|Decision on Provisional Release - 31.10.2003||
LIMAJ et al.
Download full document
17. […] [T]he right to be heard personally is not absolute. The granting of an oral hearing is a matter for the discretion of a Chamber, and it may legitimately be regarded as unnecessary when, as in the present case, the information before the Trial Chamber is sufficient to enable the Chamber to reach an informed decision. […] Finally, the Trial Chamber is not obliged to explain prior to its final decision why a hearing is unnecessary or to notify the parties of this.
|Decision on Contempt Proceedings - 26.04.2017||
CONSIDERING that the parties have made detailed submissions, where they, by and large, rely on the same well-established jurisprudence but disagree about its interpretation with respect to the remedies available in case of non-compliance by a State with an order issued by the Mechanism;
CONSIDERING, therefore, that the information before me is sufficient to reach an informed decision, and, accordingly, that it is not necessary to invite further oral or written submissions on the matter; 
 See Response [Prosecution Response to Ngirabatware’s Motion to Initiate Contempt Proceedings, 12 April 2017], paras. 2-4, citing, inter alia, Blaškić Appeal Decision [Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108 bis, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997], paras. 25, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44; Krstić Appeal Decision [Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Decision on Application for Subpoenas, 1 July 2003], paras. 23-28; Reply [Reply to Prosecution Response to Motion to Initiate Contempt Proceedings and Request for Oral Hearing, 16 April 2017], paras. 7, 8, citing, inter alia, Blaškić Appeal Decision; Krstić Appeal Decision, para. 26.
 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et al., Case No. IT-04-84bis-AR73.1, Decision on Request for Oral Argument, 16 March 2011, p. 2, n. 8 and references cited therein.