Case No. IT-98-29-A


Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Mr. Hans Holthius

16 July 2004







The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr Norman Farell
Mr Mathias Marcussen

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms Mara Pilipovic, Lead Counsel
Mr Stéphane Piletta-Zanin, Co-Counsel


I, JUDGE FLORENCE NDEPELE MWACHANDE MUMBA, a Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal 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 "Order Assigning Judges to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber and Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge", filed on 18 December 2003, which inter alia, designates me as the Pre-Appeal Judge in this case;

NOTING the "Defence’s Request for Leave to Exceed Page Limit in Defence’s Appellant’s Brief" filed on 10 May 2004 by counsel for Stanislav Galic (respectively "Motion" and "Appellant"), in which the Appellant essentially argues that the length of the Trial Judgement, the attached separate opinion of Judge Nieto-Navia, and the fact that he intents to challenge every factual finding in the Trial Judgement justify the requested extension ;

NOTING the "Decision on Defence’s Request for Leave to Exceed Page Limit in Defence’s Appellant’s Brief" rendered on 19 May 2004, ("Decision of 19 May 2004"), in which the Appeals Chamber denied the Motion on the ground that the circumstances in the present case as submitted by the Appellant did not amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions ("Practice Direction) in light of the case-law of the Tribunal;1

BEING SEISED OF the Defence "Request for Reconsideration" dated 6 July 2004, in which the Appellant asks the Appeals Chamber to reconsider its Decision of 19 May 2004 and to allow the Defence 200 pages to formalise its Appellant’s brief and makes inter alia the following observations not previously contained in the Motion:

  1. a new fact, which the Appeals Chamber was not aware of when it rendered its Decision of 19 May 2004, has arisen in that, in view of the complexity of the case which involves new questions of law, "the administration of the Tribunal decided on 30 June 2004 to reclassify the case of The Prosecutor v. Galic;"2
  2. several factors justify specific developments in the Appellant’s Brief including inter alia, the alleged contradiction between the testimony of witnesses and expert witnesses requiring comparison with the table of shots fired; the marked differences between the two versions of the transcripts of the testimony given in BCS by one particular witness; the need to discuss not only the particular sniping and shelling incidents retained by the Trial Chamber but also the "non listed incidents" in order to properly challenge the existence of a campaign and the systematic nature of the incidents;3
  3. even if the limit applying to number of pages is officially the same for both official languages, English is written more concisely than in French as demonstrated by the respective versions of the Trial Judgement in the present case;4

NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to the Defence’s Request for Reconsideration" (Prosecution’s response"), filed on 13 July 2004, which opposes the Request for Reconsideration on the grounds inter alia that it does not meet the standard set out by the jurisprudence of the Tribunal for such a request and in particular that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the administrative re-classification of the case amounts to a new fact ;

NOTING that paragraph (C) 1 (a) of the Practice Direction provides that "[t]he brief of an appellant on appeal from a final judgement of a Trial Chamber will not exceed 100 pages or 30,000 words, whichever is greater";

NOTING that paragraph (C) 7 of the Practice Direction states that a party seeking authorisation to exceed the prescribed page limits "must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversize filing";

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has an inherent power to reconsider its own decisions and that for the Appellant to succeed in its Request for reconsideration, he must satisfy the Appeals Chamber of the existence of a clear error of reasoning in the Decision, or of particular circumstances justifying its reconsideration in order to avoid injustice;5

CONSIDERING that such particular circumstances include new facts or new arguments;6

CONSIDERING that the Appellant has not demonstrated how the fact that the administration of the Tribunal granted additional time and funds to the Defence constitutes a new fact justifying a reconsideration of the Decision of 19 May 2004;

CONSIDERING that the other arguments contained in the Request for Reconsideration were known to the Appellant and could have been included in his Motion, in order to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessitating the oversize filing;

CONSIDERING however, that disregarding these newly raised arguments might lead to an injustice and that, in the circumstances of this case, the arguments referred above amount to exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of page limits by 45 pages;


ALLOWS the Motion for Reconsideration in part;

GRANTS leave to exceed the page limits by 45 pages; and

ORDERS the Appellant to file his Appellant’s Brief of no more than 145 pages by 19 July 2004.


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

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

Dated this sixteenth day of July 2004
At the Hague,
The Netherlands.

1. IT/184/Rev.1, 5 March 2002.
2. Request for Reconsideration, paras. 4-5 and 20.
3. Ibid, Paras. 10-18.
4. Ibid, para. 19.
5. The Prosecution v/ Zdravko Mucic et al, case number IT-96-21Abis, Appeals Judgment on Sentence, 8 April 2003, para. 49. See also Eliezer Nyitegeka v/ The Proescutor, case number ICTR-96-14-A. 19 December 2003, "Decision on Defence Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Decision Dated 16 December 2003", page 4.
6. See, The Prosecution v/ Laurent Semanza, case number ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Chamber III, Decision on Defence Motion to Reconsider Decision