[1] Decision on the Registry’s Request for Observations Regarding Preparation of the Notice of Appeal, 4 May 2016, p. 1 (“the Registry has the primary responsibility in the determination of matters relating to remuneration of counsel”); Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision [The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Ntahobali’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decisions, 21 February 2014 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version issued on 23 May 2016], para. 17; Tolimir Decision [Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-AR73.2, Decision on Zdravko Tolimir’s Appeal Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II on the Registrar’s Decision Concerning Legal Aid, 12 November 2009 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version filed on 28 February 2013], paras. 8, 9 and referenced cited therein.

[2] See Article 19 of the Statute of the Mechanism (“Statute”). See also Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Nebojša Pavković’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings, 2 March 2010, para. 12; In Re. André Ntagerura, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A28, Decision on Motion for Leave to Appeal the President’s Decision of 31 March 2008 and the Decision of Trial Chamber III Rendered on 15 May 2008, 11 September 2008, para. 12.

[3] Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision, para. 21 (“[t]he Appeals Chamber is of the view that judicial economy is best served in the particular circumstances of this case by disposing of the merits of this part of the Request for Review rather than remitting the matter to the Registrar”).

[4] Article 19(4)(d) of the Statute. See also Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism.

[5] Directive [Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, MICT/5, 14 November 2012], Article 1. The Appeals Chamber also recalls that, under Articles 6(B) and 6(C) of the Directive, an accused who lacks the means to remunerate counsel shall have the right to have counsel assigned to him and paid for by the Mechanism and that, for an accused who has the means to partially remunerate counsel, the Mechanism shall pay that portion of his defence costs which the accused does not have sufficient means to cover, as determined in accordance with the Registry Policy for Determining the Extent to which an Accused is able to Remunerate Counsel.

[6] UN Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid, para. 41(e).

[7] Prlić et al Decision [Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Public Redacted Version of the 25 July 2013 Decision on Slobodan Praljka’s Motion for Review of the Registrar’s Decision on Means, 28 August 2013], para. 35; Kvočka et al. Decision [Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, 7 February 2003], para. 12.

[1] See Review Decision of 23 January 2008 [Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008], para. 13 and references cited therein.

[1] The Appeals Chamber observes that, in material respects, Rule 71(B) of the Rules tracks the language of Rules 66(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) and for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) (collectively, “ad hoc Tribunals”). Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds the Appeals Chamber jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals interpreting Rule 66(B) of the ICTY and ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence highly relevant in its interpretation of Rule 71(B) of the Rules. See Phénéas Munyarugarama v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-09-AR14, Decision on Appeal against the Referral of Phénéas Munyarugarama’s Case to Rwanda and Prosecution Motion to Strike, 5 October 2012, para. 6.

[2] See Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo, Case No. IT-95-17-A, Decision on Miroslav Bralo’s Motion for Admission of Additional Evidence (confidential), 12 January 2007 (“Bralo Decision of 12 January 2007”), para. 25; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Motions Relating to the Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s and the Prosecution’s Requests for Leave to Present Additional Evidence of Witnesses ABC1 and EB (public redacted version), 1 December 2006 (“Nahimana et al. Decision of 1 December 2006”), para. 16; The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-AR73, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Relating to Disclosure Under Rule 66(B) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 26 September 2006 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 26 September 2006”), para. 9, n. 35; Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to be Relieved of Obligation to Disclose Sensitive Information Pursuant to Rule 66(C) (confidential), 27 March 2003 (“Krstić Decision of 27 March 2003”), p. 4.

[3] Bagosora et al. Decision of 26 September 2006, para. 10.

[4] Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.11, Decision on the Prosecution’s Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Disclosure Obligations (public redacted version), 23 January 2008, para. 12. See also Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.18, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal from Decision on Alleged Rule 66 Violation, 18 May 2010, para. 13.

[5] See Bralo Decision of 12 January 2007, para. 25; Nahimana et al. Decision of 1 December 2006, para. 16; Krstić Decision of 27 March 2003, p. 4.

[6] Cf. Rule 76(B) of the Rules.

[1] Brđanin Decision of 24 January 2007 [Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Mićo Stanišić’s Motion for Access to All Confidential Materials in the Brđanin Case, 24 January 2007], para. 14.  

