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

BEFORE THE PRE-APPEAL JUDGE

Before:
Judge Mehmet Güney

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision:
8 March 2005

Momir NIKOLIC

v.

PROSECUTOR

__________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING OF REPLIES RELATING TO APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

__________________________________________

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr. Rock Tansey, Q.C.

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"),

NOTING the "Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Notice of Appeal" and the confidential "Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" filed by Momir Nikolic ("Appellant") on 23 December 2004 ("Appellant’s Motions");

NOTING my confidential Decision of 7 February 2005 authorizing the Prosecution to file its response to the Appellant’s Motions by 21 February 2005 and instructing the Appellant to file his reply to the Prosecution’s response, within twenty days of the filing of the Prosecution’s response, namely, by 14 March 2005;¹

BEING SEISED OF the "Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing of Replies Relating to Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Notice of Appeal" filed on 4 March 2005 by the Appellant ("Motion for Extension of Time"), whereby the Appellant seeks an extension of four weeks to file his replies to the Prosecution’s responses to the Appellant’s Motions;

NOTING that pursuant to Article 19(A)(i) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel, the Deputy Registrar withdrew the assignment of Ms. Virginia Lindsay and assigned Mr. Rock Tansey as lead counsel for the Appellant;²

NOTING that in support of his Motion for Extension of Time the Appellant submits, inter alia, that (i) Mr. Rock Tansey was not assigned to represent the Appellant until 16 February 2005³; (ii) the entire appellate record must be fully reviewed and analysed by his new counsel before he is able to "meaningfully consult with ₣the Appellantğ in relation to the issues presented in the two pending motions"⁴; (iii) the issues presented and the procedural history of the case are complex⁵; and (iv) prejudice will not result if the extension of time sought is granted⁶;

NOTING that pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal and paragraph 19, Section VIII, of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal⁷, the Appeals Chamber may vary any time-limit prescribed for the filing of written submissions;

NOTING that the Prosecution has indicated that it does not object to the Motion for Extension of Time;

CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice to allow newly appointed lead counsel to familiarize himself with the case;

FINDING that the Appellant has shown good cause for granting the extension of time sought;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time; and

ORDER the Appellant to file his replies to the "Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" and the "Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Notice of Appeal" filed confidentially on 21 February 2005, no later than Monday 11 April 2005.

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

Dated this eighth day of March 2005
At The Hague,The Netherlands.

______________________
Mehmet Güney
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the International Tribunal]