Case: IT-95-14/2-A


Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge

Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
29 May 2003





Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farrell

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr Mitko Naumovski, Mr Turner T Smith Jnr and Mr Stephen M Sayers for Dario Kordic
Mr Bozidar Kovacic and Mr Goran Mikulicic for Mario Cerkez


1. On 16 May 2003, Mario Cerkez (“Cerkez”) was granted an extension of pages of sixty pages and an extension of time until 2 June in which to file his reply to the prosecution response to his motion pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to file additional evidence on his appeal against conviction.1 Cerkez has now filed a motion seeking an additional extension of time and an additional extension of the page limit originally sought by him and granted in that Decision.2

2. In his Motion, Cerkez says that the original extensions sought by him were based upon a preliminary examination of the prosecution response and that, in the course of the preparation of his reply, those estimates have been shown to be erroneous.3 Counsel for Cerkez says that he misjudged the complexity of the response, and that he considers that he is under an obligation to provide the Appeals Chamber with as much assistance as he can.4 To enable him to supply this assistance and to address the factual issues and references to the Trial Chamber’s Judgment made in the response, he requests the Appeals Chamber to grant him a further extension of time of four days and an extension of pages so that his response may consist of 80 pages in all.5 He has satisfactorily demonstrated the inadequacy of his original estimates and the need for the additional time sought.6 The prosecution has indicated orally to the Appeals Chamber that it very appropriately does not object to the additional extensions sought by Cerkez.

3. I accept that Cerkez has shown good cause, and I agree with counsel for Cerkez that the proper way in which appellate proceedings should always be managed is to ensure that the Appeals Chamber is given all the assistance to which it is entitled. Usually, the time lost by giving an extension of time is more than compensated for by the greater speed with which a decision can be prepared when that assistance has been given. The view that time limits should normally be followed, rather than adopting a flexible approach being taken in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case, has the effect only of denying to the Appeals Chamber that assistance.7

4. I direct Cerkez to file his reply to the prosecution’s response to the Rule 115 motion on or before 6 June 2003, and I grant him an extension of pages so that that reply may consist of eighty pages in all.


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

Dated this 29th day of May 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

Judge David Hunt
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1 - Decision on Application by Cerkez for Leave to Reply and Other Relief, 16 May 2003, par 10.
2 - Mario Cerkez’s Additional Application for Additional Time for Filing the Reply to the Prosecution’s Response to the Motions to Admit Additional Evidence and for Additional Extension of the Page Limit of the Reply, 26 May 2003 (“Motion”), par 6.
3 - Motion, par 9.
4 - Ibid, par 9.
5 - Ibid, pars 13-15.
6 - Ibid, pars 11-12.
7 - A colloquialism often used by English speakers, to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face, may not translate easily, but it is very apt in relation to such a view.