[2] Šainović Decision of 16 February 2010 [Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Vlastimir Đorđević’s Motion for Access to Transcripts, Exhibits and Documents, 16 February 2010], para. 10 and references cited therein.

[1] See Trial Judgement, para. 6 (“The prodigious amount of evidence in this case included the testimony of 434 witnesses who appeared before the Chamber, the evidence in writing of 152 other witnesses and a total of 11, 469 exhibits representing 191, 040 pages. A total of 48, 121 transcript pages recorded the daily proceedings and 94, 917 pages of filings were submitted to the Chamber. The scope of the Indictment and the high profile of the Accused conjointly contributed to the unprecedented nature of this case.”). In addition, the Trial Judgment is 2,607 pages long, including annexes. 

[1] Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Goran Hadžić, Case No. IT-04-75-T, Consolidated Decision on the Continuation of Proceedings, 26 October 2015], paras 62-63. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution does not challenge this aspect of the Impugned Decision.

[2] The Appeals Chamber observes that despite recalling the correct law in this respect, the Trial Chamber failed to apply the proportionality principle when considering whether the trial could be resumed even in Hadžić’s absence. See Impugned Decision, para. 61, fn. 284.

[3] See supra, para. 8.

[4] Impugned Decision, para. 56.

[5] See supra, paras 8, 24.

[1] Aloys Simba v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-76-A, Judgement, 27 November 2007, n. 68. The elements of false testimony have also been defined by trial chambers of the ICTR and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) as: (i) the witness must make a solemn declaration; (ii) a false statement must be contrary to the solemn declaration; (iii) the witness must believe at the time that it was false; and (iv) there must be a relationship between the statement and a material matter within the case. See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, Decision on Defence Motion for Investigation of Prosecution Witness Ahmed Mbonyunkiza for False Testimony, 29 December 2006, para. 6; Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, Decision on Reconsideration of the Decision on Protective Measures for Witness P024 and Initiation of the Proceedings pursuant to Rule 91, 13 July 2006 (confidential), para. 3.

[1] Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-A, Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on Valentin ]orić’s Motion Seeking Provisional Release” Issued on 12 March 2015, 14 May 2015 (“Prlić et al. Decision”), para. 12; Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Vladimir Lazarević’s Motion for Temporary Provisional Release, 13 May 2013 (“Šainović et al. Decision of 13 May 2013”), p. 2; Borovčanin Decision [Decision on Appeal from Decision on Ljubomir Borovčanin’s Request for Provisional Release, 1 March 201], para. 10.

[2] See, e.g., Prlić et al. Decision, para. 12. This standard has also been applied in the context of a convicted person’s request to visit a close family member with medical conditions. See Borovčanin Decision, para. 10; Prosecutor v Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Decision on Application for Provisional Release pursuant to Rule 65(I), 29 April 2008 (public redacted version), paras. 5, 7; Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-A, Decision on Defence Request Seeking Provisional Release on Grounds of Compassion, 2 April 2008 (public redacted version) (“Strugar Decision”), paras. 5, 13; Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Radoslav Brđanin’s Motion for Provisional Release, 23 February 2007, para. 6.

[3] Cf. Šainović et al. Decision of 3 September 2010 [Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Sreten Lukić’s Third Motion for Provisional Release on Compassionate Grounds, 3 September 2010], para. 11; Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on Vladimir Lazarević’s Second Motion for Temporary Provisional Release on the Grounds of Compassion” Issued on 21 May 2009, 22 May 2009, para. 9; Strugar Decision, para. 12.

[4] IT38/Rev.9, 21 July 2005. The Rules Governing Detention of the ICTY apply mutatis mutandis to individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Mechanism.

[5] Rules 58, 61 of the Rules Governing Detention.

[1] See also Article 12(1) of the Statute and Rule 2(C) of the Rules. 

[2] Cf. Prosecutor v. Radovan Stanković, MICT-13-51, Decision on Stanković’s Appeal against Decision Denying Revocation of Referral and on the Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time to Respond, 21 May 2014 (“Stanković Decision”), para. 9, and references contained therein.