Right to respond to an interlocutory appeal of a co-accused
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Decision on Witness List - 21.08.2007 |
NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) (ICTR-98-42-AR73) |
|
11. […] While the Practice Direction does not specifically provide for the possibility for an accused in a joint trial to file submissions in appeal proceedings initiated by his co-accused, this may be allowed in the circumstances of a given case, particularly where such accused has a specific interest in the matter and where considering such filing as admissible would be in the interests of justice and would not be prejudicial to the other parties.[1] 14. The Appeals Chamber held that to grant an accused, who has not obtained the required certification the standing to challenge a Trial Chamber decision on appeal in his response to an appeal filed by a co-accused would open the interlocutory appeal process to abuse. Where certification in accordance with Rules 73 (B) and (C) of the Rules is required, parties must obtain such certification if they intend to appeal a decision. Consequently, the Appeals Chamber considers that it will only take into consideration those arguments made by Mr. Ndayambaje and Mr. Ntahobali that are legitimately made in response to the certified appeal of the Appellant. [1] Gotovina Decision [Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al, Case No. IT-06-90-AR73.2, Decision on Ivan Čermak’s Interlocutory Appeal against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Conflict of Interest of Attorneys Čedo Prodanović and Jadranka Sloković, 29 June 2007], para. 12. |
||
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Decision on Conflict of Interest (Čermak) - 29.06.2007 |
GOTOVINA et al. (IT-06-90-AR73.2) |
|
12. […] The Appeals Chamber finds that, while the Practice Direction does not specifically provide for the possibility for a co-accused to file submissions in appeals proceedings initiated by another co-accused, it is clear from the procedural background of the case that Gotovina does have a specific interest in the matter and it is therefore in the interests of justice to consider Gotovina’s Response as validly filed. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant suffers no prejudice from such finding since he was granted the opportunity to reply to Gotovina’s Response.[1] [1] Decision on Ivan Čermak’s Urgent Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Reply to Responses Filed by the Prosecutor and Ante Gotovina, 16 May 2007, pp. 3-4. |