Case No. IT-01-42-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before:
Judge Alphons Orie
Judge Amin El Mahdi
Judge Joaquín Martín Canivell

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
18^th September 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

PAVLE STRUGAR

_______________________________________

DECISION ON THE DEFENCE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO THE PROSECUTION’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF ALL TIME LIMITS

_______________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Susan Somers

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Goran Rodic
Mr. Vladimir Petrovic

TRIAL CHAMBER I (the "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 ("the Tribunal");

BEING SEISED of the "Defence Request for Leave to Reply to Prosecution’s Response to Defence Motion for Suspension of all Time Limits set in Order 25^th July 2003 and Protection of Basic Rights of the Accused", (the "Request"), filed on 26^th August 2003;

NOTING the Defence Motion for Suspension of all Time Limits set in the Order of 25^th July 2003 filed on 8^th August (the "Motion"); the Office of the Prosecutor’s (the "Prosecution") Response filed on 22^nd August 2003 (the "Response"); the Defence repeated Request for Leave to Suspend all Time Limits set in the Order of 25^th July which was filed on 29^th August 2003; and the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief filed on 28^th August;

NOTING the arguments of the Defence, in particular, that the Prosecution, in its Response, incorrectly interpreted issues relating to disclosure, Rule 68 & 70 matters and issues raised by the Defence in the Rule 65 ter conferences; that further, noting that Defence submits that the Prosecution interpreted judicial practice before the Tribunal incorrectly;

NOTING that a status conference is listed for hearing on 19^th September 2003;

NOTING that a Reply, if any, shall be filed within 7 days of a Response with leave of the Chambers in accordance with Rule 126 bis;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution’s pre-trial brief was filed after the Defence filed its Motion and therefore clarified some issues raised in the Motion;

CONSIDERING that the Defence filed additional arguments to its Motion on 8^th September 2003, in which it addressed issues raised in its original Motion including those relating to disclosure, and Rule 65 ter issues; that the Defence raised matters concerning the proposed second amended indictment and defence funds which are the subject of other Motions; and finally that the Defence raised issues arising under Rule 92 bis and the Trial Chamber considers that this issue should be dealt with at the forthcoming 65 ter meeting or at the Pre-Trial conference listed for hearing on 8^th October 2003;

PURSUANT TO Rules 126 bis Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Defence Request for leave to file a Reply is denied;
2. The Defence is granted leave to file its Additional Arguments to its Motion.

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

Dated this 18^th day of September 2003
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

____________
Judge Alphons Orie
Presiding

[Seal of the Tribunal]