Consolidated filings

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Motion for Severance - 24.07.2009 BAGOSORA et al. (Military I)

42.     The Appeals Chamber finds that it was open to the Prosecution to rely on paragraph (C)(1)(b) of the Practice Direction for the determination of the scheduling deadline. The Appeals Chamber agrees that paragraph (C)(1)(b) of the Practice Direction authorizes the Prosecution to elect to file a consolidated response brief in cases involving a plurality of co-accused without first obtaining leave from the Appeals Chamber to do so.[5] The finding of the Appeals Chamber in Hadžihasanović was, contrary to Ntabakuze’s contention, of a general nature and is further reflected in the Pre-Appeal Judge’s express finding that “under the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions on Appeal of 8 December 2006, the Prosecution may elect to file a consolidated brief in response to all three appeal briefs” and that the time-limit for the filing of such brief would only run from the filing date of the last appeal brief in this case.[6] The wording of paragraph (C)(1)(b) specifies and further defines the provision of Rule 112(A) of the Rules in the event of a plurality of accused. […]

44.     Rules 108, 111, and 112 of the Rules establish an equilibrated system for the appellant and the respondent regarding the timetable for filing their submissions, according an appropriate amount of time to each party. This filing schedule is envisaged to facilitate and expedite the Appeals Chamber’s assessment of the parties’ submissions in order to guarantee swift and fair appeal proceedings. If the briefing schedule pursuant to paragraph (C)(1)(b) of the Practice Direction were to be maintained in the present case, several months would lapse without any progress on Ntabakuze’s appeal. Additionally, this would leave the Prosecution with approximately 11 months to respond to Ntabakuze’s appeal brief instead of 40 days as prescribed under Rule 112(A) of the Rules, which would further contradict the filing schedule prescribed in the Rules.

46.     The Appeals Chamber further considers that an earlier submission of the Prosecution’s response brief will add to the enforcement of equality of arms, as enshrined in Article 20(4) of the Statute. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that it is in the interests of justice to adjust the briefing schedule to correspond to the specific circumstances of this case. Moreover, this will allow the Appeals Chamber to expedite the assessment of Ntabakuze’s appeal as well as the appeals of his co-Appellants, which, as a result, will have a positive effect on the setting of the appeals hearing date and the appeals proceedings as a whole.

[1] See for example Rule 115(D) of the Rules which benefits co-appellants in the presentation of additional evidence.

[2] This has been previously noted for trial proceedings in a number of cases: See, e.g., Tolimir Decision, para. 8; Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brðanin and Momir Talić, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Motions By Momir Talić for a Separate Trial and for Leave to File a Reply, 9 March 2000, para. 31 (“Nothing could be more destructive of the pursuit of justice than to have inconsistent results in separate trials based upon the same facts.”); Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision on Motions for Separate Trial Filed by the Accused Zejnil Delalić and the Accused Zdravko Mucić, 26 September 1996, para. 7.

[3] Cf. Slobodan Milošević v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.7, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defense Counsel, 1 November 2004, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir et al., Case No. IT-04-80-AR73.1, Decision on Radivoje Miletić’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of Accused, 27 January 2006, para. 5 (“Tolimir Decision”).

[4] The Prosecutor v. Vinko Pandurević & Milorad Trbić, Case No. IT-05-86-AR73.1, Decision on Vinko Pandurević’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of Accused, 24 January 2006 (“Pandurević Decision of 24 January 2006”), para. 27. The ICTY Appeals Chamber found that it was reasonable to conclude that “one joint trial would ensure that the same evidence is available and assessed with regard to each accused and thus result in a greater likelihood of consistent evaluation of the evidence, findings and verdicts on the basis of the same facts” (See Pandurević Decision of 24 January 2006, para. 23).

[5] Hadžihasanović Decision [ Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time, Request to Exceed Page Limit, and Motion to File a Consolidated Response to Appeal Briefs, 27 June 2006], para. 8.

[6] 16 April 2009 Decision [Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Prosecution Motion Requesting Compliance with Requirements for Filing Notices of Appeal, 16 April 2009], para. 24.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 112(A) Other instruments Practice Direction (ICTR): Para. (C)(1)(b)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Time and Page Limits - 22.06.2005 BRĐANIN Radoslav

5.       […] [O]rdinarily the filing of a Supplementary Notice of Appeal does not itself constitute good cause for an extension of time,[1] […]

[1] The Appellant appears to assume that having filed the supplemental Notice of Appeal would ordinarily entitle him to file an additional Appeal Brief in support of it, and suggests that an extension of time (and page length) is merited here so that he can instead file a consolidated brief addressing all grounds of appeal.  But consolidation is the normal required procedure.  The filing of a supplemental notice of appeal does not in and of itself entitle an appellant to an extension of time nor to an enlargement of length for the appeal brief, and it certainly does not entitle him to file two appeal briefs.  Instead, the appellant must file a single appeal brief, the deadline for which is calculated, pursuant to Rule 111, based on the date of filing the original notice of appeal, not on the date on which a variation of that notice was authorised pursuant to Rule 108.

Download full document