Mr. Manoj Sachdeva

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Peter Morrissey
Mr. Guénaël Mettraux

 

THIS TRIAL 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 SEISED of "Prosecutionís Supplementary Explanation to Its Pre-Trial Brief" filed by the Prosecution on 22 December 2004 ("Supplementary Explanation"), in which the Prosecution attempted to "rearticulate its legal case theory in respect to Grabovica",

NOTING the "Response to Prosecution Supplementary Explanation and, in the Alternative, Motion for Violation of Statutory Rights" filed by the Defence of Sefer Halilovic on 5 January 2005 ("Response"), which urged the Chamber to reject the Supplementary Explanation on several grounds,

NOTING that in a Scheduling Order issued on 29 September 2004, the Pre-Trial Judge in these proceedings ordered the Prosecution and Defence, pursuant to Rule 65ter(E)(i) of the Rules, to file their final pre-trial briefs in this matter no later than 13 October 2004 and 1 November 2004, respectively, or to indicate by those dates that the pre-trial briefs, as previously filed, shall stand as their final pre-trial briefs,1

NOTING that on 13 October 2004, ten weeks before the submission of the Supplementary Explanation, the Prosecution filed "Prosecutorís Pre-Trial Brief Pursuant to Rule 65ter(E)(i)" in compliance with the Scheduling Order and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules"),2

NOTING that the Prosecution has repeatedly referred to the brief filed on 13 October 2004 as its "final pre-trial brief" in submissions to this Trial Chamber,3

CONSIDERING that since there is no provision in the Rules for filing a document that purports to explain a final pre-trial brief, the Trial Chamber considers that there is merit in the Defenceís submission that the Prosecutionís Supplementary Explanation is an attempt to amend its final pre-trial brief,

CONSIDERING that even if an expansive reading of Rule 65 ter(E)(i) allowed the Prosecution to amend a final pre-trial brief, under the theory that this revision produces a further final version of the pre-trial brief, Rule 65 ter(E) clearly states that the final version of the Prosecutorís pre-trial brief must be filed "not less than six weeks before the Pre-Trial Conference",

NOTING that given the scheduled start date for trial, the latest possible date for a Pre-Trial Conference is 24 January 2005,4 so the Supplementary Explanation was filed more than a week later than any final version of the Prosecutionís pre-trial brief could be submitted,

CONSIDERING that although Rule 127 authorises a Chamber to vary time limits set by the Rules, the party seeking such a variation must show good cause,

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution neither sought leave to file the Supplementary Explanation, nor showed good cause why the Chamber should accept its submission,

PURSUANT TO Rules 54 and 127 of the Rules,

HEREBY DENIES the Prosecution leave to file the Supplementary Explanation.

 

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

___________________________
Patrick Robinson
Presiding

Dated this fourteenth day of January 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, "Scheduling Order for Filing of Final Pre-Trial Briefs," 29 Septemeber 2004 ("Scheduling Order"); see also Halilovic, "Order on Defence Motion for Extension of Time," 11 October 2004, referring to the filing deadlines established in the Scheduling Order.
2. See Halilovic, "Order on Defence Motion re Prosecution Failure To Seek Leave From The Trial Chamber", 21 October 2004.
3. See, e.g., Halilovic, "Prosecutionís Reply to Defence Response Concerning Prosecution Amended Pre-Trial Brief", 3 November 2004, at paras. 3, 5, 9; Halilovic, "Prosecutionís Response to Defence Motion re Prosecution Failure to Seek Leave from Trial Chamber", 19 October 2004, at para. 2.
4. Halilovic, "Order on Defence Motion on Scheduling of Date for Trial", 9 December 2004, which fixed 24 January 2005 as the date for commencement of trial.