Due process

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - 04.07.2006 PRLIĆ et al.

Further, the Appeals Chamber felt that the Trial Chamber’s decision would help to avoid “undue delays” in order to complete the trial “within a reasonable time”, therefore preserving the right to due process, which is fundamental in human rights law.[1]

In conclusion, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber acted in compliance with Rule 90(F) and subsequently dismissed the Defence’s interlocutory appeal.[2]

[1] Article 14(3)(c) International Covenant on Civil and Political  Rights;  Article  6.1  European  Convention  on  Human Rights; Article 8(l) American Convention  on  Human  Rights;  see  Human  Rights  Committee  General  Comment  No.  13 of 1984 para. 10: "Subparagraph 3(c) provides that the accused shall be tried  without  undue  delay.  This  guarantee relates not only to the time by which trial should commence, but also the time by which it should end and judgement be rendered: all stages must take place 'without undue delay'. To make this right effective, a procedure must be available in order to ensure that the trial will proceed 'without undue delay', both in first instance and on appeal."; Moreira de Avezedo v. Portugal, European Court of Human Rights, Application No.  11296/90,  Judgement,  23  October  1990,  para.74: "By requiring that cases be  heard  'within  a  reasonable  time',  the  Convention  stresses  the  importance  of administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility"; see also H. v. France, European Convention on Human Rights, Application No. 10073/82, Judgement, 24 October 1989, para. 58.

[2] Decision, p. 4-5.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 90(F) ICTY Rule Rule 90(F)