Chamber duty to decide motions
|Appeal Judgement - 30.01.2015||
POPOVIĆ et al.
1952. The Appeals Chamber notes that Rule 73 of the Rules allows a party to move before a chamber by way of a motion for an appropriate ruling or relief and introduces the procedure for requesting certification to file an interlocutory appeal after a decision on a motion is rendered. Although its wording is not entirely explicit in this regard, Rule 73 of the Rules should be understood as imposing a duty on a chamber to render an order or decision on every validly filed motion, even if the motion is considered frivolous or an abuse of process. This duty ensures that an accused can exercise his or her right of appeal and take such actions as provided for by Rule 73(C) of the Rules. […] A motion which can be considered as being rendered moot by subsequent actions still remains within the jurisdiction of a trial chamber to consider. […]
 See, e.g., Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 41 (“[V]alidly filed pending motions are not implicitly dismissed with the pronouncement or filing of the trial judgement.”); The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Motion to Void Trial Chamber Decisions, 30 September 2011, p. 2. See also Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case Nos. ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 and ICTR-98-44-AR72.6, Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals: Joint Criminal Enterprise, 12 April 2006, para. 23.
|ICTR Rule Rule 73 ICTY Rule Rule 73|