Time allocated to parties' cases
|Decision on EDS Disclosure - 28.11.2013||
40. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the time granted to the parties for trial preparation and presentation of evidence is well within the trial chamber's discretion since decisions on such issues depend on a number of factors specific to each case. A trial chamber has the authority to limit the length of time allocated to the parties, but must balance the need for adequate time with the need for an expeditious trial, taking all relevant factors into consideration. In so doing, the trial chamber must consider whether the amount of time allocated is objectively adequate to permit the relevant party to fairly set forth its case in light of the complexity and number of issues to be litigated. When a party alleges that a trial chamber erred in its decision with regard to the amount of time allocated, the question before the Appeals Chamber is whether the trial chamber took into account the relevant factors and determined that the time given to the party was sufficient for allowing a fair opportunity to present its case and, if so, whether the trial chamber's analysis of these factors was so deficient or unreasonable as to constitute an error in the exercise of its discretion.
 Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR73.7, Decision on Appeal from Decision on Motion for Further Postponement of Trial, 31 March 2010, paras 19, 23. See Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95‑5/18-AR73.5, Decision on Radovan Karadžić's Appeal of the Decision on Commencement of Trial, 13 October 2009, para. 19; Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.6, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal by the Amici Curiae against the Trial Chamber Order Concerning the Presentation and Preparation of the Defence Case, 20 January 2004 ("Milošević 20 January 2004 Decision), para. 16.
 See Karadžić 29 January 2013 Decision [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR73.10, Decision on Appeal from Decision on Duration of Defence Case, 29 January 2013]], para. 16; Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlic et aI., Case No. IT-04-74-AR73.4, Decision on Prosecution Appeal Concerning the Trial Chamber's Ruling Reducing Time for the Prosecution Case, 6 February 2007 ("Prlić 6 February 2007 Decision"), para. 14; Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-AR73.2, Interlocutory Decision on Length of Defence Case, 20 July 2005 ("Orić 20 July 2005 Decision"), para. 8; Milošević 20 January 2004 Decision paras 15-16.
 See Karadžić 29 January 2013 Decision, para. 16; Prlić 6 February 2007 Decision, para. 14; Orić Decision 20 July 2005, paras 8-9; Milošević 20 January 2004 Decision, paras 15-16.
 Prlić 6 February 2007 Decision, para. 14; Orić Decision 20 July 2005, para. 9; Milošević 20 January 2004 Decision, paras 15-16.
|ICTR Rule Rule 68(B) ICTY Rule Rule 68(ii)|