Motions for mistrial
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Mistrial Decision - 02.04.2014 |
STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN (IT-08-91-A) |
|
|
20. Neither the Statute nor the Rules explicitly regulate motions for a declaration of mistrial or to vacate a trial judgement. Pursuant to Rules 54 and 107 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber may issue such orders as may be necessary for the conduct of proceedings.[1] [1] Rule 107 of the Rules provides that the rules of procedure and evidence that govern proceedings in the Trial Chambers shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings in the Appeals Chamber. |
ICTR Rule
Rule 54; Rule 107 ICTY Rule Rule 54; Rule 107 |
|
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Mistrial Decision - 02.04.2014 |
STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN (IT-08-91-A) |
|
|
33. […] A mistrial is a trial that has been terminated prior to its conclusion.[1] A motion to declare a mistrial must thus be filed during the trial. This type of motion is not available or necessary in the appeal phase of a case. Whereas at the trial phase, bringing such a motion may be “indispensable to the grant of fair and appropriate relief,”[2] in appeal proceedings an allegation of a violation to the right to a fair trial will be considered in the appeal judgement.[3] [1] Bryan Garner (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 2009, 9th ed.), p. 1093 (“mistrial …1. A trial that the judge brings to an end, without a determination on the merits, because of a procedural error or serious misconduct occurring during the proceedings.”) (emphasis added). [2] Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 643-645. [3] [See Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Judgement, 8 October 2008 (“Martić Appeal Judgement”), paras 30, 39-46; Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Judgement, 22 April 2008, paras 43, 77-107; Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement, 30 November 2006 (“Galić Appeal Judgement”), paras 27-45; Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 February 2001 (“Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement”), paras 651-709; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000 (“Furundžija Appeal Judgement”), paras 164-215. See also Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-A, Judgement, 8 May 2012, paras 12-21; Tharcisse Renzaho v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-31-A, Judgement, 1 April 2011, paras 13-50; François Karera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-74-A, Judgement, 2 February 2009, paras 371-379; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement, 28 November 2007 (“Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement”), paras 18, 47-90; Laurent Semanza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Judgement, 20 May 2005, paras 12-58; Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-A, Judgement, 9 July 2004, paras 43-46; Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Judgement, 26 May 2003 (“Rutaganda Appeal Judgement”), paras 36-125; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgment, 1 June 2001, paras 85, 194-207.] See also Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 643-645. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Reconsideration - 24.07.2014 |
STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN (IT-08-91-A) |
|
|
15. [...] The Appeals Chamber emphasises that it will make its own assessment of the issues. Indeed, it will consider the arguments of the parties on whether, and to what extent, the finding regarding Judge Harhoff's partiality in the Šešelj Decisions has an impact on the present case. However, the Appeals Chamber will do so as part of the normal appellate process, and only after the parties have fully litigated the matter.1 In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber considers that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to assess any impact of the Šešelj Decisions in the Impugned Decision. [...] 1 The Appeals Chamber notes in this respect that the parties have been given an opportunity to fully litigate this matter in their additions to their appeal briefs. [...] |
||