Admissibility of evidence from national legislation

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Additional evidence on appeal \| Admissibility of evidence from national legislation	Decision on Additional Evidence - 16.09.2009	BIKINDI Simon (ICTR-01-72-A)
19. In his Third Motion, Mr. Bikindi seeks leave to admit extracts of legislation from various domestic jurisdictions and two Rwandan judgements[1] which relate to his appeal against sentencing.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that both parties agree that the Third Motion should be considered moot on the basis that the material does not fall within the scope of Rule 115 of the Rules.[3] The Appeals Chamber agrees that Rule 115 of the Rules does not apply to case law or legislation used for the purpose of illustrating sentencing practices in national jurisdictions.[4] The Appeals Chamber will consider this material when determining the merits of the case. show footnotes [1] Third Motion [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A, Defence Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Sentencing, 9 June 2009], para. 14. The proffered legislation and jurisprudence are contained in Annexures A-E. [2] Third Motion, paras. 15-22; Reply to Third Motion [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A, Defence Reply Re the Admission of Additional Evidence on Bikindi’s Sentence, 22 July 2009], paras. 12-16. [3] Third Motion, paras. 3, 15; Response to Third Motion [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A, Prosecutor’s Response to “Defence Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Sentencing”, 9 July 2009], para. 3; Reply to Third Motion, paras. 2, 5. [4] This material is already before the Appeals Chamber. See [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A] Corrigendum to Defense [sic] Appellant’s Brief, Annexures A-E; [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A] Defense [sic] Respondent’s Brief, para. 54, Annexures A and B. Download full document		ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115