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. |
IRMCT Rule
Rule 69(B) 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]. |
IRMCT Rule Rule 144(D) | |
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Mladic Decision on Request for Right of Audience - 03.06.2021 |
MLADIĆ Ratko (MICT-13-56-A) |
|
|
Pages 3, 4 RECALLING that assigned counsel are responsible for all aspects of defence in a given case before the Mechanism;[1] RECALLING, however, that the Appeals Chamber may exercise its discretion to allow persons other than counsel and co-counsel to make representations before it;[2] RECALLING that Ms. [Peta-Louise] Bagott was granted the right of audience for the Appeal Hearing and, appearing with the co‑counsel, made oral submissions on behalf of Mr. Mladić;[3] CONSIDERING that […] Mr. Mladić consents to having Ms. Bagott represent him at the Pronouncement of Judgement, and that the Prosecution does not oppose this request; RECALLING 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;[4] FINDING that, in these circumstances, it is appropriate to exceptionally grant Ms. Bagott the right of audience before the Appeals Chamber at the Pronouncement of Judgement […]; […] HEREBY EXCEPTIONALLY EXTENDS Legal Consultant Ms. Bagott the right of audience to appear in court and act without either Lead Counsel Mr. [Branko] Lukić or Co-Counsel Mr. [Dragan] Ivetić being present in the courtroom for the Pronouncement of Judgement; [1] See Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, MICT/5, 14 November 2012, Article 16(B); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Decision on Karadžić’s Request to Participate in the Appeal Hearing, 27 February 2018 (“Karadžić Decision of 27 February 2018”), p. 2. [2] See Karadžić Decision of 27 February 2018, p. 2, n. 11 and references cited therein. [3] See [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A], T. 25 August 2020 pp. 4, 5, 14-24, 27-40, 60-64; T. 26 August 2020 pp. 2, 43, 44, 59-73, 86-97. [4] [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A, Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Postpone Pronouncement of Judgement, 28 May 2021], p. 3. See also Rule 144(D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism. |
IRMCT Rule Rules 144(D) | |