Chamber duty to decide motions

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 30.01.2015 POPOVIĆ et al.

1952. The Appeals Chamber notes that Rule 73 of the Rules allows a party to move before a chamber by way of a motion for an appropriate ruling or relief and introduces the procedure for requesting certification to file an interlocutory appeal after a decision on a motion is rendered. Although its wording is not entirely explicit in this regard, Rule 73 of the Rules should be understood as imposing a duty on a chamber to render an order or decision on every validly filed motion, even if the motion is considered frivolous or an abuse of process.[1] This duty ensures that an accused can exercise his or her right of appeal and take such actions as provided for by Rule 73(C) of the Rules. […] A motion which can be considered as being rendered moot by subsequent actions still remains within the jurisdiction of a trial chamber to consider. […]

[1]           See, e.g., Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 41 (“[V]alidly filed pending motions are not implicitly dismissed with the pronouncement or filing of the trial judgement.”); The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Motion to Void Trial Chamber Decisions, 30 September 2011, p. 2. See also Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case Nos. ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 and ICTR-98-44-AR72.6, Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals: Joint Criminal Enterprise, 12 April 2006, para. 23.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 73 ICTY Rule Rule 73