Translation of Trial Judgement

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Extension of Time - 23.03.2009 MILUTINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

p. 3: NOTING that Pavković’s and Lukić’s Motions seek authorization to file their notices of appeal within 60 days from the filing of the B/C/S translation of the Trial Judgement on the ground that neither of them understand English;[1]

CONSIDERING that Counsel for Pavković and Lukić work in English;

RECALLING that, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber may, after the filing of the notice of appeal by a party and on good cause being shown by motion, authorize a variation of grounds of appeal;

CONSIDERING therefore that Pavković and Lukić will have the opportunity, if they so wish, to request variation of their grounds of appeal after having read the B/C/S translation of the Trial Judgement, provided that they show good cause under Rule 108 of the Rules;

FURTHER CONSIDERING that it would be unreasonable to delay the appellate proceedings until the filing of the B/C/S translation of the Trial Judgement;

FINDING therefore that Pavković and Lukić have not shown good cause for the requested extension;

 

pp. 3-4: CONSIDERING that the length of the Trial Judgement is unprecedented and that, in conjunction with the other factors referred by the Joint Motion, this case raises issues of significant complexity;[2]

CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to prepare meaningful notices of appeal in full conformity with the applicable provisions;

FINDING that good cause exists for granting an extension on that basis[.]

See also, Decision on Joint Defence Motion Seeking Extension of Time to File Appeal Briefs, 29 June 2009.

show footnotes

[1] Pavković’s Motion [Motion for an Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal with Annex” filed by the Defence for Nebojša Pavković, 9 March 2009], paras 2-4; Lukić’s Motion, para. 3.

[2] Cf. Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time, Request to Exceed Page Limit, and Motion to File a Consolidated Response to Appeal Briefs, 27 June 2006, para. 7 in which the Pre-Appeal Judge noted the “unusual length” of the Trial Judgement rendered in that case; Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Extension of Time, 26 April 2004, para. 5 mentioning the complexity of issues in that appeal as one of the factors in favour of an extension of time; Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić & Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Decision on Motions to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Briefs, 11 May 2001, para. 19 referring to the length and the complexity of the trial.

Download full document 		ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Extension of Time - 21.10.2009 RENZAHO Tharcisse
(ICTR-97-31-A)

3. Mr. Renzaho now requests an extension of time to file his Appellant’s Brief within 75 days from the service to him and his Counsel of the French translation of the Trial Judgement.[1] In support of his request, Mr. Renzaho submits that because he is francophone and can neither speak nor read English, he is incapable of fully understanding the Trial Judgement, properly discussing grounds of appeal, and actively participating in the drafting of his Appellant’s Brief, particularly with respect to factual issues.[2] […]

4. Rule 116(A) of the Rules allows for the extension of time of any deadline on a showing of good cause. Pursuant to Rule 116(B) of the Rules, where the ability of the convicted person to make full answer and defence depends on the availability of a decision in an official language other than that in which it was issued, that circumstance shall be taken into account as a good cause. This provision may provide a basis for an extension of time, upon request, for the filing of the convicted person’s Appellant’s Brief pending the translation of the Trial Judgement into a working language of the Tribunal which he or she understands.[3]

5. Mr. Renzaho’s circumstances constitute good cause to extend the time for the filing of his Appellant’s Brief from the filing of the French translation of the Trial Judgement.

6. Mr. Renzaho’s Lead Counsel has the ability to work in both English and French,[4] and may therefore discuss the draft of the Appellant’s Brief with Mr. Renzaho, subject to his final approval once the French translation of the Trial Judgement is filed. It is therefore appropriate in this instance to allow a limited extension of time. 

