18. The Appeals Chamber first turns to Karadžić’s contentions regarding the Adjudicated Facts. Contrary to Karadžić’s suggestion, the Judicial Notice Decisions did not suggest that he would be allocated additional time to rebut the Adjudicated Facts.[1] In addition, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, considers Karadžić is unconvincing in asserting that the Impugned Decision did not sufficiently assess the time he would need to rebut the Adjudicated Facts.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber explicitly considered the “high number of adjudicated facts”[3] as one element underlying its decision granting Karadžić the same courtroom time as the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber also explicitly assessed the potential impact of the Adjudicated Facts on Karadžić’s case, concluding that not every Adjudicated Fact would need to be rebutted during Karadžić’s defence, as Karadžić had an opportunity to cross‑examine and elicit relevant evidence from Prosecution witnesses during the presentation of the Prosecution case.[4] While this analysis did not specify the amount of time being granted to rebut the Adjudicated Facts, the Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber is “not obligated to justify its decision [on the allocation of time] with reference to each piece of evidence proposed”.[5] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, is not satisfied that Karadžić has demonstrated that the Impugned Decision’s analysis of the Adjudicated Facts was deficient.

19. The Appeals Chamber notes that Karadžić challenges the Impugned Decision by discussing the Trial Chamber’s analyses of certain Adjudicated Facts which he contends are demonstrative of the Trial Chamber’s general failure to consider the full import of the Adjudicated Facts.[6] However, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber was intimately aware of the scope of the Adjudicated Facts, as demonstrated by its multiple detailed decisions considering adjudicated facts proposed by the Prosecution.[7] In addition, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Impugned Decision explicitly considered that Karadžić had the opportunity to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses on many of the topics covered by the Adjudicated Facts, further demonstrating the Trial Chamber’s familiarity with this evidence.[8] In these circumstances, recalling that trial chambers enjoy broad discretion in evaluating evidence,[9] the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, finds that Karadžić has not demonstrated that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the import or scope of the Adjudicated Facts in its consideration of the time allocated for the defence case.