Following a request for guidance presented by amicus curiae as to how he should respond to a request by Momčilo Krajišnik for a meeting at the United Nations Detention Unit (“UNDU”) in which Mr. Krajišnik asked the Registry to arrange a meeting between him and amicus curiae for the purpose of discussing one of amicus curiae’s submissions, the Pre-Appeal Judge clarified:

p. 1: RECALLING that “the Appeals Chamber invite[d] the participation of a particular amicus curiae to assist the Appeals Chamber by arguing in favour of Mr. Krajišnik’s interests”;

RECALLING that the Appeals Chamber made explicit that “amicus curiae is not a party to the proceedings” and that “[a]micus curiae is to work independently from Mr. Krajišnik”;

CONSIDERING that a meeting between Mr. Krajišnik and amicus curiae about an issue within the purview of amicus curiae’s assignment would violate both the terms and spirit of amicus curiae’s appointment;

HEREBY CLARIFIES that amicus curiae remains under an obligation to work independently from Mr. Krajišnik and that the meeting sought by Mr. Krajišnik would consequently be inappropriate.[5]

Subsequently, in a Motion filed on 26 June 2008, Mr. Krajišnik sought review of the Decision of 11 June 2008 and an order obliging amicus curiae to visit him at the UNDU. The Pre-Appeal Judge considered that the Motion was best construed as a request for reconsideration of the Decision, since it did not meet the standards for a request for review laid out in Rule 119(a) of the Rules.[6] The Pre-Appeal Judge denied the Motion, finding that Mr. Krajišnik had not met the standard that would justify granting his request for reconsideration because he had not shown that the 11 June 2008 Decision was based on clearly erroneous reasoning or that it would result in an injustice.