Case No. IT-98-34-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
18 August 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

MLADEN NALETILIC, aka ďTUTAĒ
VINKO MARTINOVIC, aka ďSTELA"

________________________________________

DECISION ON MARTINOVICíS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING THE RESPONDENTíS BRIEF AND ON NALETILIC MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR FILING RULE 115 MOTION, APPEALS BRIEF, AND RESPONSE TO PROSECUTORíS APPEAL BRIEF

________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Christopher Staker

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Matthew Hennessy and Mr. Christopher Meek for Mladen Naletilic
Mr. Zelimir Par for Vinko Martinovic

 

I, FAUSTO POCAR, 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 SEIZED of the "Request for Extension of Time-Limit for Filing the Respondentís Brief" filed on 23 July 2003 by Counsel for Vinko Martinovic ("Martinovic Motion") and the "Naletilic Motion for Enlargement of Time for Filing Rule 115 Motion, Appeal Brief, and Response to Prosecutorís Appeal Brief", filed on 30 July 2003 by Counsel for Mladen Naletilic ("Naletilic Motion");

NOTING the "Decision on Motion for Extension of Time", filed on 12 June 2003, whereby Vinko Martinovic was in part granted an extension of time and ordered to file any Rule 115 motion by 1 August 2003, and his appellantís brief by 29 August 2003 ("First Decision");

NOTING the "Decision on Mladen Naletilicís Motions for Extension of Time", filed on 25 June 2003; whereby Naletilic was granted an extension of time and ordering him to file his appellantís brief by 15 September 2003, and his Rule 115 motion, if any, by 15 August 2003 ("Second Decision");

NOTING that the Prosecution filed its Appellantís Brief on 14 July 2003;

NOTING that pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") the respondentís brief shall be filed within forty days of the filing of the appellantís brief, meaning that the respondent briefs by Naletilic and Martinovic are due on 23 August 2003;

CONSIDERING that in the Martinovic Motion, Martinovic requests that the forty days prescribed in Rule 112 of the Rules commence on 29 August 2003, the day he files the appellantís brief, which would mean that Martinovicís response to the Prosecutionís appeal brief would be due on 8 October 2003;

CONSIDERING that the primary reasons proffered in the Martinovic Motion is that Counsel for Martinovic is not in the position to work simultaneously on its own appellantís brief and on the respondentís brief to the Prosecutionís appeal brief, especially as the issue of co-counsel is not resolved;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Martinovic Motion for Extension of Time," filed 30 July 2003, the Prosecution submits that the Martinovic Motion should be denied as, inter alia, the Prosecutionís Appeal Brief is not particularly complex;

CONSIDERING that in the Naletilic Motion, Naletilic requests a sixty-days enlargement of time to file his Rule 115 motion by 15 October 2003 and his appeal brief by 15 November 2003 as well as an enlargement of time to file his response to the Prosecutorís Appeal Brief thirty days after the enlarged deadline for his appeal brief, making his response due 16 December 2003;

CONSIDERING that the primary reasons proffered in the Naletilic Motion are that lead Counsel for Naletilic was not assigned until 23 July 2003 and that the record is extensive including 18,000 pages of transcript and approximately 2,800 exhibits and that co-counsels efforts to make the necessary contacts with the appropriate agencies in Sarajevo and Mostar were frustrated due to the fact that the end of July and August is the regional time for vacation;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to ĎNaletilicís Motion for Enlargement of Time for Filing Rule 115 Motion, Appeal Brief and Response to Prosecutorís Appeal Briefí" filed on 7 August 2003, whereby the Prosecution submits that the Naletilic Motion should be denied as, inter alia, "the process of changing lead counsel, and the fact that counsel for the Appellant was in the process of changing lead counsel, and the fact that the Appellant were searching for Rule 115 material, were circumstances that were made known to the Pre-Appeal judge in the Appellantís previous motion for extension of time";

CONSIDERING that in the Second Decision when determining the time-frame for the filing of a Rule 115 motion and the appellantís brief consideration was given to the fact that Naletilic had been assigned a new lead Counsel on 23 July 2003;

CONSIDERING that the fact that end July and August is the regional time for vacation cannot be considered "good cause" in the meaning of Rule 127 of the Rules;

FINDING that a replacement of Counsel for Naletilic and the fact that co-counsel for Martinovic is not yet replaced constitute "good cause" pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules in the present case;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

ORDER that the filing of the response by Martinovic and of the response by Naletilic to the Prosecutionís Appeal Brief is extended until 26 September 2003, and

DENY the request in the Naletilic Motion for an extension of time to file a 115 motion and the appellantís brief.

 

Dated this eighteenth day of August 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

_____________
Fausto Pocar
PreĖAppeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]