See also, the “Decision on Tharcisse Renzaho’s Motion for Extension of Time for the Filing of Notice of Appeal and Brief in Reply” rendered in this case on 22 September 2009, where the Appeals Chamber held:

4. Pursuant to Rule 116(B) of the Rules, where the ability of the convicted person to make full answer and defence depends on the availability of a decision in an official language other than that in which it was issued, that circumstance shall be taken into account as a good cause. In practice, Rule 116(B) of the Rules does not provide a basis for an extension of time for the filing of a Notice of Appeal where the convicted person’s counsel can work in the language in which the Trial Judgement was pronounced.[5] This provision may, however, provide a basis for an extension of time, upon request, for the filing of the convicted person’s brief on appeal (“Appellant’s Brief”) pending the translation of the Trial Judgement into a working language of the Tribunal which he or she understands.[6]

5. In the present case, the information provided by the Registry shows that Mr. Renzaho’s Lead Counsel has indicated that French is his mother tongue and that he has a “good” knowledge of English, with the ability to read, speak, and write it fluently.[7] He is therefore able to discuss the contents of the Trial Judgement as well as any possible grounds of appeal with Mr. Renzaho. The determination of potential grounds of appeal falls primarily within the purview of Defence Counsel and, if an application is made after the Trial Judgement becomes available in French and good cause is shown, leave may be granted to vary the grounds of appeal under Rule 108 of the Rules.[8] For these reasons, Mr. Renzaho has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time for the filing of his Notice of Appeal.

show footnotes

[1] Requête en Demande de Délai, 9 October 2009 (“Motion”), paras. 7, 11, p. 4.

[2] Motion, para. 9.

[3] See The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Renzaho, Case No. ICTR-97-31-A, Decision on Tharcisse Renzaho’s Motion for Extension of Time for the Filing of Notice of Appeal and Brief in Reply, 22 September 2009, para. 4. See also Callixte Kalimanzira v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-05-88-A, Decision on Callixte Kalimanzira’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Appeal and for an Extension of Time for the Filing of his Appellant’s Brief, 31 August 2009, para. 5; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of the Respondent’s Brief, 10 March 2009, paras. 4, 6; The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Anatole Nsengiyumva’s Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Appeal Submissions, 2 March 2009, pp. 4-6; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time, 28 January 2009, p. 3. However, once a French version of the Trial Judgement is filed, Rule 116(B) does not contemplate good cause for an extension of time to file briefs on appeal where the convicted person’s counsel can work in the language in which it was filed. See also Siméon Nchamihigo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2001-63-A, Decision on Defence Motion for a French Translation of the Prosecutor’s Respondent’s Brief and for Extension of Time for the Filing of the Reply Brief, 8 July 2009, paras. 5, 6, 9; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of the Reply Brief, 3 July 2009, paras. 4-6, 9.

[4] See Form IL2 filed by Mr. Cantier, along with a copy of his attached curriculum vitae, on 15 September 2009.

[5] See, e.g., Callixte Kalimanzira v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-05-88-A, Decision on Callixte Kalimanzira’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of Notice of Appeal, 20 July 2009, para. 5 (“Kalimanzira Appeal Decision”); The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Anatole Nsengiyumva’s Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Appeal Submissions, 2 March 2009, pp. 4, 5 (“Bagosora et al. Appeal Decision”); François Karera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-74-A, Decision on François Karera’s Motion for an Extension of Time for Filing the Notice of Appeal, 21 December 2007, pp. 2, 3 (“Karera Appeal Decision”).

[6] See, e.g., Callixte Kalimanzira v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-05-88-A, Decision on Callixte Kalimanzira’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Appeal and for an Extension of Time for the Filing of his Appellant’s Brief, 31 August 2009, para. 5; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of the Respondent’s Brief, 10 March 2009, paras. 4, 6; Bagosora et al. Appeal Decision, pp. 5, 6; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time, 28 January 2009, p. 3. However, once a French version of the Trial Judgement is filed, Rule 116(B) does not contemplate good cause for an extension of time to file briefs on appeal where the convicted person’s counsel can work in the language in which it was filed. See also Siméon Nchamihigo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2001-63-A, Decision on Defence Motion for a French Translation of the Prosecutor’s Respondent’s Brief and for Extension of Time for the Filing of the Reply Brief, 8 July 2009, paras. 5, 6, 9; Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of the Reply Brief, 3 July 2009, paras. 4-6, 9.

[7] See Form IL2 filed by Mr. Cantier, along with a copy of his attached curriculum vitae, on 15 September 2009.

[8] Kalimanzira Appeal Decision, para. 6; Bagosora et al. Appeal Decision, p. 5; Karera Appeal Decision, p. 3. 

Download full document 		ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127