Pronouncement of Judgement

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Postpone Pronouncement of Judgement - 28.05.2021 MLADIĆ Ratko
(MICT-13-56-A)

Pages 2, 3

RECALLING that, pursuant to Rule 144(D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism […], the judgement on appeal shall be pronounced in public by the Appeals Chamber or a Judge thereof, on a date of which notice shall be given to the parties and counsel and at which they shall be entitled to be present;

[…]

OBSERVING that the Rules do not restrict the scheduling or conduct of appeal proceedings, including the pronouncement of judgement, on the basis of a stayed status conference;[14]

[…]

CONSIDERING that, during the Pronouncement of Judgement, a Judge of the Appeals Chamber will read a summary of the written judgement and publicly pronounce the verdict, with no action required from the parties or counsel;[18]

[18] See Rule 144(D) of the Rules.

Download full document
IRMCT Rule Rule 69(B) of the Rules of the IRMCT
Rule 144(D)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Postpone Pronouncement of Judgement - 28.05.2021 MLADIĆ Ratko
(MICT-13-56-A)

Page 3

RECALLING that counsel have an obligation to represent their client and to comply with orders of the Appeals Chamber,[16] and that, where the client is represented by counsel and co-counsel, either one may assume the responsibility for participating in proceedings;[17]  

[…]

CONSIDERING that, notwithstanding Co-Counsel’s unavailability, the Defence has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Mladić or his Lead Counsel cannot be present for the Pronouncement of Judgement, in court or via videoconference;[19]

[…]

CONSIDERING that […] Mr. Mladić has been able to communicate with his legal team and provide instructions following the issuance of the Scheduling Order, and in doing so he, inter alia, “spoke definitively” and “provided his unwavering position”;[21]

FINDING that, in light of the considerations above, the Defence has failed to justify the request to stay the Pronouncement of Judgement and postpone it until a time when both counsel can be present in court in person with Mr. Mladić;

[…]

[16] See [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A,] Decision on a Defence Motion to Reconsider the “Decision on Defence Submissions”, 20 August 2020 (“Decision of 20 August 2020”), p. 3, n. 17; [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A,] Decision on Defence Submissions, 14 August 2020 (“Decision of 14 August 2020”), p. 5, n. 30 and references cited therein.

[17] See Decision of 20 August 2020, p. 3, n. 17; Decision of 14 August 2020, p. 5, n. 31 and references cited therein.

[19] [Footnote omitted].

[21] [Footnote omitted].

Download full document
IRMCT Rule Rule 144(D) of the Rules of the IRMCT