Good cause requirement

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Variation of Appeal - 19.03.2009 HARAQIJA & MORINA
(IT-04-84-R77.4-A)

5. Rule 108 of the Rules provides that the “Appeals Chamber may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal” contained in a notice of appeal. Motions for variation of the notice of appeal should be submitted as soon as possible after identifying the new alleged error of the Trial Chamber to be included in the notice of appeal or after discovering any other basis for seeking variation of the notice of appeal.[1] Generally, “a request to amend a notice of appeal must, at least, explain precisely what amendments are sought and why, with respect to each amendment, the ‘good cause’ requirement of Rule 108 is satisfied”.[2] It is the Appellant’s burden to demonstrate that each amendment should be permitted under the standards outlined above, including establishing lack of prejudice to the Prosecution.[3] The “good cause” requirement under Rule 108 encompasses both good reason for including the new or amended grounds of appeal sought and good reason as to why those grounds were not included in the original notice of appeal.[4]

6. In its previous determinations that proposed variations to the notice of appeal may be authorized within the scope of the good cause requirement, the Appeals Chamber has considered the following factors to be of relevance: (i) the variation is minor but clarifies the notice of appeal without affecting its content;[5] (ii) the opposing party has not opposed the variation or would not be prejudiced by it; (iii) the variation would bring the notice of appeal into conformity with the appeal brief; (iv) the variation does not unduly delay the appeal proceedings; or (v) the variation could be of substantial importance to the success of the appeal such as to lead to a miscarriage of justice if it is excluded.[6]

8. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that there is good cause to allow Morina to amend his Notice of Appeal and as a corollary his Appellant’s brief to add the proposed new ground of appeal. The briefing in this case is complete, and the proposed variation would therefore unduly delay the appeal proceedings by requiring additional submissions on this point from the parties. Moreover, Morina fails to substantiate his claim that by excluding it, this would equate to a miscarriage of justice. In this sense, he has not identified any aspect of his criminal responsibility or his sentence that is implicated by the alleged error. Rather, his concern is mainly for his professional reputation[7] because, in his view, the language employed by the Trial Judgement leaves the impression that he was arrested by force. This does not amount to good cause.

[1] Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motions for Leave to Submit Additional Grounds of Appeal, to Amend and to Correct his Appellant’s Brief, 17 August 2006 (“Nahimana et al. Decision of 17 August 2006”), para. 9; Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić, a.k.a. “Tuta”, and Vinko Martinović, a.k.a. “[tela”, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Decision on Mladen Naletilić’s Motion for Leave to File Pre-Submission Brief, 13 October 2005, pp. 2-3.

[2] Nahimana et al. Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Dragan Jokić’s Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal, 14 October 2005, para. 7. See also Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement (IT/201), 7 March 2002, paras 2-3.

[3] Nahimana et al. Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motion of Dragan Jokić for Leave to File Third Amended Notice of Appeal and Amended Appellate Brief, 26 June 2006 (“Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006”), para. 14.

[4] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7. See also Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motions Related to the Pleadings in Dragan Jokić’s Appeal, 24 November 2005 (“Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005”), para. 10; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, 15 February 2005, pp. 2-3.

[5] Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Prosecution’s Request for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal in Relation to Vidoje Blagojević, 20 July 2005, pp. 2-3.

[6] Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-A, Decision on “Accused Tharcisse Muvunyi’s Motion for Leave to Amend His Grounds for Appeal to Extend Time to File His Brief on Appeal” and “Prosecutor’s Motion Objecting to ‘Accused Tharcisse Muvunyi’s Amended Grounds of Appeal’”, 19 March 2007, para. 7; Nahimana et al. Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 13; cf. Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, paras 7-9.

[7] Motion [ Bajrush Morina’s Application for a Variation of the Grounds of Appeal (confidential), 13 February 2009], para. 15.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Additional Grounds of Appeal - 17.08.2006 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A )

10. It has been held that the concept of “good cause” under this provision encompasses both good reason for including the new or amended grounds of appeal sought and good reason showing why those grounds were not included (or were not correctly phrased) in the original notice of appeal.[1] In its cases, the Appeals Chamber has relied upon a variety of factors in determining whether “good cause” exists, including (i) the fact that the variation is so minor that it does not affect the content of the notice of appeal; (ii) the fact that the opposing party would not be prejudiced by the variation or has not objected to it; and (iii) the fact that the variation would bring the notice of appeal into conformity with the appeal brief.[2] Where an appellant seeks a substantive amendment broadening the scope of the appeal, “good cause” might also, under some circumstances, be established.[3] In such instances, each amendment is to be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case.[4]

11. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal establishes that the “good cause” requirement must be interpreted restrictively at late stages in the appeal proceeding when amendments would necessitate a substantial slowdown in the progress of the appeal – for instance, when they would require briefs already filed to be revised and resubmitted.[5] To hold otherwise, would leave appellants free to change their appeal strategy and essentially restart the appeal process at will (including after they have had the advantage of reviewing the arguments in a response brief), interfering with the expeditious administration of justice and prejudicing the other parties to the case.[6]

[1] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; See also, e.g., Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motions Related to the Pleadings in Dragan Jokić’s Appeal, 24 November 2005, para. 10 (“Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005”); Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, 15 February 2005, pp. 2-3.

[2] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; See also Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005, para. 7; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Prosecution’s Request for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal in Relation to Vidoje Blagojević, 20 July 2005 (“Blagojević Decision of 20 July 2005”), pp. 3-4.

[3] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 20 July 2005, p. 3.

[4] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005, para. 7.

[5] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 8.

[6] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 8.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Arguments Made at the Appeals Hearing - 05.03.2007 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

13. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber “may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal” contained in the notice of appeal. Such motions should be submitted “as soon as possible after identifying the new alleged error”[1] of the Trial Chamber or after discovering any other basis for seeking a variation to the notice of appeal. Generally, “a request to amend a notice of appeal must, at least, explain precisely what amendments are sought and why, with respect to each such amendment, the ‘good cause’ requirement of Rule 108 is satisfied.”[2]

[1] Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motions for Leave to Submit Additional Grounds of Appeal, to Amend the Notice of Appeal and to Correct his Appellant’s Brief, 17 August 2006 (“Decision of 17 August 2006”), para. 9; Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Decision on Mladen Naletilić’s Motion for Leave to File Pre-Submission Brief, 13 October 2005, pp. 2-3.

[2] Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Dragan Jokić’s Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal, 14 October 2005, para. 7. See also Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, 4 July 2005 (“Practice Direction on Formal Requirements”), paras 2-3. 

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Clarification - 08.12.2006 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

13. Turning to the Appellant’s request for variance of the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Appellant, through his present Motion, in fact seeks to introduce a wholly new ground of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber “may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal” contained in the Notice of Appeal. The Appeals Chamber recalls its Decision of 17 August 2006, in which it outlined its jurisprudence concerning variation of grounds of appeal under Rule 108 of the Rules.[1] In particular, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the concept of “good cause” under this provision encompasses both good reason for including the new or amended grounds of appeal and good reason showing why these grounds were not included (or were not correctly phrased) in the original notice of appeal. The Appeals Chamber held specifically that the “good cause requirement” must be interpreted restrictively at late stages of appeal proceedings when amendments would necessitate a substantial slowdown in the progress of the appeal.[3] To hold otherwise, would leave appellants free to change their appeal strategy and essentially restart the appeal process at will, interfering with the expeditious administration of justice and prejudicing the other parties to the case.

14. […] The Appellant has not demonstrated any justification for failing to challenge the Trial Chamber’s findings on the existence of genocide in Rwanda in his Notice of Appeal. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant has not formulated any specific wording for the grounds he wishes to add in his Notice of Appeal,[5] but merely seeks to amend his Appeal Brief “by the addition of further grounds of appeal dealing specifically with the issues raised by the Karemera Decision”.[6] Pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, read in conjunction with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement,[7] a request to amend a notice of appeal must, at least, explain precisely what amendments are sought and why, with respect to each such amendment, the “good cause” requirement of Rule 108 of the Rules is satisfied.[8] The generic submissions of the Appellant fall well short of satisfying this requirement. Therefore, the request for leave to vary the Notice of Appeal and to amend the Appeal Brief is denied as unfounded.

[1] Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motions for Leave to Submit Additional Grounds of Appeal, to Amend the Notice of Appeal and to Correct his Appellant’s Brief, 17 August 2006 (“Decision of 17 August 2006”), paras 9-14, referring, in particular, to Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motion of Dragan Jokić for Leave to File Third Amended Notice of Appeal and Amended Appellate Brief, 26 June 2006 (“Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006”), para. 7; See also, e.g., Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motions Related to the Pleadings in Dragan Jokić’s Appeal, 24 November 2005 (“Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005”), para. 10; Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, 15 February 2005 (“Blagojević Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time”), pp. 2-3.

[2] Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 10; See also, e.g., Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005, paras 7-8; Blagojević Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time, pp. 2-3.

[3] Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 11, referring to Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 8.

[4] Id.

[5] Momir Nikolić v. The Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, Decision on Motion for Leave to Vary Notice of Appeal, 30 September 2004, p. 4.

[6] Motion, para. 24.

[7] Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, 4 July 2005.

[8] The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević & Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Dragan Jokić’s Request to Amend Notice of Appeal, 14 October 2005, pp 3-4.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108 Other instruments Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement (ICTR): Paras 2-3
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Notice of Appeal - 26.03.2009 BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI
(IT-04-82-A)

17. The Appeals Chamber may authorise leave to amend a notice of appeal upon the showing of “good cause”. The concept of “good cause” covers both good reason for including the new or amended grounds of appeal sought and good reason showing why those grounds were not included (or were not correctly phrased) in the original notice of appeal.[1] The “good cause” requirement is assessed on a case by case basis,[2] and several factors can be taken into account.[3] The Appeals Chamber has summarized these factors as follows:

These have included the fact that the variation is so minor that it does not affect the content of the notice of appeal; the fact that the opposing party would not be prejudiced by the variation or has not objected to it; and the fact that the variation would bring the notice of appeal into conformity with the appeal brief. Where the appellant seeks a substantive amendment broadening the scope of the appeal, “good cause” might also, under some circumstances, be established. The Appeals Chamber notes that it has never established a cumulative list of requirements that must be met each time a substantive amendment is to be granted. [4]

18. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the good cause requirement is to be interpreted more restrictively at later stages in the appeal proceedings when variations to the grounds of appeal may substantially affect the efficient administration of justice.[5] 

In the present case, the Appeals Chamber was seized of a motion to reorganise the grounds of appeal listed in Tarčulovski’s Appeal Brief in an order different from that set forth in his Notice of Appeal. Tarčulovski contended that good cause existed to amend his Notice of Appeal because two of his current counsels were appointed after it was filed. At the time the motion was filed, Tarčulovski believed that his Defence team had just received a fresh perspective on the significance of the alleged errors committed by the Trial Chamber because his entire team was then able to review the extensive record and transcript in the case.

25. The Appeals Chamber considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the change of counsel constitutes good reason for showing why those grounds were not included in the original Notice of Appeal. In addition, it takes note of the fact that the proposed variation to the Notice of Appeal would bring it into conformity with the Appeal Brief, that any potential prejudice caused to the Prosecution is cured through the Appeals Chamber’s decision to grant the Prosecution’s request for an extension of time to file its Respondent’s Brief,[6] and that the inclusion of these grounds of appeal in an amended notice of appeal would not unduly interfere with the expeditious administration of justice as these arguments do not reflect a change to an appeal strategy by Tarčulovski subsequent to reading the Prosecution’s Respondent’s brief, which has not yet been filed.[7] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that Tarčulovski has shown good cause for amending his notice of appeal.

[1] The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motion of Dragan Jokić for Leave to File Third Amended Notice of Appeal and Amended Appellate Brief, 26 June 2006 (“Blagojević and Jokić  Decision of 26 June 2006”), para. 7.

[2] The Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Decision Granting Leave to Dario Kordić to Amend his Grounds of Appeal, 9 May 2002, para. 5.

[3] The Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motions Related to the Pleadings in Dragan Jokić’s Appeal, 24 November 2005, para. 7.

[4] Blagojević and Jokić Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7.

[5] Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo, Case No. IT-95-17-A, Decision on Miroslav Bralo’s Motion for leave to Supplement Appeal Brief in Light of New Information Concerning Ex Parte Portion of the Trial Record, 9 January 2007, para. 11.

[6] Boškoski and Tarčulovski Decision, 19 February 2009 [Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski, Case No. IT-04-82-A, Decision on Prosecution’s Urgent Motion for Extension of Time, 19 February 2009], p. 3.

[7] Mrkšić Decision [Prosecutor v. Mrkšić and Veselin Šljivančanin, IT-95-13/1-A, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to Order Veselin Šljivančanin to Seek Leave to File an Amended Notice of Appeal and to Strike New Grounds Contained in His Appeal Brief, 25 August 2008], para. 41.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Supplementing Appeal Brief - 09.01.2007 BRALO Miroslav
(IT-95-17-A)

10. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the concept of "good cause" applicable to amendments to a notice of appeal encompasses both good reason for including the new amended grounds of appeal sought and good reason showing why those grounds were not included (or were not correctly phrased) in the original notice of appeal.[1] Where an appellant seeks a substantive amendment broadening the scope of the appeal, "good cause" might also, under some circumstances, be established.[2] In such instances, each amendment is to be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the same logic may be applied while examining applications to supplement an appellant's brief.

11. At the same time, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal establishes that the "good cause" requirement must be interpreted restrictively at late stages in appeal proceedings when amendments would necessitate a substantial slowdown in the progress of the appeal - for instance, when they would require briefs already filed to be revised and resubmitted.[3] To hold otherwise would leave appellants free to change their appeal strategy and essentially restart the appeal process at will (including after they have had the advantage of reviewing the arguments in a response brief), thus interfering with the expeditious administration of justice and prejudicing the other parties to the case.[4]

[1] Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motion of Dragan Jokić for Leave to File Third Amended Notice of Appeal and Amended Appellate Brief, 26 June 2006 ("Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006"), para. 7; See also, e.g., Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Motions Related to the Pleadings in Dragan Jokid's Appeal, 24 November 2005, para. 10 ("Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005"); Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, 15 February 2005, pp. 2-3; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v.The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza's Motions for Leave to Submit Additional Grounds of Appeal, to Amend the Notice of Appeal and to Correct his Appellant's Brief, 17 August 2006 ("Barayagwiza Decision of 17 August 2006"), para. 10. [2] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 24 November 2005, para. 7; Blagojević Decision of 20 July 2005,p.3; Barayagwiza Decision of 17 August 2006, para.10.

[3] Blagojević Decision of 26 June 2006, para. 8; Barayagwiza Decision of 17 August 2006, para. 11.

[4] Id.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on First Amended Notice of Appeal - 09.09.2009 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

9. The Appeals Chamber recalls that in granting extensions of time for the filing of appellants’ notices of appeal, the Pre-Appeal Judge in the present case held, inter alia, 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 […][1]

10. The Appeals Chamber considers that pending the receipt of the translation of the Trial Judgement, Pavković has been trying to understand the latter with the assistance of his defence team so that he can effectively contribute to the Appeal Brief.[2] Pavković asserts that the requested amendment of his Notice of Appeal became apparent to his defence team only as a result of this review process.[3] The Appeals Chamber notes that the variation sought concerns an alleged error of fact in the Trial Chamber’s finding that as a member of the Joint Command, Pavković “by-passed the chain of command.”[4] As such, it can be reasonably inferred that Pavković’s understanding of the Trial Judgement has been central to the identification of the alleged error, and that the unavailability of the B/C/S translation of the Trial Judgement at the time the Notice of Appeal was filed had prevented him from instructing his counsel to that effect.[5] The Appeals Chamber is therefore satisfied that good reason for not including the alleged error in the Notice of Appeal has been shown.

Cf. Ojdanić Decision on Amending Notice of Appeal, refusing to recognize good cause for not including the newly alleged error of law in the original notice of appeal.

[1] Decision on Motions for Extension of Time to File Notices of Appeal, 23 March 2009, p. 3; see also Decision on Joint Defence Motion Seeking Extension of Time to File Appeal Briefs, 29 June 2009, p. 4.

[2] Motion [General Pavković Motion for Amendment to his Notice of Appeal, 28 August 2009], para. 7

[3] Ibid.

[4] Motion, para. 10.

[5] Cf. Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Decision on Protais Zigiranyirazo’s Motion for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal, 18 March 2009, para. 5.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Second Amended Notice of Appeal - 22.09.2009 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

15. The Appeals Chamber recalls that an appellant seeking variation of the grounds of appeal contained in a notice of appeal bears the burden of demonstrating that each proposed amendment meets the “good cause” requirement of Rule 108 of the Rules.[1] With respect to Pavković’s submission that the sought amendment is the result of the ongoing discussions between him and his counsel, as well as the analysis of the other appellants’ notices of appeal,[2] the Appeals Chamber reiterates that further analysis undertaken over the course of time, taken alone, cannot constitute good cause for an amendment as this would effectively amount to allowing the appellant to restart the appeal process at will.[3] Moreover, an appellant’s counsel is the one primarily responsible for the identification of potential legal errors in a trial judgement.[4] These considerations are equally applicable in multiple-appellants proceedings. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that Pavković has failed to demonstrate good cause for not having included in his Notice of Appeal the allegations of errors contained in the seventh ground of Ojdanić’s Amended Notice of Appeal.

[1] See supra, para. 6.

[2] Motion [General Pavković Request to Amend his Notice of Appeal to Adopt Ground Seven of his Co-appellant Ojdanić’s Amended Notice of Appeal], para. 12.

[3] [Ojdanić Decision on Amending Notice of Appeal], para. 15 and references cited therein.

[4] Ibid.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Amending Notice of Appeal - 14.10.2005 BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ
(IT-02-60-A)

6.  Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal (“Rules”) states that the “Appeals Chamber may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal.”  In addition, paragraph 12 of Practice Direction IT/155/Rev. 3 provides:

Where an appeal has been filed from a judgement, a party wishing to move the Appeals Chamber for a specific ruling or relief ("moving party") shall file, in accordance with the Rules, a motion containing:

(a) the precise ruling or relief sought;

(b) the specific provision of the Rules under which the ruling or relief is sought;

(c) the grounds on which the ruling or relief is sought.

7.  Together, these requirements mean that a request to amend a notice of appeal must, at least, explain precisely what amendments are sought and why, with respect to each such amendment, the “good cause” requirement of Rule 108 is satisfied. […] 

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 108 ICTY Rule Rule 108 Other instruments Practice Direction on Procedure for the Filing of Written Submissions in Appeal Proceedings Before the International Tribunal, para. 12