Multiple appeals against an impugned decision
|Consolidated Decision on Jurisdiction - 25.06.2009||
(IT-95-5/18-AR72.1, IT-95-5/18-AR72.2, IT-95-5/18-AR72.3)
28. With respect to Karadžić’s decision to file several separate appeals against the Impugned Decision, the Appeals Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that this is not standard practice. If a party could file an unlimited number of appeals against one decision, provisions regulating the interlocutory appeals, such as word limitation, would be devoid of any sense. The proper procedure for Karadžić would thus generally be to file one appeal against the Impugned Decision, applying for extension of the word limit if necessary. Given the very particular context of these appeals, especially the wide range of issues addressed in the Impugned Decision, the filing of more than one appeal was potentially justifiable. In any event, the Appeals Chamber finds that it would not be in the interests of judicial expediency to order Karadžić to re-file his submissions in this case, and notes that no party has been prejudiced in the circumstances given that separate responses and replies were subsequently filed. In turn, the fact that the Appeals Chamber accepts these appeals as validly filed does not preclude it from rendering its decisions in a consolidated manner, if and where appropriate.
 See Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions, IT/184 Rev.2, 16 September 2005, at 3.
 The Appeals Chamber underscores that its flexibility in this case is exceptional, and notes that in future it may well require re-filing of submissions where multiple appeals are filed against a single decision.