Case No.: IT-02-60/1-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding
Judge Fausto Pocar
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision:
9 December 2004

Momir NIKOLIC

v.

PROSECUTOR

Public Redacted Version

_____________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT CONFORMED AND SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms. Virginia C. Lindsay  

Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Norman Farrell

THE APPEALS 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 ("International Tribunal");

BEING SEISED of the "Motion for Leave to Supplement Conformed and Supplemented Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" ("Motion") filed confidentially by Momir Nikolic (“Appellant”) on 6 December 2004, whereby he requests leave to supplement his pending "Conformed and Supplemented Motion to Admit Additional Evidence" filed on 21 June 2004 under Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Supplemental 115 Motion" and "Rules", respectively) by presenting the following documents: [redacted];

NOTING that the Appellant argues that the two documents should be admitted as additional evidence, without attempting to show good cause for the Appeals Chamber to grant leave to supplement the Supplemental 115 Motion;

NOTING that, having regard only to his first motion for additional evidence,¹ the Appellant already submitted a "Conformed and Supplemented Motion to Admit Additional Evidence", a confidential "Correction of Translation of Appendix B to Momir Nikolic’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence",² a confidential Reply, ³ an "Additional Appendix in Support of Appellant’s Conformed and Supplemented Motion to Admit Additional Evidence"⁴ and a "Corrected Conformed and Supplemented Motion to Admit Additional Evidence";⁵

NOTING that, pursuant to paragraph 10(a) of the Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings before the International Tribunal of 7 March 2002, a party wishing to move the Appeals Chamber for a specific ruling or relief shall file a motion containing the precise ruling or relief sought;

CONSIDERING that the ruling or relief sought by the Appellant regarding additional evidence is, at this stage of the proceedings, already unclear;

CONSIDERING that, if leave to supplement the Supplemental 115 Motion is granted, it would render the issues before the Appeals Chamber less clear;

CONSIDERING that the Appellant is not permitted to correct his failure to properly raise his arguments by amending his initial motion more than five months after its filing, and that this attempted amendment was only filed once the Prosecution had emphasized the said failure;⁶

CONSIDERING more generally that the filings by the Appellant reveal a pattern of confusion, of adding new arguments in appendices or replies, and of changing submissions from those in the original filings;

CONSIDERING that this pattern leads to a considerable waste of the International Tribunal’s resources;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution is not prejudiced by the Appeals Chamber rendering its decision without giving it the opportunity to respond;

CONSIDERING moreover that the Appellant is not prevented from refiling a Rule 115 motion in conformity with the Rules of the International Tribunal;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

DISMISSES the Motion.

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

Done this 9^th day of December 2004,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands

_________________
Judge Meron
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]