Filing of a reply
|Decision on Referral - 05.10.2012||
14. An appellant “may” file a reply within four days of the filing of the response. […]
15. […] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber considers that striking the Reply Brief does not run counter to the interests of justice in the same manner as striking the Appeal Brief would in this case. In this context, the Appeals Chamber considers that a reply is an optional filing and finds that it is not necessary to the consideration of this appeal. In view of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber grants the Motion to Strike and shall not consider the Reply Brief.
16. The Appeals Chamber emphasises that procedural time-limits are to be respected as they are indispensable to the proper functioning of the Mechanism. Violations of time-limits, unaccompanied by any showing of good cause, will not be tolerated. The Appeals Chamber warns Duty Counsel that failure to respect filing deadlines may result in a determination that Duty Counsel is ineligible to represent an accused or suspect before the Mechanism.
 Rule 14(E) of the Rules. See also ICTR Practice Direction, para. 7; Practice Direction, para. 1.
 See supra para. 12.
 See The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-R11bis, Decision on a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Cross-Appeal, 16 September 2008 (“Hategekimana Decision of 16 September 2008”), p. 4; Prosecutor v. Baton Haxhiu, Case No. IT-04-84-R77.5-A, Decision on Admissibility of Notice of Appeal against Trial Judgement, 4 September 2008 (“Haxhiu Decision of 4 September 2008”), para. 16; Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 46.
 See, e.g., Ladislas Ntaganzwa v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-9-AR11bis, Decision on Admissibility of Notice of Appeal against Referral Decision, 5 July 2012, p. 2; Haxhiu Decision of 4 September 2008, para. 16; Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 46. Cf. Hategekimana Decision of 16 September 2008, pp. 4, 5.
 See Rule 47(A)(ii) of the Rules.
|Decision on Expert Witness - 30.01.2008||
POPOVIĆ et al.
7. The Appeals Chamber recalls that “sufficient reasons constituting good cause” pursuant to Rule 127(A)(i) and (B) of the Rules are required to recognize a late filing as validly done. Exceptionally, the Appeals Chamber has, in specific circumstances, found good cause to recognize a late filing as validly done in the interests of justice. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that Counsel “is under an obligation to give absolute priority to observe the time limits as foreseen in the Rules” and that “a trip abroad” does not constitute good cause for an extension of the time limit. Absence from The Hague does not constitute good cause either.
See also the Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judge Liu and Judge Schomburg.
 Prosecutor v. Milan Lukić et al., Case No. IT-98-32/1-AR65.1, Decision on Defence Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Sredoje Lukić’s Motion for Provisional Release, 16 April 2007 (“Lukić Decision”), para. 12.
 See, for example, Lukić Decision, para. 12, in which the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber did not abuse its discretion in admitting supplementary material to the Prosecution’s response filed one day after the deadline “in light of the relevance of the information contained in the Prosecution [supplementary material]” for the issue before it and the “opportunity afforded to the Appellant to reply to it”. See also Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski et al., Case No. IT-04-82-AR63.5, Decision on Ljube Boškoski’s Interlocutory Appeal on Second Motion for Provisional Release, 28 August 2006, para. 9, in which the Appeals Chamber admitted an appeal filed one day after the deadline because it considered it to be in the interests of justice due to the “substantial importance of the Appeal for the rights of the Appellants.”
 Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana et al., Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motion for Extension of Time, 3 May 2007, p. 3. See, also Prosecutor v. Momir Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, Decision on Second Defence Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing of Replies, 1 April 2005, p. 4, in which the Pre-Appeal Judge stressed that “other professional commitments of counsel should not have any bearing on the responsibilities of counsel towards their client and the International Tribunal”.
|ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127|