Case: IT-98-30/1-A


Judge David Hunt, Pre-Appeal Judge

Mr Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
19 June 2003

Miroslav KVOCKA, Mladjo RADIC, Zoran ZIGIC & Dragoljub PRCAC




Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr Christopher Staker

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr Krstan Simic for Miroslav Kvocka
Mr Toma Fila for Mladjo Radic
Mr Slobodan Stojanovic for Zoran Zigic
Mr Jovan Simic for Dragoljub Prcac


1. In filing his first motion pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") for the admission of additional evidence in his appeal against conviction, the appellant Zoran Zigic ("Zigic") failed to attach to his motion the additional evidence which he sought to have admitted. In order to have the additional evidence properly considered by the Appeals Chamber, Zigic was invited to file the additional evidence as an addendum to that motion. Zigic filed such an addendum, attaching ten witness statements and two pieces of documentary evidence. That filing is received by the Appeals Chamber as validly done pursuant to the relevant Practice Direction.

3. When granting Zigic that opportunity to file an addendum, it was indicated that, should he take up that opportunity, the prosecution would be granted leave to file a supplementary response within seven days thereafter. The prosecution has now sought leave to file such a further supplementary response, but it says that it is not possible to do so within the seven days indicated. It requests an extension of time until 25 June in which to file its supplementary response, and also an extension of the page limit set by the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions to twenty-five pages for that document.

4. In support of its Request for extensions of time and pages, the prosecution says that it only received the Addendum three days after it was filed, and that in order to give a meaningful response it will be required to address factual matters arising from the witness statements filed with that Addendum. This will require an examination of in-house material and a determination of what information is known by the trial and investigative team who dealt with the witnesses. It will have to conduct an investigation in relation to each proposed witness in relation to the criteria imposed by Rule 115, and to review all of the evidence adduced at trial in relation to the factual assertions of each witness. It will also have to examine material generated since the completion of the trial to determine whether there is material which can be used in rebuttal. It also says that the failure on the part of Zigic to include any argument in relation to the material filed with the Addendum means that it has to undertake the task of examining the statements to identify the relevant facts, cross reference those facts with the judgment and evidence at trial, and consider the impact of the additional evidence on the verdict.

5. It is clear that the bulk of this work will result from the failure by Zigic to give the assistance to both the Appeals Chamber and the prosecution which is required by Rule 115. The work which will produced by the prosecution will nevertheless reduce considerably to burden on the Appeals Chamber in determining the Rule 115 application. I am satisfied that good cause has been shown for the grant of an extension until 25 June for the filing of the prosecution response, and that an extension of the page limit to twenty-five pages is not unreasonable in the circumstances. The relief sought by the prosecution is granted.


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

Dated this 19th day of June 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

Judge David Hunt
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]