Case No. IT-01-47-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Presiding
Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba
Judge Carmel Agius

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
18 July 2003

PROSECUTOR
v.
ENVER HADZIHASANOVIC
AMIR KUBURA

________________________________________

DECISION ON JOINT DEFENCE ORAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF "DECISION ON URGENT MOTION FOR EX PARTE ORAL HEARING ON ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES TO THE DEFENCE AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO A FAIR TRIAL"

________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Ekkehard Withopf

Counsel for the Accused:

Ms. Edina Residovic and Mr. Stéphane Bourgon for Enver Hadzihasanovic
Mr. Fahrudin Ibrisimovic and Mr. Rodney Dixon for Amir Kubura

 

TRIAL CHAMBER II 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"),

BEING SEIZED of the oral motion for reconsideration of the "Decision on Urgent Motion for Ex Parte Oral Hearing on Allocation of Resources to the Defence and Consequences thereof for the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial", dated 17 June 2003, made by the defence for Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura ("Joint Defence") during the status conference on 9 July 2003 ("Oral Motion"),

NOTING the "Amicus Curiae Brief of the Association for Defence Counsel practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in support of Joint Defence Oral Motion for Reconsideration of Decision on Urgent Motion for Ex Parte Oral Hearing on Allocation of Resources to the Defence and Consequences thereof for the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial", filed by the Association of Defence Counsel ("ADC") on 14 July 2003 ("Amicus Curiae Brief"),

NOTING the "Decision on Urgent Motion for Ex Parte Oral Hearing on Allocation of Resources to the Defence and Consequences thereof for the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial", issued by the Trial Chamber on 17 June 2003 ("Decision"), in which the urgent motion for an ex parte oral hearing was denied as inadmissible,

NOTING that the Joint Defence was fully aware of and agreed to the existing system of allocation of funds to assigned counsel during the pre-trial phase before they accepted being assigned, "including the basis for calculating the costs of legal representation, the billing arrangement, and the maximum allotment for the pre-trial stage according to the particular circumstances of the case",

CONSIDERING FURTHERMORE that the Joint Defence now again addresses the Trial Chamber on the issue of allocation of resources and presents so-called new facts that form either a repetition of earlier submissions or are nothing but self-created new facts, notwithstanding the fact that this Trial Chamber has already made it clear that the issue is inadmissible,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber may consider any future submissions of a similar character as the present Oral Motion as frivolous,

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS

PURSUANT TO Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,

HEREBY DENIES the Oral Motion.

 

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

_____________________
Wolfgang Schomburg
Presiding

Dated this eighteenth day of July 2003,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]