Case No. IT-02-60/1-A

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Mehmet Güney

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision:
3 February 2005

Momir NIKOLIC

v.

THE PROSECUTOR

_______________________________________

DECISION ON PROSECUTION MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PAGES

_______________________________________

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms. Virginia C. Lindsay  

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

 

I, MEHMET GÜNEY, 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 SEISED OF the "Prosecution Motion for Extension of Pages" filed on 2 February 2005 ("Motion"), whereby the Prosecution requests an extension of 15-20 pages in addition to the page limit set out in paragraph (C)(5) of the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions1 ("Practice Direction") for the filing of its response to the Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence;2

NOTING that, in support of its Motion, the Prosecution submits the following:

  1. the Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence, which, including annexes, is over 250 pages, presents an extensive package of material requiring review;

  2. the Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence raises a number of complex legal issues to which a response may be necessary, including, inter alia, the Appellant’s challenge of the guilty plea as part of his sentence appeal, the numerous allegations regarding the conduct of the Prosecution and Defence Counsel, and the request for admission of additional evidence on a new basis;3

NOTING paragraph (C)(5) of the Practice Direction which provides that motions, replies and responses before a Chamber will not exceed 10 pages or 3,000 words, whichever is greater;

CONSIDERING that paragraph (C)(7) of the Practice Direction states that a party seeking authorisation to exceed the prescribed page limits "must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversized filing";

FINDING that, in the circumstances of the case, the requirements of paragraph (C)(7) of the Practice Direction have been met and that the variation sought is warranted;

HEREBY,

GRANT the Motion.

 

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

Done this 3rd day of February 2005,
At The Hague, The Netherlands.

______________________
Mehmet Güney
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. IT/184/Rev. 1, 5 March 2002.
2. Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence, filed 23 December 2004. See also Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Extension of Time, issued 11 January 2005.
3. Motion, para. 4.