[1] See United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 26 August - 6 September 1985, endorsed by United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/40/32 and A/RES/40/146 of 29 November 1985 and 13 December 1985, respectively (“U.N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”).

[2] See Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-A, Judgement, 30 June 2016 (public with confidential Annex C), para. 42; Prosecutor v. Nikola [ainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Judgement, 23 January 2014, para. 179; Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Judgement, 8 October 2008, para. 39; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000, para. 177, n. 239. See also Prosecutor v. Vojislav [ešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, Decision on Motion for Disqualification, 10 June 2003, pp. 2-3 (“Judges […] serve only the international community” and “disavow any influence by the policies of any government, including the government of their home country”); Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence, 4 September 1998, pp. 7-9.

[3] See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Article 10 (“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, Article 14(1) (“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, Article 6(1) (“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”); American Convention on Human Rights, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, Article 8(1) (“Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”). See also African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), Article 26 (“States parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter.”).

[4] Case of Miguel Gonzáles del Río v. Peru, Communication No. 263/1987, para. 5.2.

[5] See U.N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Principle 2 (“The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”); The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices, 25-26 November 2002, Value 1.1 (“A judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge’s assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”); The Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary, drafted by the Study Group of the International Law Association on the Practice and Procedure of International Courts and Tribunals, in association with the Project on International Courts and Tribunals, Preamble (“Considering the following principles of international law to be of general application: to ensure the independence of the judiciary, judges must enjoy independence from the parties to cases before them, their own states of nationality or residence, the host countries in which they serve, and the international organisations under the auspices of which the court or tribunal is established”). See also Code of Professional Conduct for the Judges of the Mechanism, MICT/14, 11 May 2015, Article 2.1 (“In the exercise of their judicial functions, judges shall be independent of all external authority or influence.”).

[6] See, e.g., Article 29 of the [MICT] Statute. Cf. also ICJ Advisory Opinion on Differences Relating to Immunity from Legal Process, paras. 60, 61, 67 (upholding the immunity of a United Nations Special Rapporteur against legal process in his national country); Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 177, paras. 51, 61 (holding that United Nations Special Rapporteurs enjoy privileges and immunities in their relation with the States of which they are nationals or on the territory of which they reside).

[7] See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1966, 22 December 2010 […] (emphasizing that the Mechanism should be a “small, temporary and efficient structure”); See also Article 8(3) of the [MICT] Statute.

[8] See United Nations Security Council Report, Special Research Report, No. 3, 17 September 2010, p. 1; U.N. Doc. S/PV.6463, 22 December 2010, p. 3.

[9] See Articles 19 and 29 of the [MICT] Statute.

[1] Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Injunctions Against the Government of Rwanda Regarding the Arrest and Investigation of Lead Counsel Peter Erlinder, 6 October 2010 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 6 October 2010”), para. 18.

[2] See Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-T, Order Directed to the Republic of Croatia, 18 February 2011, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-AR73.5, Decision on Gotovina Defence Appeal Against 12 March 2010 Decision on Requests for Permanent Restraining Orders Directed to the Republic of Croatia, 14 February 2011, paras. 36, 45, 67, 71; Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings, 27 January 2011 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 27 January 2011”), para. 10; Bagosora et al Decision of 6 October 2010, paras. 20-31.

[3] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al.,Case No. IT-06-90-A, Communication dated 12 October 2011 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia (Proceedings Pursuant to the Order of the ICTY Trial Chamber Dated 18 February 2011), 14 October 2011 (confidential), Registry Pagination. 3043; Bagosora et al Decision of 27 January 2011, para. 10.

[1] Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al, Case No. IT-05-88-A, Public Redacted Version of 2 May 2014 Decision on Vujadin Popović’s Third and Fifth Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 23 May 2014, para. 14 (“leave to file a sur-reply may be granted where the reply raises a new issue to which the respondent has not already had the opportunity to respond”).

[1] See The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo, Case No. IT-95-17-A, Decision on Motions for Access to Ex Parte Portions of the Record on Appeal and for Disclosure of Mitigating Material, 30 August 2006, para. 17. See also Decision of 10 May 2016 [Decision on Motion for Access to Ex Parte Filings in Completed Cases, 10 May 2016], p. 3 and references cited therein.

