Case No. IT-01-42-A


Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Pre-Appeal Judge

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
13 June 2005







The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. Mark J. McKeon

Counsel for Pavle Strugar:

Mr. Goran Rodic
Mr. Vladimir Petrovic


I, WOLFGANG SCHOMBURG, a 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 ("International Tribunal");

BEING SEIZED OF the "Defence Request for Variation of Time Limit to File Response to Prosecution’s Appeal Brief", publicly filed by counsel for Pavle Strugar ("Defence") on 31 May 2005 ("Defence Request"), in which the Defence requests an enlargement of time to file a Respondents brief on or before 11 July 2005, instead of 27 June 2005;

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Defence Request for Variation of Time Limit to File Response to Prosecutions Appeal Brief", publicly filed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") on 2 June 2005 ("Response"), in which the Prosecution submits that the Defence has failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time, but states that an extension of time for filing the Defence Appellants brief may be appropriate;

NOTING that the Defence did not file a reply to the Response;

NOTING that the "Prosecution Appeal Brief" and the "Book of Authorities for Prosecution Appeal Brief" ("Book of Authorities") have both been filed on 17 May 2005;

CONSIDERING that the Defence argues, inter alia, that (i) the Book of Authorities consists of several hundred pages of documents important and highly relevant to the Prosecution Appeal Brief; that (ii) the Defence received the Book of Authorities 13 days after its filing, i.e. on 30 May 2005; that (iii) a meaningful analysis of the Prosecution Appeal Brief and the preparation of the Defence Respondents brief became possible only after the receipt of the Book of Authorities, and that these reasons constitute good cause to enlarge the time limit for filing the Defence Respondents brief;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution argues in the Response that, inter alia, (i) a Respondents brief is focused on addressing the issues raised in an Appellants brief, not on the documents contained in the Book of Authorities; (ii) that the Defence still has "ample time to study its contents" prior to the filing of the Respondents brief; and (iii) that all legal sources contained in the Book of Authorities are publicly available;

NOTING that Rule 127(A) and (B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides, inter alia, that on good cause being shown by motion, any time prescribed by or under these Rules can be enlarged;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution Appeal Brief, in its glossary, contains specific references to the public material which is contained in the Book of Authorities;

CONSIDERING that the filing of a book of public authorities, inter alia, aims at being of assistance to the other partys work, and that a delayed receipt of such assisting material by the other party cannot, in general, constitute good cause for an enlargement of a time limit;

CONSIDERING that the Defence is perfectly capable of commencing work on the Respondents brief without having the Book of Authorities available on the day of its filing, as all the material cited therein is in the public domain;

NOTING that the Prosecution states that contrary to its prior opposition, it would no longer oppose a further extension of time for the filing of the Defence Appellants brief, as it might be that the Defence has to file its Appellants brief and its Respondents brief on consecutive days;

CONSIDERING that the Pre-Appeal Judge has ordered that the Defence shall file an Appellants brief, if any, 25 days after the filing of the B/C/S translation of the Trial Chambers Judgement;1

CONSIDERING that the B/C/S translation of the Trial Chambers Judgement in this case was filed on 13 June 2005 and that consequently, the Defence Appellants brief, if any, is due on 8 July 2005, and the Defence Respondents brief on 27 June 2005;

CONSIDERING that the time schedule set out above does not place an undue burden on the Defence;


DISMISS the Defence request for variation of time limit to file response to the Prosecution Appeal Brief.


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

Dated this thirteenth day of June 2005, at The Hague, The Netherlands.

Wolfgang Schomburg
Pre-Appeal Judge

[Seal of the International Tribunal]

1. Decision on Defence Request for Extension of Time, 9 May 2005, p. 3.