Meaning of "final judgement"

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Review proceedings \| Meaning of "final judgement"	Decision on Review - 31.03.2000	BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco (ICTR-97-19-AR72)
49. The Chamber considers it important to note that only a final judgement may be reviewed pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute and to Rule 120[1]. […] The Chamber would point out that a final judgement in the sense of the above-mentioned articles is one which terminates the proceedings; only such a decision may be subject to review. Clearly, the [decision sought to be reviewed] belongs to that category, since it dismissed the indictment against the Appellant and terminated the proceedings. show footnotes [1] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber does not agree with the Decision on the Alternative Request for Renewed Consideration of Delalić’s Motion for an Adjournment until 22 June or Request for Issue of Subpoenas to Individuals and Requests for Assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (IT-96-21-T, 22 June 1998), which suggests that interlocutory decisions can be subject to review. The Appeals Chamber confirms that the law is as stated above. Download full document		ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 25 ICTR Rule Rule 120 Rule 121 ICTY Rule Rule 119 Rule 120
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Review proceedings \| Reconsideration of decision for review \| Meaning of "final judgement"	Decision on Niyitegeka’s Request for Assignment of Counsel - 06.11.2014	NIYITEGEKA Eliézer (MICT-12-16-R)
11. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that decisions rejecting requests for review are final decisions closing the proceedings and, as such, are not subject to reconsideration.[1] […] show footnotes [1][Francois Karera v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-24-R, Decision on Request for Assignment of Counsel, 4 December 2012], para. 11. Download full document
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
MICT continuity \| Reconsideration \| Meaning of "final judgement" \| Discretionary power	Decision on Amicus Prosecutor - 08.12.2015	KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu (MICT-I3-33-AR90/108.1)
15. To the extent that Kamuhanda’s request before the Single Judge may have been based on new circumstances, demonstrating an injustice, that have emerged after the Kamuhanda Decision of 25 August 2011 [Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-R, Decision on Request for Review, 25 August 2011] was rendered, it amounted to a request for a reconsideration of the ICTR Appeals Chamber’s decision on the matter of the contempt investigations.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Mechanism’s mandate is to continue the jurisdiction, rights and obligations, and essential functions of the ICTR and the ICTY and that in doing so, it is bound to consider the relevant precedents of the ad hoc tribunals.[2] Accordingly, while decisions of the ICTR Appeals Chamber, as correctly noted in the Impugned Decision, retain their validity before the Mechanism, applicants are not barred from seeking reconsideration of such decisions before the Mechanism, where appropriate. 16. It is well established in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals that the Appeals Chamber has inherent discretionary power to reconsider a previous non-final decision if a clear error of reasoning has been demonstrated or if it is necessary in order to prevent an injustice.[3] The Appeals Chamber shall not reconsider final decisions terminating the proceedings in a case.[4] Such decisions include final judgements[5] and decisions denying requests for review.[6] The Appeals Chamber considers that the Kamuhanda Decision of 25 August 2011, in the part concerning the matter of the contempt investigations, does not belong to either category and that it may be subject to reconsideration before the Mechanism. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber emphasizes that the principle of finality dictates that the discretionary power to reconsider previous decisions should be exercised sparingly and a party must therefore meet a high threshold in its request for reconsideration.[7] 17. The Appeals Chamber recalls, however, that a request for reconsideration, by definition, has to be made before the chamber that rendered the impugned decision.[8] Considering that the Statute of the Mechanism and the Rules reflect normative continuity with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTR,[9] the Appeals Chamber observes that the proper forum for a request for reconsideration of a decision rendered by the ICTR Appeals Chamber is the Appeals Chamber of the Mechanism. […] show footnotes [1] See Motion for Appointment of Amicus Curiae [The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33, Motion for Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor to Investigate Prosecution Witness GEK, 2 August 2015 (with public annexes A-D and confidential annex E)], para. 13; Appeal [Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33-AR90/108, Appeal of Decision on Jurisdiction to Investigate Prosecution Witness GEK, 15 October 2015], para. 45. [2] Phénéas Munyarugarama v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-09-AR14, Decision on Appeal Against the Referral of Phénéas Munyarugarama’s Case to Rwanda and Prosecution Motion to Strike, 5 October 2012 (“Munyarugarama Decision of 5 October 2012”), paras. 