|Decision Regarding Leave and Extensions - 24.06.2003||
KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ
Download full document
6. […] A heavy workload in other cases and inadequate resources to deal with them all is not an appropriate basis for seeking an extension of time. Counsel for the prosecution in an appeal is expected to be provided by the Office of the Prosecutor with the resources necessary to carry the workload in the particular case, and his or her workload in other cases will ordinarily be rejected as the basis for an extension of time, just as it has ordinarily been rejected for counsel for the accused. Where there are special circumstances personal to counsel in relation to the particular case (be it for the prosecution or the accused), the Appeals Chamber will always consider those circumstances in determining whether an extension of time will be granted. However, a systemic failure by the Office of the Prosecutor to provide adequate resources for its counsel to do the work which is necessary in the particular case will not be considered.
|Decision on a Motion for an Extension of a Word Limit - 08.09.2016||
RECALLING that, pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and 7 of the Practice Direction on Lengths of Briefs and Motions, an appellant’s and a respondent’s briefs in an appeal from a trial judgment should not exceed 30,000 words where the appeal is not restricted to sentencing issues;
RECALLING that, pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Practice Direction, a party must seek advance authorization to exceed the word limits set out in the Practice Direction, and must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversized filing;
RECALLING FURTHER that, pursuant to the same paragraph of the Practice Direction, a judge may dispose of a motion for an extension of a word limit without hearing the other party unless it is considered that there is a risk that the other party may be prejudiced;
EMPHASIZING that the quality and effectiveness of an appeal brief do not depend on its length, but on the clarity and cogency of the arguments presented and that, therefore, excessively long briefs do not necessarily facilitate the efficient administration of justice;
 Practice Direction on Lengths of Briefs and Motions, MICT/11, 6 August 2013 (“Practice Direction”).
 Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Case No. IT-03-69-A, Decision on Stanišić’s Urgent Request for Extension of Word Limit, 31 October 2013 (“Stanišić and Simatović Decision of 31 October 2013”), p. 2; Georges A.N. Rutaganda v The Prosecutor, Case No. IT-96-03-R68, Decision on Motion for Leave to Exceed the Word Limit, 23 February 2010, p. 2.
|Other instruments Paragraphs 6(a), 7, and 17 of the Practice Direction on Lengths of Briefs and Motions|