Corrigendum
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Decision on Additional Grounds of Appeal - 17.08.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A ) |
|
54. The Appeals Chamber recalls that “a party may, without requesting leave from the Appeals Chamber, file a corrigendum to their previously filed brief or motion whenever a minor or clerical error in said brief or motion is subsequently discovered and where correction of the error is necessary in order to provide clarification”.[1] Consequently, while the Appeals Chamber is cognizant of the lateness of such filing, there was no need for the Appellant to seize it with a Motion in this respect. 55. Having reviewed the proposed corrections, the Appeals Chamber notes that most of the submitted amendments indeed correct grammatical or typing errors, or inaccurate references. While corrections 5, 11, 15, 29, 54, 65, 66, 76 seem to go slightly beyond clerical corrections, the Appeals Chamber considers that they, while usefully providing clarifications to the respective sentences, do not amount to any substantial changes of the Appellant’s Brief and can thus be equally permitted. [1] The Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR11bis.1 Decision on Joint Defense Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Appellants’ Brief, 30 August 2005, p. 3. |
||
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Decision on Additional Evidence - 08.12.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
14. [T]he Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant filed the separate Corrigendum Motion to correct a clerical error in his Reply to the First Rule 115 Motion.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls that “a party may, without requesting leave from the Appeals Chamber, file a corrigendum to their previously filed brief or motion whenever a minor or clerical error in said brief or motion is subsequently discovered and where correction of the error is necessary in order to provide clarification”.[2] Although it was unnecessary for the Appellant to file a motion to this extent, the Appeals Chamber finds that the submitted amendment indeed corrects an obvious clerical error and does not amount to any substantial change of the Appellant’s Reply to the First Rule 115 Motion. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant’s Reply to the First Rule 115 Motion should be read in accordance with the amendments proposed by the Corrigendum Motion and allowed by the present decision. [1] Corrigendum Motion, para. 1. [2] Decision on the Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Corrigendum Motions of 5 July 2006, 30 October 2006, p. 2, quoting Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR11bis.1, Decision on Joint Defense Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Appellants’ Brief, 30 August 2005, p. 3. |