References to trial arguments

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Hostage-Taking - 09.07.2009 KARADŽIĆ Radovan

The Appellant requested that the Appeals Chamber also take into account arguments and references included in the motion and reply he had filed before the Trial Chamber. In light of the following considerations, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Appellant’s request.

13. The Appeals Chamber notes that paragraph 9(d) of the Practice Direction states that an interlocutory appeal shall contain “the grounds on which the appeal is made”. It further notes that, in the well-established practice of the Tribunal, appellants substantiate their arguments in support of each ground of appeal in their appeal briefs and not by reference to submissions made elsewhere. In addition, the Appeals Chamber recalls that, “[o]n appeal, a party may not merely repeat arguments that did not succeed at trial, unless the party can demonstrate that the Trial Chamber’s rejection of them constituted such an error as to warrant the intervention of the Appeals Chamber”. It further considers that the Appeal and the Reply autonomously contain the grounds on which the appeal is made and are not defective in any respect. Accordingly, while the Appeals Chamber will take into consideration the Preliminary Motion and Preliminary Reply as part of the record of the case, the Appeals Chamber will not treat the arguments put forward in the Preliminary Motion and Preliminary Reply as incorporated in the Appeal.

[1] Practice Direction, para. 9(d): “Where certification has been granted by a Trial Chamber, a party shall […] file an interlocutory appeal containing: […] (d) the grounds on which the appeal is made”.

[2] See, e.g., among the most recent motions: Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-AR65.14, Jadranko Prlić’s Appeal Against the Décision relative à la demande de mise en liberté provisoire de l’accusé Prlić, 16 April 2009; Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74AR-73.15, Jadranko Prlić’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Decision Regarding Supplement to the Accused Prlić’s Rule 84 bis Statement, 11 March 2009; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-AR73.3, Defendant Ante Gotovina’s and Defendant Mladen Markač’s Request for a Writ of Mandamus, 4 March 2009; Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88-AR73.4, Interlocutory Appeal on Behalf of Ljubiša Beara Against the Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Evidence Pursuant to Rule 92Quater, 26 May 2008.

[3][Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Judgement, 22 April 2008], para. 46.

Download full document