4, 6. [3] Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-A, Decision on Motions for Reconsideration, 5 September 2014 (“Prlić Decision of 5 September 2014”), p. 3; Ferdinand Nahimana v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52B-R, Decision on Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of 27 September 2011 and of his Sentence, 29 June 2012, p. 3; Jean Uwinkindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis, Decision on Uwinkindi’s Motion for Review or Reconsideration of the Decision on Referral to Rwanda and the Related Prosecution Motion, 23 February 2012 (“Uwinkindi Decision of 23 February 2012”), para. 11, referring to Juvénal Kajelijeli v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Judgement, 23 May 2005, para. 203; Aloys Ntabakuze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41A-A, Decision on Peter Erlinder’s Motion to Reconsider Order Imposing Sanctions, 1 September 2011, p. 3. [4] See Uwinkindi Decision of 23 February 2012, para. 10, referring to Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Décision relative à la requête de l’appelant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza demandant l’examen de la requête de la Défense datée du 28 juillet 2000 et réparation pour abus de procédure, 23 June 2006, para. 21; Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Request for Reconsideration of the Decision on Request for Review, 27 September 2006 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 27 September 2006”), p. 3, referring to Jean Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision (Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration), signed on 31 March 2000, filed on 7 April 2000, para. 49. Cf. Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-Misc.1, Decision on Strugar’s Request to Reopen Appeal Proceedings, 7 June 2007, para. 25. [5] Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić and Veselin [ljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Decision on Motion on Behalf of Veselin [ljivančanin Seeking Reconsideration of the Judgement Rendered by the Appeals Chamber on 5 May 2009 – or an Alternative Remedy, 8 December 2009, p. 2; Hassan Ngeze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions and Requests Related to Reconsideration, 31 January 2008, p. 3; Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-03-R Decision on Requests for Reconsideration, Review, Assignment of Counsel, Disclosure, and Clarification, 8 December 2006, para. 6; Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-R, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, 23 November 2006 (public redacted version), paras. 79, 80; Prosecutor v. Zoran Žigić a/k/a “Ziga”, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Zoran Žigić’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Appeals Chamber Judgement IT-98-30/1-A Delivered on 28 February 2005”, 26 June 2006, para. 9. [6] Eliézer Niyitegeka v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16-R, Decision on Niyitegeka’s Request for Assignment of Counsel, 6 November 2014, para. 11, referring to François Karera v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-24-R, Decision on Request for Assignment of Counsel, 4 December 2012, para. 11; François Karera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-74-R, Decision on Requests for Reconsideration and Review, 26 March 2012, para. 8; Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Motion for Reconsideration of Fifth Review Decision, 25 March 2010, para. 5; Niyitegeka Decision of 27 September 2006, pp. 2, 3. [7] Prlić Decision of 5 September 2014, p. 3, referring to Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-A, Decision on Mićo Stanišić’s Motion Seeking Reconsideration of Decision on Stanišić’s Motion for Declaration of Mistrial and Župljanin’s Motion to Vacate Trial Judgement, 24 July 2014, para. 12. [8] Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Case No. IT-03-69-A & IT-95-5/18-T, Decision on Motion by Radovan Karadžić for Reconsideration of Decision on Motion for Access to Confidential Materials in the Stanišić and Simatović Case, 16 February 2015, p. 2, referring to Prosecutor v. Milan Lukić and Sredoje Lukić, Case No. IT-98-32/1-A, Decision on the Prosecution’s “Motion for Reconsideration and Rescission of the Order to Disclose Issued in Trial Chamber’s ‘Decision on Motion by Radovan Karadžić for Access to Confidential Materials in the Lukić and Lukić Case’ of 10 July 2009“, 7 December 2009, para. 4. [9] Munyarugarama Decision of 5 October 2012, para. 5. Download full document