Compliance with formal requirements
|Appeal Judgement II - 01.04.2011||
In footnote 7, the Appeal Chamber held that
[…] In paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Notice of Appeal, Muvunyi alleges that his sentence was not in accordance with established practice and further requests the Appeals Chamber to reduce his sentence in light of any findings which are set aside as not supported by facts or law. Muvunyi does not develop this argument in his Appeal Brief. Instead, he addresses this point in his Respondent’s brief. There, Muvunyi submits that his crime is less egregious than several cases in which the Tribunal has imposed a sentence at or below 15 years of imprisonment and that a sentence of time served adequately serves the ends of justice. See Muvunyi Response Brief, paras. 13-40. Generally, arguments made in support of the Notice of Appeal should be developed in the Appeal Brief. That said, this does not prevent the Appeals Chamber from considering arguments of substantial importance to the appeal developed elsewhere if their exclusion would lead to a miscarriage of justice. See, e.g., Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to Pursue the Oral Request for the Appeals Chamber to Disregard Certain Arguments Made by Counsel for Appellant Barayagwiza at the Appeals Hearing on 17 January 2007, 5 March 2007, para. 15. In this case, however, Muvunyi’s submissions do not demonstrate any error in his sentence for the same reasons given in relation to the Prosecution’s challenge to the Trial Chamber’s comparative sentencing approach. See infra para. 72.
 Muvunyi I Appeal Judgement [Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-55A-A, Judgement, 29 August 2008], para. 18; Seromba Appeal Judgement, paras. 27, 100; Simba Appeal Judgement, para. 63; Muhimana Appeal Judgement, paras. 76, 167, 195; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 49; Ndindabahizi Appeal Judgement, para. 16.
 Muvunyi I Appeal Judgement, para. 18; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 326; Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 28; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 33.
 Muvunyi I Appeal Judgement, para. 140; The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-AR98bis, Decision on Appeal of Decision Denying the Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, 11 November 2009, para. 13.
 See, e.g., Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, para. 302; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 217.
 Trial Judgement, para. 47 (“Moreover, each of the Defence’s factual witnesses testified that Muvunyi attended a meeting in Gikore in mid to late May 1994 where he spoke to an audience.”). See also Muvunyi I Trial Judgement [The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-T, Judgement and Sentence, rendered orally on 12 September 2006, written judgement filed in English on 18 September 2006], paras. 202-205.
|Order Expunging Annexes - 30.11.2005||
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
The Appeals Chamber has expunged from the record appendixes to the Respondent’s brief which contained legal and factual arguments:
P. 2: NOTING that, pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions on Appeal, “[a]ny appendix or book of authorities does not count towards the page limit”;
P. 3: NOTING that, pursuant to the same provision, “[a]n appendix or book of authorities will not contain legal or factual arguments, but rather references, source materials, items from the record, exhibits and other relevant, non-argumentative material”;
CONSIDERING that Annexures A through G of Appendix A contain legal and factual arguments as follows […];
P. 4: FINDING that Annexures A through G of Appendix A to the Consolidated Respondent’s Brief cannot be considered as appendixes under Paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction;
CONSIDERING that Annexure H of Appendix A “Chart of Factual Findings” and Appendix B “Authorities Cited” were filed in compliance with Paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction;
REJECT the filings of Annexures A through G of Appendix A to the Consolidated Respondent’s Brief;
DIRECT the Registry to return the aforementioned Annexures to the Prosecution and to expunge them from the record [.]
 Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions on Appeal, 16 September 2002, as amended (“Practice Direction”).
|Other instruments Practice Direction on the length of Briefs and Motions on Appeal (ICTR): Para. 4.|
|Decision on Review - 19.03.2009||
Download full document
7. The Appeals Chamber notes the Applicant’s failure to comply with the formal requirements for filings before the International Tribunal and to follow the instructions provided by the Registry and reminds the Applicant of the importance of respecting these requirements. The Appeals Chamber is further compelled to observe that the three letters of submission from the Applicant fall far below the average standard for motions to the International Tribunal. Finally, the Appeals Chamber notes the poor language of the Application and reminds the Applicant that it may lodge submissions in any of the official languages of the International Tribunal.
8. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice and specifically in order to avoid prejudice arising to the Applicant from the poor diligence of Counsel, the Appeals Chamber decided to examine the merits of the Application.
|Appeal Judgement - 05.07.2001||
Download full document
25. The Appeals Chamber begins with the proposition that a party always has a right to be heard on its motion. But the hearing need not always be oral. In this regard, there is no provision in the Rules which provides for a right of a party to make oral submissions in connection with a written motion. Similarly, the practice of the Tribunal allows for a decision on a written motion without any supplementary oral arguments, the motion itself being regarded as affording to the moving party a sufficient right to be heard. […]
|Decision on Motion to Strike Appeal Brief - 22.08.2013||
13. Footnotes, of course, count toward the overall word limit, pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Length of Briefs. I note that many spaces between numbers and punctuation marks were omitted from the footnotes of the Appeal Brief. The Appeal Brief indicates a word count of 39,866 words, such that if all the necessary spaces were included, the Appeal Brief would exceed the word limit set out in the Appeal Decision of 16 April 2013. The Appeals Chamber has previously held that such conduct is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the relevant Practice Directions.
15. Turning to the Prosecution's assertion that Mr. Nizeyimana improperly included argumentation in the Annexes, the Appeals Chamber has previously held that the proper place for arguments in support of a particular ground of appeal, as well as any supporting authority, is the appeal brief. An appellant therefore cannot simply refer in his appeal brief to other documents and expect those grounds of appeal to be preserved.
16. Pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, appendices do not count towards the word limit provided they do not contain legal or factual arguments, but only non-argumentative material. Furthermore, an annex that provides description for some references cited does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the annex has argumentative content. The interests of justice may even allow for a very limited amount of argumentative material in an annex, for which the parties have some discretion, as long as it is not abused and which will be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, even if an annex provides a clear overview of a party's positions, this does not necessarily prove that the annex is argumentative.
19. […] [A]n appellant has discretion as to how to develop arguments and how to allot the allowed space between arguments.
 In the Case Against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.5-A, Decision on Further Motions to Strike, 17 December 2009, para. 11
 Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 11. See also The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No.ICTR.-98-42-A, Order Issuing a Formal Warning to Counsel for Ntahobali, Kanyabasbi, and Ndayambaje, 15 April 2013, pp. 1, 2.
 Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 12, referring to Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-0368- A, Decision on the Motion to Strike Defence Reply Brief and Annexes A-D,7 June 2007, paras. 8-12.
 See Hartmann Appeal Decision of 17 December 2009, para. 12.
 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Callixte Nzabonimana, Case No. ICTR-98-44D-A, Decision on Prosecution's Motions to Strike and for Extension of Time, and on Nzabonimana's Motions for Extension of Words and for Remedies. 17 June 2013, pp. 2, 3; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač. Case No. IT-06-90-A, Decision on Ante Gotovina's Motion to Strike the Prosecution's Response to Gotovina's Second Rule 115 Motion, 9 May 2012 ("Gotovina Appeal Decision of 9 May 2012"), p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Decision on Prosecution's Motion to Strike Ante Gotovina's Reply Brief, 18 October 2011 ("Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011"), p. 1.
 Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2.
 Gotovina Appeal Decision of 9 May 2012, p. 2; Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2.
 See Gotovina Appeal Decision of 18 October 2011, p. 2, referring to Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Decision on the Motion to Strike Annexes A, C, D and E of the Prosecution's Appeal Brief, 18 May 2007, para. 7.
|Other instruments Paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement|