Case No. IT-98-29-A


Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Mr. Hans Holthuis

17 September 2004







The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel for Stanislav Galic:

Mr. Stéphane Piletta-Zanin
Ms. Mara Pilipovic


I, FLORENCE NDEPELE MWACHANDE MUMBA, a Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal 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;

BEING SEISED OF the "Defence Request to Increase the Page Limit and Extend the Time Limit" ("Motion") filed on 9 September 2004 by counsel for Stanislav Galic ("Defence"); in which the Defence seeks an extension of time for the filing of the Defence reply until 15 days after receipt of the Prosecution Response in French or after 30 days and authorization to exceed the page limit set out in the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions1 ("Practice Direction") to a maximum of 60 pages;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Defence Request for Leave to Exceed Page Limits For Reply and Extension of Time" filed on 13 September 2004 ("Prosecution's Response"), in which the Prosecution states that it does not oppose the request for authorization to exceed the page limit provided the Defence confines itself to those 60 pages and 18 000 words, but submits that an extension of time for the Defence to file its reply to the Prosecution's response may be unnecessary as there is no longer any need to consult fully about the nature and extent of the Appeal;

NOTING that paragraph (C)(1)(c) of the Practice Direction provides that a Reply Brief in an Appeal from a final judgement of a Chamber of the Tribunal must not exceed 30 pages or 9000 words;

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

NOTING that the Defence seeks an extension of the page limit arguing, inter alia, that the Prosecutionís Response was more than twice the page limit and the Defence would be at a disadvantage if it were limited to 30 pages or 9 000 words;

NOTING that the circumstances of the present matter have already been considered "exceptional" in the Decision dated 2 September 2004;

NOTING that the Prosecution in the Response does not oppose the extension of the page limit;

CONSIDERING that the circumstances in the present case amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of the Practice Direction and in light of the case law of this tribunal;

NOTING that the Defence seeks an extension of the time limit to file its reply to be calculated from the date of the Defenceís receipt of the French version of the Prosecutionís Response to this motion on the basis that it is of great significance to General Galicís entire defence;

NOTING that under Rule 113 of the Rues of Procedure and Evidence an Appellant may reply to a brief within fifteen days of the filing of the Respondentís brief;

NOTING the Decision2 dated 22 December 2003 in which this Chamber held that since "Counsel has chosen French as its working language in the proceedings before the Tribunal and that it is in the interests of justice to allow Counsel to receive the Judgement and Opinion in its working language in order to consult fully with Mr Stanislav Galic and to prepare the notice of appeal";

NOTING that in the circumstances Counsel for the Defence can operate in English, the Chamber is satisfied that if any further consultation is required with Stanislav Galic prior to the preparation and filing of the reply, it can take place within those fifteen days without any prejudice to the Defence;

CONSIDERING that the volume of the Prosecutionís Response constitutes good cause that justifies an extension of time;

HEREBY GRANT the extension of page limit sought to 60 pages or 18 000 words, and an extension of time beyond that granted in the Practice Direction, of 6 days.


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

Done this 17th day September 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. IT/184/Rev1.
2. Decision entitled "Decision on Request For Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal".