IN TRIAL CHAMBER II
Judge David Hunt, Pre-Trial Judge
Mr Hans Holthuis
20 June 2001
RADOSLAV BRDANIN & MOMIR TALIC
DECISION REFUSING LEAVE TO MOMIR TALIC TO FILE FURTHER RESPONSE
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Ms Joanna Korner
Mr Andrew Cayley
Mr Nicolas Koumjian
Ms Anna Richterova
Ms Ann Sutherland
Counsel for Accused:
Mr John Ackerman for Radoslav Brđanin
Maître Xavier de Roux and Maître Michel Pitron for Momir Talić
1. The accused Momir Talic ("Talic) has filed a document entitled "Response à la Réplique de l’Accusation Relative à l’Autorisation d’Amender le Nouvel Acte d’Accusation Modifie".1 This is said to be a response to the reply by the prosecution, 2 filed in accordance with the leave of the Trial Chamber in its Decision on Filing of Replies. 3 He did not seek leave to do so.
2. It has been made very clear on a number of occasions to the parties in this case that leave is required to file any document following the response to the motion – most recently just on three weeks ago, in the Decision on Replies – and that leave will only be granted where the preceding document filed raises an issue which goes beyond the issues raised by the document to which was a response.
3. The prosecution was granted leave to file the Prosecution Reply because Talic, in his objection to the amendment sought by the prosecution to the indictment, had raised new issues asserting that the amendment sought was itself defective in form. Talic was also permitted to raise a further objection to the form of the current indictment, notwithstanding that he was out of time. His response to the application by the prosecution to amend was treated as if it were, in effect, a preliminary motion as to the form of the indictment.
4. The Prosecution Reply did no more than deal with the objections which Talic had taken to the form of its proposed amendment and the further objection taken by Talic to the form of the current indictment. It raised no new issues. The Talic Further Response merely repeats, perhaps in greater detail, the objections which he had already taken. One of the reasons why leave is required to file further pleadings is to prevent parties merely repeating what has already been said.
5. Leave to file the Talic Further Response is refused.
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.
Dated this 20th day of June 2001,
At The Hague,
Judge David Hunt
[Seal of the Tribunal]
(1) 19 June 2001 ("Talic Further Response").
(2) Prosecution’s Reply to the Talic Response to the Prosecutor’s Request for Leave to Amend the Further Amended Indictment, 14 June 2001 ("Prosecution Reply").
(3) 7 June 2001 ("Decision on Replies").