Briefs on appeal: appendixes
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Motion for Clarification - 25.01.2002 |
MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan (IT-99-37-AR73, IT-01-50-AR73, IT-01-51-AR73) |
|
|
4. In the opinion of the Appeals Chamber, Rule 111 requires an appellant to identify in the Appellant’s Brief the authorities upon which he or she relies for the arguments put forward by name and citation (including the relevant page or paragraph of those authorities) only. A Book of Authorities is produced only in order to assist the Appeals Chamber in its consideration of the appeal. It is not an appendix to a party’s Brief. Provided that the Book of Authorities does not contain any legal or factual arguments, and contains only source materials, its length is not limited by any of the provisions of the Practice Direction. However, parties should include within it only those authorities to which they believe the Appeals Chamber will need to refer. It is not usually necessary to include within a Book of Authorities copies of decisions of the Tribunal itself. |
ICTR Rule Rule 111 ICTY Rule Rule 111 | |
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Motion to Strike Appeal Brief - 22.08.2013 |
NIZEYIMANA Ildéphonse (ICTR-00-55C-A) |
|
|
13. Footnotes, of course, count toward the overall word limit, pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Length of Briefs.[1] I note that many spaces between numbers and punctuation marks were omitted from the footnotes of the Appeal Brief. The Appeal Brief indicates a word count of 39,866 words, such that if all the necessary spaces were included, the Appeal Brief would exceed the word limit set out in the Appeal Decision of 16 April 2013. The Appeals Chamber has previously held that such conduct is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the relevant Practice Directions.[2] […] 15. Turning to the Prosecution's assertion that Mr. Nizeyimana improperly included argumentation in the Annexes, the Appeals Chamber has previously held that the proper place for arguments in support of a particular ground of appeal, as well as any supporting authority, is the appeal brief.[3] An appellant therefore cannot simply refer in his appeal brief to other documents and expect those grounds of appeal to be preserved.[4] 16. Pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, appendices do not count towards the word limit provided they do not contain legal or factual arguments, but only non-argumentative material.[5] Furthermore, an annex that provides description for some references cited does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the annex has argumentative content.[6] The interests of justice may even allow for a very limited amount of argumentative material in an annex, for which the parties have some discretion, as long as it is not abused and which will be determined on a case-by-case basis.[7] In this regard, even if an annex provides a clear overview of a party's positions, this does not necessarily prove that the annex is argumentative.[8] […] 19. […] [A]n appellant has discretion as to how to develop arguments and how to allot the allowed space between arguments. [1] In the Case Against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.5-A, Decision on Further Motions to Strike, 17 December 2009, para. 11 [2] Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 11. See also The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No.ICTR.-98-42-A, Order Issuing a Formal Warning to Counsel for Ntahobali, Kanyabasbi, and Ndayambaje, 15 April 2013, pp. 1, 2. [3] Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 12, referring to Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-0368- A, Decision on the Motion to Strike Defence Reply Brief and Annexes A-D,7 June 2007, paras. 8-12. [4] See Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 12. [5] See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Callixte Nzabonimana, Case No. ICTR-98-44D-A, Decision on Prosecution's Motions to Strike and for Extension of Time, and on Nzabonimana's Motions for Extension of Words and for Remedies. 17 June 2013, pp. 2, 3; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač. Case No. IT-06-90-A, Decision on Ante Gotovina's Motion to Strike the Prosecution's Response to Gotovina's Second Rule 115 Motion, 9 May 2012 ("Gotovina Appeal Decision of 9 May 2012"), p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Decision on Prosecution's Motion to Strike Ante Gotovina's Reply Brief, 18 October 2011 ("Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011"), p. 1. [6] Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2. [7] Gotovina Appeal Decision of 9 May 2012, p. 2; Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2. [8] See Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2, referring to Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Decision on the Motion to Strike Annexes A, C, D and E of the Prosecution's Appeal Brief, 18 May 2007, para. 7. |
Other instruments Paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement | |