Good cause for extension

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Application to Strike Brief - 23.06.2005 MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan
(IT-02-54-A-R77.4)

The Appellant filed his Appellant’s Brief after the deadline set by the Appeals Chamber and he did not submit a motion pursuant to Rule 127 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence requesting that it be considered as validly filed and showing good cause to justify the delay. The Appeals Chamber, nevertheless, held that the Appellant’s Brief was deemed to be validly filed:

5.       The Scheduling Order issued by the Appeals Chamber is unambiguous.  The Appellant’s Brief was to be filed on 17 June 2005.  If good cause justified Counsel filing the Appellant’s Brief after the time stipulated in that Order, then that good cause should be presented to the Appeals Chamber, and a request for an extension of time should have been made before the filing deadline or a request that the Appellant’s Brief be received as validly filed pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules should have been made at the time of the filing of the Appellant’s Brief out of time, if not before.  The fact that Counsel for the Appellant has not sought to justify his late filing and has requested the Appeals Chamber to receive it as validly filed after the fact is sufficient grounds for the Appeals Chamber to strike the Appellant’s brief as not validly filed, as is requested by the Prosecution.  Indeed, when clear time limits are transgressed without justifiable explanation, the Appeals Chamber is hesitant to do other than reject the filing.  In this case, however, the Appeals Chamber has determined that the interests of justice warrant it receiving the brief as validly filed despite Counsel’s breach of its Order. 

6.       Contempt proceedings are ancillary to proceedings at the Tribunal and arise from the inherent power of the Judges of this Tribunal to protect the integrity of their own proceedings.  However, this particular contempt appeal also touches upon fundamental due process rights of an Accused, Mr Milošević, charged with  particularly serious offences in a way that other contempt proceedings heard at this Tribunal have not. 

7.       A central argument made by the Appellant in his grounds of appeal is that the Trial Chamber should not have allowed his cross-examination to continue in the absence of the Accused and that, as a result, he should never have been put in the position of refusing an order of the Tribunal and subsequently being charged with contempt of the Tribunal for such a refusal.  Prior to the commencement of the contempt proceedings against him, the Appellant requested the Trial Chamber to reconsider its ruling on this basis.  The Trial Chamber refused to do so on the basis that it was not its role to reconsider such a decision, one which it already had determined was warranted, in the context of a proceeding of contempt against the Appellant.

8.       In these circumstances, if the Appeals Chamber refuses due to a procedural irregularity to accept the Appellant’s Brief as validly filed, then the Appellant is placed in the unfortunate position of being charged with contempt but denied the opportunity to respond fully to that criminal charge. Upon this basis, the Appeals Chamber has determined that the possible implications of this contempt proceeding for the rights of the Accused Mr Milošević warrant some leniency to the Appellant despite his Counsel’s failure to abide by the Scheduling Order of the Appeals Chamber.

9.       On the basis of the foregoing, the Appellant’s Brief filed on 20 June 2005 is deemed to be validly filed. […]  

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127
Notion(s) Filing Case
Order on Extension of Time - 21.09.2004 MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan
(IT-02-54-AR73.7)

Trial Chamber III issued an oral decision on 2 September 2004 with written reasons to follow. Pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules, Slobodan Milošević filed a request for certification to appeal the 2 September 2004 decision, which the Trial Chamber granted in an order issued 10 September 2004. Milošević subsequently filed a request with the Appeals Chamber for an extension of time in which to file the appeal against the 2 September 2004 decision, on the basis that the written reasons for the decision were still pending. The Appeals Chamber held, at p. 2:

NOTING that on 10 September 2004, Trial Chamber III issued an “Order on Request for Certification to Appeal the Decision of the Trial Chamber on Court Assigned Counsel,” which certified for appeal the question of whether representation by counsel should be imposed on Slobodan Miloševic (“Appellant”);

BEING SEIZED OF the “Request for Extension of Time to File Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Order Concerning the Representation of the Accused Dated 2 September 2004” filed by Appellant on 14 September 2004, in which Appellant requested an extension of the time limit to file a certified appeal under Rule 73(C)(ii);

CONSIDERING that, while Trial Chamber III has already issued an oral order finally resolving the question at issue in Appellant’s certified appeal, the Trial Chamber’s formal written decision has yet to issue;

DEEMING the lack of a reasoned written decision “good cause” for an extension of the time limit under Rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, since the lack of a written decision hampers counsel’s efforts to fully comprehend the reasons for the Trial Chamber’s decision;

HEREBY GRANT Appellant’s motion […] 

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127
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.

[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 Stay of Provisional Release - 29.09.2004 STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ
(IT-03-69-AR73)

24. As indicated above, Rule 65(E) establishes the procedure by which the Prosecution should indicate its intention to seek a stay of a decision of a Trial Chamber granting an accused’s provisional release application. However, while the Appeals Chamber is of the view that Rule 127 should not be relied upon by the Prosecution as a means of circumventing the correct procedure set out in the Rules, the Appeals Chamber is also not persuaded that the Trial Chamber erred in applying that Rule to receive the Prosecution’s application for a stay as validly filed. The sole purpose of Rule 127(A)(ii) is to allow for exception to a strict application of the Rules where “good cause” exists for allowing that exception.

25. In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber did not provide clear reasons for its finding that “good cause” existed for the application of Rule 127(A)(ii) to the requirements of Rule 65(E), but it was clearly within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to do so. In its stay application, the Prosecution made clear its intention to appeal the Impugned Decision. The “good cause”, as recently recognised by the Appeals Chamber in Prlić when it granted the Prosecution’s application for a stay of provisional release orders of a Trial Chamber, is the preservation of the object of the Prosecution’s appeal against the provisional release of the accused.[1] Preservation of the object of the appeal was the “concrete motivation” of the Judges of the Trial Chamber in granting the Prosecution’s stay application.

[1] Prosecutor v Jadranko Prlić et al, Case IT-04-74-AR65.1; IT-04-74-AR65.2; IT-04-74-AR65.3, Decision on Motions for Re-Consideration, Clarification, Request for Release and Applications for Leave to Appeal, 8 September 2004.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 65;
Rule 116
ICTY Rule Rule 65;
Rule 127
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Referral - 05.10.2012 MUNYARUGARAMA Pheneas
(MICT-12-09-AR14)

10.     Rule 154(A)(ii) of the Rules allows a Chamber of the Mechanism, on good cause being shown by motion, to recognize as validly done any act done after the expiration of the prescribed time-limit. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls that unforeseen logistical problems have been considered insufficient to establish good cause warranting extensions of filing deadlines.[1]

[1] See, e.g., Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-A, Decision on Ildephonse Hategekimana’s Second Motion for an Extension of Time to File his Appellant’s Brief, 20 May 2011, paras. 3, 8, 10.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 154(A)(ii)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Extension of Time - 24.07.2008 HATEGEKIMANA Idelphonse
(ICTR-00-55B-R11bis)

Having noted that Hategekimana and his Counsel work exclusively in French, the Appeals Chamber recalled the good cause requirement for an extension of time under Rule 116 of the Rules and granted the sought extension (p. 3):

CONSIDERING however that Rule 116 of the Rules provides that the Appeals Chamber “may grant a motion to extend a time limit upon a showing of good cause” and that “[w]here the ability of the accused to make full answer and Defence depends on the availability of a decision in an official language other than that in which it was originally issued, that circumstance shall be taken into account as a good cause under the present Rule”;    

[…]

CONSIDERING that the need for Hategekimana and his Counsel to be provided with the Rule 11bis Decision and the Prosecution’s written submissions in the present appeal proceedings in French in order to be able to make full answer and defence constitutes “good cause” within the meaning of Rule 116 of the Rules;

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Admissibility of Notice of Appeal - 04.09.2008 HAXHIU Baton
(IT-04-84-R77.5-A)

14. […] However, Haxhiu has requested the Appeals Chamber to recognize the late filing as validly done pursuant to Rules 127(A)(ii) and 127(B) of the Rules. He concedes that “counsel’s unfamiliarity with the Appeals Chamber’s procedure does not constitute good cause for an extension of time.”[1] Indeed, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “counsel participating in appeals proceedings are expected to familiarize themselves with the procedural requirements.”[2]

15. […] Given the existence of only a few judgements on appeal in contempt proceedings before the International Tribunal, Counsel is expected to have acquainted himself with the relevant jurisprudence on this issue. Accordingly, no good cause has been shown that would allow the Appeals Chamber to exercise its discretion in recognizing the filing of the Notice of Appeal as validly done.

[1] Response, p. 7.

[2] Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motion by Radivoje Miletić for Access to Confidential Information, 9 September 2005, p. 2.   

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Extension of Time for Respondent's Briefs - 27.07.2009 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

RECALLING, however, that the extension of time for the filing of the Defence appellant’s briefs was granted in light of the fact that “the volume of the trial record, including the length of the Trial Judgement, is unprecedented and that this case raises issues of significant complexity”;[1]

CONSIDERING that there is a considerable and unusual temporal overlap in the current deadlines for the submission of the Defence appellant’s briefs and their respondent’s briefs, which may have the effect of reducing the benefits of the extension of time accorded by the Decision of 29 June 2009;

CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to prepare meaningful respondent’s briefs in full conformity with the applicable provisions;

FINDING that good cause exists for granting an extension on that basis

[1] Decision of 29 June 2009 [Decision on Joint Defence Motion Seeking Extension of Time to File Appeal Briefs, 29 June 2009], p. 4.

Download full document
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.

[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
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Extension of Time for Respondent's Briefs - 27.07.2009 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

RECALLING, however, that the extension of time for the filing of the Defence appellant’s briefs was granted in light of the fact that “the volume of the trial record, including the length of the Trial Judgement, is unprecedented and that this case raises issues of significant complexity”;[1]

CONSIDERING that there is a considerable and unusual temporal overlap in the current deadlines for the submission of the Defence appellant’s briefs and their respondent’s briefs, which may have the effect of reducing the benefits of the extension of time accorded by the Decision of 29 June 2009;

CONSIDERING that it is in the interests of justice to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to prepare meaningful respondent’s briefs in full conformity with the applicable provisions;

FINDING that good cause exists for granting an extension on that basis

[1] Decision of 29 June 2009 [Decision on Joint Defence Motion Seeking Extension of Time to File Appeal Briefs, 29 June 2009], p. 4.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Jurisdiction - 08.12.2005 DELIĆ Rasim
(IT-04-83-AR72)

3. The Appeals Chamber does not accept that Counsel’s commitment to other cases at this Tribunal constitutes “good cause” pursuant to Rule 127.  Counsel assigned to represent accused at this Tribunal are expected to organise their work schedules in order to meet their obligations to respect the time limits for filings on appeals laid down in the Practice Direction.[1]  Counsel would have been able to calculate, upon the filing of the Appellant’s Appeal, the due date for the Prosecution Response and subsequently the Appellant’s Reply and is expected to have organised her work schedule to meet those due dates.  Accordingly, “good cause” has not been shown, and the Reply of the Appellant will not be considered in this Appeal.

[1] Prosecutor v Mejakić et al., Case No: IT-02-65-AR11bis.1, Decision on Joint Defense Motion for Leave to File Supplemented Appeals Brief, 16 November 2005, page 5.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Time and Page Extensions for Response - 21.02.2005 GALIĆ Stanislav
(IT-98-29-A)

FINDING that no explanation has been provided which would justify an extension of time or page limits to the Appellant for the filing of his reply, and that a request by a party for extension of time does not automatically amount to a showing of good cause by the opposing party;

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Time and Page Limits - 22.06.2005 BRĐANIN Radoslav
(IT-99-36-A)

5.       […] [O]rdinarily the filing of a Supplementary Notice of Appeal does not itself constitute good cause for an extension of time,[1] […]

[1] The Appellant appears to assume that having filed the supplemental Notice of Appeal would ordinarily entitle him to file an additional Appeal Brief in support of it, and suggests that an extension of time (and page length) is merited here so that he can instead file a consolidated brief addressing all grounds of appeal.  But consolidation is the normal required procedure.  The filing of a supplemental notice of appeal does not in and of itself entitle an appellant to an extension of time nor to an enlargement of length for the appeal brief, and it certainly does not entitle him to file two appeal briefs.  Instead, the appellant must file a single appeal brief, the deadline for which is calculated, pursuant to Rule 111, based on the date of filing the original notice of appeal, not on the date on which a variation of that notice was authorised pursuant to Rule 108.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Appeals of Decisions Rendered by a Single Judge - 09.08.2017 NIYITEGEKA Eliézer
(MICT-12-16-R)

10.     The Appeals Chamber accepts Niyitegeka’s argument that, at the time he filed the Request for Certification, it was not clear that he was entitled to appeal as of right the Decision of 29 January 2016, which was issued, in part, on the basis of Rules 73 and 86 of the Rules [of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism (“”Rules”)]. […]

11.     In this context, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for Niyitegeka to request certification to appeal the Decision of 29 January 2016, which was issued, in part, on the basis of Rule 86 of the Rules. Notably, Niyitegeka filed the Request for Certification within the seven-day timeframe provided under Rule 80(C) of the Rules.  Moreover, he lodged the present Appeal within seven days of the Decision of 10 May 2017 denying his Request for Certification. Consequently, and pursuant to Rule 154 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber finds that there is good cause to recognize the Appeal of the Decision of 29 January 2016 as validly filed.

[1] Niyitegeka states that the Decision of 29 January 2016 was only circulated on 1 February 2016 and that he filed his application seeking certification to appeal on 8 February 2016. Appeal, paras. 3, 4. This is not disputed by the Prosecution.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 154