Case No. IT-98-34-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Pre-Appeal Judge

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
3 October 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

MLADEN NALETILIC, aka "TUTA"
VINKO MARTINOVIC, aka "STELA"

_____________________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTIONíS URGENT MOTION REGARDING DEFECTS IN MLADEN NALETILICíS BRIEF ON APPEAL OF 15 SEPTEMBER 2003

_____________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Christopher Staker

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Matt Hennessy and Mr. Christopher Y. Meek for Mladen Naletilic
Mr. Zelimir Par and Mr. Kurt Kerns for Vinko Martinovic

 

I, FAUSTO POCAR, Pre-Appeal Judge in this case,

BEING SEIZED OF the "Prosecutionís Urgent Motion Regarding Defects in Mladen Naletilicís Brief on Appeal of 15 September 2003" filed confidentially on 25 September 2003 ("Motion");

NOTING that the Prosecution submits that "Mladen Naletilicís Brief on Appeal" filed on 15 September 2003 ("Brief") does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 4 of Practice Direction IT/201, in particular, subparagraphs (b)(i) and (b)(ii), and sets out in four annexes numerous examples of alleged breaches of the Practice Direction;

NOTING that the Prosecution requests that the Appellant be ordered to re-file his Brief within four days of this decision, and to include "accurate, clear and precise references for all the assertions and statements in his Appellantís Brief which lack clear and precise references" and to provide "accurate, clear and precise references for all other unreferenced statements";

NOTING "Mladen Naletilicís Response to the Prosecutionís Urgent Motion Regarding Defects in Brief on Appeal of 15 September 2003" filed on 29 September 2003, in which the Appellant states inter alia that the Brief is in substantial compliance with the Practice Direction, that "greater stress would be placed on the Appellantís resources if the brief is to be supplemented, than on the Prosecutionís if it is not", and that he would not oppose an extension of time for the Prosecution to file a response to his brief;

CONSIDERING that there are many instances in the Brief where references are either missing or imprecise;

CONSIDERING that the Brief only complies in part with the requirements set out in Practice Direction IT/201;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

GRANT in part the Motion; ORDER the Appellant to comply with Practice Direction IT/201 by including in his Brief those references which are missing and by rectifying those which are imprecise; FURTHER ORDER the Appellant to re-file his Brief no later than Friday, 10 October 2003; and ORDER the Prosecution to file its response to the Brief no later than Thursday, 30 October 2003.

 

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

Dated this 3rd day of October 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

_____________
Fausto Pocar
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]