9. [...] [R]equirement in Rule 28(B) that the duty Judge is to be “available at all times, including out of normal Registry hours, for dealing with applications pursuant to paragraphs (C) and (D)”. Rule 28 thus necessarily contemplates that the duty Judge will have power during normal Registry hours to deal with applications in cases which have already been assigned to a Trial Chamber. Rule 28(D) must be interpreted in a way which will correspond with what is clearly intended by Rule 28(B). It is therefore necessarily implicit in Rule 28(D) that the Judge will deal during normal Registry hours with applications which have already been assigned to a Trial Chamber. Rule 28(B) gives to the judge the discretion to refuse to do so where the application is not urgent. The exercise of that discretion will depend upon whether the application is of such a nature that it is appropriate that it be dealt with by the duty Judge rather than by the Trial Chamber to which the case has been assigned. This situation would usually arise during the official court recesses, but it would also arise where the Trial Chamber is, for reasons other than a court recess, not available to deal with the application.

10. The obvious example of where it would be appropriate – indeed, necessary – for the duty Judge to exercise the powers of the Trial Chamber (whether or not the relief sought should be granted) is where the application is an urgent one which cannot await for its resolution the return of the Trial Chamber to which the case is assigned. Another obvious example of where it would be at least appropriate for the duty Judge to exercise the power to deal with the application (again, whether or not the relief sought should be granted) is where it is an application pursuant to Rule 127 to enlarge the time prescribed by the Rules for the doing of an act, and where the time for doing that act expires during the unavailability of the Trial Chamber by reason of the court recess or other reason, or very shortly thereafter. In considering whether it is appropriate for the duty Judge to deal with any particular matter, it is important to keep in mind that the Trial Chamber will usually be in a better position to deal with a matter which requires detailed knowledge of the case.

[...]

14. Where a case has already been assigned to a Trial Chamber, urgency would usually be established where the subject matter of the application is of such a nature that the relief sought can only be granted if the application is determined at a time before that Trial Chamber is available to determine it, and where the applicant would suffer significant prejudice if the application is not determined within that time. The circumstances which could constitute urgency in any particular case cannot be precisely defined in advance. [...]

[...]

17. [...] Where an application is made in a case assigned to a Trial Chamber, but the Trial Chamber is not available to deal with it so that it comes before the duty Judge, and where that Judge correctly refuses to deal with that application because he or she has not been satisfied that it was urgent, the only ruling which should or could be made by that Judge is to refuse to deal with that application as the duty Judge. It would then be left to the Trial Chamber to deal with the application when the Trial Chamber is available to do so. This would appear to be so whether the application is addressed to the Trial Chamber or to the duty Judge directly. If the application is dismissed by the duty Judge, the Trial Chamber would necessarily be prevented from dealing with it in the ordinary course. That is not the intention of Rule 28.