Decision on Prosecution Request for Extension of Time

25 March 2002
Judge Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge

Procedural Background

· On 8 March 2002, Radislav Krstic filed a Motion for Disclosure of ex parte Communications.

· On 22 March 2002, the Prosecution requested a variation of the time limit in which to respond to the Motion.

The Decision

Pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal1 (IT/155/Rev.1 of 7 March 20022), the pre-appeal Judge granted the extension of time and recognised the filing of the response on 22 March 2002 as valid.

The Reasoning

The pre-appeal Judge first noted that paragraph 11 of the Practice Direction3 "establishes a time limit for the filing of responses of ten days after the filing of the motion", that the recent amendments to the Practice Direction did not modify the time limit and that the Prosecution's response "should have been filed on 18 March 2002".

Judge Hunt reiterated that the Prosecution had explained the late filing of its response by its interpretation of the introduction of Rule 126 bis4 as the provision establishing the time period in which responses and replies must be filed. Pursuant to Rule 19(B)5, the Prosecution stated that it had interpreted "Rule 126 bis as overriding the obligation of the Practice Direction".

The pre-appeal Judge considered that the reference in Rule 126 bis to orders of a Chamber generally is intended to include Practice Directions and that the Prosecution had erred in its interpretation of the effect of the introduction of Rule 126 bis on the Practice Direction.

Judge Hunt reiterated however that paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction allows the Appeals Chamber to recognise as valid "any act done after the expiration of a time limit prescribed by the Practice Direction".

________________________________________
1."The provisions of this Practice Direction are without prejudice to any such orders or decisions that may be made by the Appeals Chamber or a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber. In particular, the Appeals Chamber or a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber may vary any time-limit prescribed under this Practice Direction or recognise as validly done any act done after the expiration of a time-limit so prescribed. The Appeals Chamber may at its discretion entertain oral motions brought in the course of appeals against Judgement.
2. Hereinafter the "Practice Direction", published in Judicial Supplement No. 31).
3. "The opposite party shall file a response within ten days of the filing of the motion. This response shall clearly state whether or not the motion is opposed and the grounds therefor."
4. "Unless otherwise ordered by a Chamber either generally or in the particular case, a response, if any, to a motion filed by a party shall be filed within fourteen days of the filing of the motion. A reply to the response, if any, shall be filed within seven days of the filing of the response, with the leave of the relevant Chamber."
5. "The President may from time to time, and in consultation with the Bureau, the Registrar and the Prosecutor, issue Practice Directions, consistent with the Statute and the Rules, addressing detailed aspects of the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal" (emphasis added).