|Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - 04.07.2006||
PRLIĆ et al.
Further, the Appeals Chamber felt that the Trial Chamber’s decision would help to avoid “undue delays” in order to complete the trial “within a reasonable time”, therefore preserving the right to due process, which is fundamental in human rights law.
In conclusion, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber acted in compliance with Rule 90(F) and subsequently dismissed the Defence’s interlocutory appeal.
 Article 14(3)(c) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 6.1 European Convention on Human Rights; Article 8(l) American Convention on Human Rights; see Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 13 of 1984 para. 10: "Subparagraph 3(c) provides that the accused shall be tried without undue delay. This guarantee relates not only to the time by which trial should commence, but also the time by which it should end and judgement be rendered: all stages must take place 'without undue delay'. To make this right effective, a procedure must be available in order to ensure that the trial will proceed 'without undue delay', both in first instance and on appeal."; Moreira de Avezedo v. Portugal, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 11296/90, Judgement, 23 October 1990, para.74: "By requiring that cases be heard 'within a reasonable time', the Convention stresses the importance of administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility"; see also H. v. France, European Convention on Human Rights, Application No. 10073/82, Judgement, 24 October 1989, para. 58.
 Decision, p. 4-5.
|ICTR Rule Rule 90(F) ICTY Rule Rule 90(F)|