[2] Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.2, Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order of 20 September 2016, 27 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.3, 27 September 2016, Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order of 20 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.2, Prosecution Request for Leave to File Further Submission in Response to Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order for Submissions of 20 September 2016, 29 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.3, Prosecution Request for Leave to File Further Submission in Response to Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order for Submissions of 20 September 2016, 29 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte). The Appeals Chamber notes that its finding does not extend to the confidential ex parte annexes attached to the Registry’s submissions of 29 September 2016.

[3] The Appeals Chamber notes that, with regard to two of the five proceedings at issue, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.2, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.3, the ex parte status of the requests made under Rule 86(F) of the Rules was lifted in these instances with respect to the Prosecution as the requests concerned Prosecution witnesses. The request filed as Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.1 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Two other proceedings, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.4 and Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.5, are currently pending and only assignment orders have been issued to date.

[1] See Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33, Decision on Motion to Rescind Protective Measures for Defence Witness ALM, 29 March 2016], p. 3. The Appeals Chamber notes that, although the Impugned Decision contains a reference to Rule 86(J) of the Rules (see Impugned Decision, p. 2), no finding was entered by the Single Judge pursuant to this Rule.

[2] See also Rule 2(C) of the Rules.

[3] See The Prosecutor v. François Karera, Case No. ICTR-01-74, Decision Rescinding the Protective Measures of Witness BMI, 27 September 2011, paras. 5, 6; Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T, Order on Rescission of Protective Measures in relation to Witness Ljubinko Cvetić, 7 December 2006, paras. 1, 2. See also Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Decision on Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda’s Motion for Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses, 22 March 2001(“Protective Measures Decision”), para. 24 (where the Trial Chamber noted that Kamuhanda could seek at any time variation or augmentation of the protective measures granted to the potential witnesses, including Witness ALM).

[1] See The Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis, Decision on Uwinkindi’s Motion for Review or Reconsideration of the Decision on Referral to Rwanda and the Related Prosecution Motion, 23 February 2013, para. 71 (recalling that a Referral Chamber must “satisif[y] itself that the State would supply defence counsel to accused who cannot afford their own representation” and is “not obligated […] to itemize the provisions of the [State’s] budget once it has learned there is financial support for that representation”). See also Prosecutor v. Mitar Rašević and Savo Todović, Case No. IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1 & IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.2, Decision on Savo Todović’s Appeals against Decisions on Referral under Rule 11bis, 4 September 2006, para. 59; Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR11bis.1, Decision on Joint Defence Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule 11bis, 7 April 2006, para. 70; Prosecutor v. Radovan Stanković, Case No. IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.1, Decision on Rule 11bis Referral, 1 September 2005, para. 21. 

[1] See Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. MICT-12-25-R14.1, Decision on Uwinkindi’s Request for Revocation, 22 October 2015], para. 24 and references cited therein.

[2] See Léonidas Nshogoza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2007-91-A, Judgement, 15 March 2010, para. 35; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Judgement, 9 May 2007, paras. 14, 17. See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-A, Judgement, 23 November 2001 (signed on 1 June 2001), para. 61; Jean Kambanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-23-A, Judgement, 19 October 2000, para. 33. See also Dvorski v. Croatia [2015] ECHR 927, paras. 78, 79.

[3] Croissant v. Germany [1992] ECHR 60, para. 28. 

[1] Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Judgement, 28 February 2005, (“Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement”) para. 23. See also, e.g., Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1308; Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Ðorđević, Case No. IT-05-87/1-A, Judgement, 27 January 2014 (“Ðorđević Appeal Judgement”), para. 864.

[2] Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23. See also, e.g., Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1308; Ðorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 864; Gaspard Kanyarukiga v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-02-78-A, Judgement, 8 May 2012, para. 127; Aloys Ntabakuze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41A-A, Judgement, 8 May 2012, para. 161.

[1] Tharcisse Renzaho v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-31-A, Decision on Tharcisse Renzaho’s Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence and Investigation on Appeal, 27 September 2010 (“Renzaho Decision of 27 September 2010”), para. 19 (emphasis omitted).

[2] Renzaho Decision of 27 September 2010, para. 19 (emphasis omitted).

[1] Practice Direction on Lengths of Briefs and Motions, MICT/11, 6 August 2013 (“Practice Direction”).

[2] 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.