Before: Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Presiding

Judge Antonio Cassese

Judge Wang Tieya

Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of: 17 February 1999








The Office of the Prosecutor:

Ms. Brenda Hollis
Mr. Michael Keegan

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr. William Clegg
Mr. John Livingston


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"),

NOTING that on 25 January 1999 the Appeals Chamber issued an oral decision granting the Appellant leave to amend the Notice of Appeal and to file an "Amended Brief of Argument on Behalf of the Appellant", which document supersedes the Appellant’s original Brief filed on 12 January 1998,

NOTING the amended "Respondent’s Brief of Argument on the Brief of Argument of the Prosecution (Cross-Appellant)" submitted by the Appellant on 19 January 1998 ("the Substitute Brief") which the Appellant seeks to substitute for the version filed with the Appeals Chamber by the previous lead counsel on 24 July 1998,

NOTING that the Appellant did not seek leave to file the Substitute Brief prior to submitting it,

NOTING that on 21 January 1999 the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") sought leave to file an "Opposition to the Appellant’s 19 January 1999 Filing", objecting to acceptance of the Substitute Brief, and maintained that objection at a status conference held on 25 January 1999 on the basis that the Prosecution was not in a position at that time to determine whether the Substitute Brief could merely supplant the prior submission,

CONSIDERING the principle that where leave of a Chamber is required to submit a filing, such leave should be obtained prior to submitting the document in question,

CONSIDERING that it would assist the Appeals Chamber for the Prosecution to confirm whether, in its view, the Substitute Brief merely supplants the prior submission,

CONSIDERING FURTHER that, if such confirmation were to be forthcoming, then, pursuant to the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of 25 January 1999, it would not be necessary for the Prosecution to make any further filing in response to the Substitute Brief as any relevant matters may be raised during the oral argument on the hearing on the merits,


CONSIDERING ALSO that the Appeals Chamber wishes to regulate the further conduct of proceedings in this matter,

HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

  1. the filing of the Prosecution "Opposition to the Appellant’s 19 January 1999 Filing" is hereby accepted;
  2. the Prosecution shall indicate to the Appeals Chamber and to the Appellant, by way of written submission within seven days of the date hereof, whether, in keeping with the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of 25 January 1999, it can agree that the Substitute Brief merely supplants the prior submission;
  3. the Appeals Chamber will rule upon the admissibility of the Substitute Brief as soon as practicable thereafter;
  4. the appeal, cross-appeal and appeal on sentencing shall be heard from Monday 19 to Friday 23 April 1999; and
  5. each party shall, on Friday 19 March 1999, submit to the Appeals Chamber a written skeleton argument covering the appeal, the cross-appeal and the appeal on sentencing in order to consolidate and clarify their respective positions.

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



Mohamed Shahabuddeen


Dated this seventeenth day of February 1999

At The Hague

The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]