Case No. IT-03-67-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
23 September 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

VOJISLAV SESELJ

_______________________________________

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 72
(Submissions Nos. 101 and 102)

_______________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff
Mr. Alex Whiting
Mr. Ulrich Mussemeyer

The Accused:

Vojislav Seselj

Standby counsel:

Mr. Tjarda Eduard van der Spoel

I, Carmel Agius, Judge 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");

HAVING BEEN DESIGNATED Pre-Trial Judge with regard to the present case on 7 October 2003;

BEING SEISED OF "Preliminary Motion by Dr Vojislav Seselj pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Challenging the /handwritten: Modified/Amended Indictment", filed on 8 September 2005 by the Vojislav Seselj ("Motion" and "Accused" respectively) and "Submission No. 101," filed the same day by the Accused ("Request");

NOTING "Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Indictment"-1-, filed on 2 June 2005, whereby the Trial Chamber granted the Prosecution’s request to amend the Indictment and reminded the Accused that he was entitled to file preliminary motions with respect to the new charges within thirty days;

NOTING "Decision on Corrigendum to the Amended Indictment Annexed to the Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Indictment"-2-;

NOTING "Prosecution’s Response to ‘Submission No. 101’ and ‘Preliminary Motion by Dr Vojislav Seselj pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Challenging the Modified Amended Indictment’", filed on 16 September 2005 ("Response"), whereby the Prosecution submits that the Trial Chamber should refuse to receive the Motion and direct the Accused to prepare a new motion as the Motion does not comply with the Practice Direction on Length of Briefs and Motions (IT/184/Rev.1) and notes that the Trial Chamber has not indicated the moment from which the time limits under Rule 50(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence should run;

NOTING that the Modified Amended Indictment was filed on 15 July 2005;

NOTING that the Practice Direction in force at the time of the filing of the Motion and the Request was Practice Direction on Length of Briefs and Motions (IT/184/Rev.1)-3-;

CONSIDERING that the Accused in the Request seeks an extension of time to file his challenges to the Modified Amended Indictment, which both the Accused and the Trial Chamber obviously counted from the day the Modified Amended Indictment was filed;

CONSIDERING that the Practice Direction on Length of Briefs and Motions (IT/184/Rev.1) stipulates that "Motions and replies and responses before a Chamber will not exceed 10 pages or 3,000 words, whichever is greater" and that the Motion without any doubt exceeds this format;

CONSIDERING HOWEVER the importance of an indictment and potential challenges to it;

REFUSE to accept the Motion, and

ORDER the Accused to file his objections, if any, to the Modified Amended Indictment by 7 October 2005 in the format prescribed by the Tribunal’s Rules and Practice Direction on Length of Briefs and Motions.

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

Dated this twenty-third day of September 2005,
At The Hague
The Netherlands

______________________
Carmel Agius
Pre-Trial Judge