Case No.: IT-98-29-A


Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, Pre-Appeal Judge

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
21 July 2004







Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for Stanislav Galic:

Mr. Stéphane Piletta-Zanin
Ms. Mara Pilipovic



NOTING the Judgement and Opinion rendered by the Trial 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 ("Tribunal") in this case on 5 December 2003;

NOTING the "Defence Motion to Present Before the Appeals Chamber Additional Evidences", filed on behalf of the Appellant Mr. Stanislav Galic on 18 June 2004 pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rule 115 Motion" and "Rules");

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Defence Motion to Present Additional Evidence Dated 18 June 2004", filed on 12 July 2004 ("Rule 115 Response"), containing a motion for an extension of page numbers;

NOTING the Decision on Prosecutionís Request for an extension of page limit, filed on 21 July 2004, by which the Appeals Chamber inter alia granted the extension of page limit sought in the Rule 115 Response;

BEING SEIZED OF the "Defenceís Request for the Approval for Replay (sic) under Rule 126 bis", filed on 19 July 2004 ("Motion"), in which, would the Appeals Chamber grant the extension of page limit sought in the Rule 115 Response, the Appellant inter alia seeks leave to file a reply to that response:

  1. within the limit of seven days following the Decision of the Appeals Chamber, pursuant to Rule 126 bis of the Rules; and

  2. of the same length as the Rule 115 Response;

NOTING the Prosecution Response to Defenceís Request for leave to Reply Dated 19 July 2004, filed on 20 July 2004, by which inter alia the Prosecution submits that it will not object, should the Appellant wish to file a motion for an extension of time to file a reply, but that it objects "to the Appellantís blanket assertion that he should, per se, be granted the same number of pages for his reply as given to the Prosecution for its Rule 115 Response";

NOTING the "Defence Replay (sic) to the Prosecutionís Response under Rule 126 bis", filed by the Appellant on 20 July 2004 ("Rule 115 Reply"), whose length is 10 pages;

NOTING that, paragraph 10 of the "Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submission in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal" ("Practice Direction"),1 relating to motions filed during appeals from Judgement, provides that the moving party may file a reply within four days of the filing of the response and does not require leave to do so;

NOTING FURTHER that paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction provides that 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;

CONSIDERING that with respect to part (1) of the Motion, it must be read in light of the filing of the Rule 115 Reply as a request to consider the latter as having been validly filed;

CONSIDERING that the filing of the Rule 115 Reply, four days after the expiration of the time prescribed by the Practice Direction did not unduly delay the proceedings and that it is in the interest of justice to recognize it as validly filed;

CONSIDERING that with respect to part (2) of the Motion, it has become moot since the Appellant filed a Rule 115 Reply of 10 pages in compliance with paragraph 5 of the "Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions";2

HEREBY RECOGNIZE the Motion as validly filed,

GRANT the Motion in part and RECOGNIZE the Rule 115 Reply as having been validly filed.


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

Done this 21st day of July 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. IT/155/Rev, 07 March 2002.
2. IT/184/Rev.1, 05 March 2002.