Confidential filings
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Provisional Release - 25.05.2009 |
HARADINAJ et al. (IT-04-84-A) |
|
|
5. The Appeals Chamber recalls that all submissions filed before the Tribunal shall be public unless there are exceptional reasons for keeping them confidential,[1] and that parties shall file public redacted versions of all confidential briefs filed on appeal.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the public or confidential status of a filing has no effect on the adjudication schedule of the Appeals Chamber and that this does not constitute an “exceptional reason” to maintain a confidential filing. The Appeals Chamber considers that Brahimaj has provided no reasons justifying the confidential filing in his Confidentiality Notice, nor does the Prosecution in its Response. In light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that there is no justification to maintain the confidential status of the Application and the Response. [1] Cf. Rules 69 and 78 (applicable by virtue of Rule 107) of the Rules. See also Prosecutor v. Siméon Nchamihigo, Case No. ICTR-2001-63-A, Decision on the Prosecution Motion on the Filing of the Defence Notice of Appeal, 30 March 2009, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Order to Appellant Hassan Ngeze to File Public Versions of His Notice of Appeal and Appellant’s Brief, 30 August 2007 (“Nahimana et al. Order of 30 August 2007”), p. 2. [2] Nahimana et al. Order of 30 August 2007, p. 2 |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Reconsideration and Clarification - 12.07.2013 |
NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) (ICTR-98-42-A) |
|
|
5. The Appeals Chamber notes that, while Nteziryayo filed the public redacted version of his Corrected Amended Appeal Brief with two annexes containing the index of authorities and source materials, he failed to append the relevant annexes to the confidential version of his Corrected Amended Appeal Brief. Nteziryayo had likewise failed to append the relevant annexes to his Amended Appeal Brief. The Appeals Chamber considers that a public redacted version of a confidential filing cannot contain more source materials than the original confidential filing. […] |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Redacted Versions of Rule 86(F) Filings - 24.01.2017 |
KARADŽIĆ Radovan (MICT-13-55-A) |
|
|
Page 3: RECALLING that all proceedings before the Mechanism shall be public unless exceptional reasons require keeping them confidential; [1] Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. MICT-14-79, Decision on an Application for Leave to Appeal the Single Judge’s Decision of 10 December 2015, 17 February 2016, para. 8 referring to Article 18 of the Statute of the Mechanism and Rules 92 and 131 of the Rules. |
||