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:
18th September 2003

PROSECUTOR

v.

PAVLE STRUGAR

_______________________________________

DECISION ON THE DEFENCE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO THE PROSECUTIONíS 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 Prosecutionís Response to Defence Motion for Suspension of all Time Limits set in Order 25th July 2003 and Protection of Basic Rights of the Accused", (the "Request"), filed on 26th August 2003;

NOTING the Defence Motion for Suspension of all Time Limits set in the Order of 25th July 2003 filed on 8th August (the "Motion"); the Office of the Prosecutorís (the "Prosecution") Response filed on 22nd August 2003 (the "Response"); the Defence repeated Request for Leave to Suspend all Time Limits set in the Order of 25th July which was filed on 29th August 2003; and the Prosecutionís pre-trial brief filed on 28th 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 19th 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 Prosecutionís 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 8th 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 8th 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 18th day of September 2003
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

____________
Judge Alphons Orie
Presiding

[Seal of the Tribunal]