Communication of amicus curiae reports
|Appeal Judgement - 14.12.2015||
NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare)
295. It is not disputed by the parties that nothing in the Statute or the Rules imposes the mandatory communication to the parties to the main proceedings of an amicus curiae report requested pursuant to Rules 77(C)(ii) or 91(B)(ii) of the Rules. The decision to communicate an amicus curiae report filed before the trial chamber pursuant to Rules 77 or 91 of the Rules to the parties of the main proceedings therefore falls within the discretion of the trial chamber. This discretion must be exercised consistently with Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute, which require trial chambers to ensure that trials are fair and expeditious. […]
300. Mindful that the decision to communicate to the parties of the main proceedings an amicus curiae report filed pursuant to Rules 77 or 91 of the Rules falls within the discretion of the relevant chamber and that there may be instances where the communication of such reports is not in the interests of justice, the Appeals Chamber fails to understand why, in this case, the Trial Chamber decided to deprive the parties of information that might have been relevant to their cases in the absence of any circumstances that may have justified its non-communication. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that the Trial Chamber’s decision not to communicate the Second Amicus Curiae Reports to the parties before the delivery of the Trial Judgement was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.
 Both Rules 77(C)(ii) and 91(B)(ii) of the Rules state that the appointed amicus curiae is to “report back to the Chamber as to whether there are sufficient grounds for instigating” contempt or false testimony proceedings.
 See, e.g., Nizeyimana Appeal Judgement, para. 286; Ndahimana Appeal Judgement, para. 14; Setako Appeal Judgement, para. 19.
 In light of this outcome, the Appeals Chamber finds it unecessary to considers Nyiramasuhuko’s and Ntahobali’s contention that the Trial Chamber erred in stating in the Trial Judgement that the investigations against Witnesses QA, QY, and SJ were “on-going”.
Rule 91(B)(ii) ICTY Rule Rule 77(C)(ii);