New facts

Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 07.07.2015 LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ
(MICT-13-52-R.1)

14.     The Appeals Chamber recalls the critical distinction between material submitted in support of a fact, which was not in issue or considered in the original proceedings, and material, which consists of additional evidence relating to a fact that was in issue or considered in the original proceedings.[1] Review will not be available where a fact was previously in issue.[2] Therefore, it is the definition of the fact in issue in the original proceedings, which will determine the availability of the review procedure.[3] The burden for showing that the information in the tendered material amounts to a “new fact” lies with the moving party.[4] […]

[1] Blaškić Review Decision [Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-R, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, 23 November 2006], para. 40; Prosecutor v. Mlađo Radić, IT-98-30/1-R.1, Decision on Defence Request for Review, 31 October 2006, para. 22; Prosecutor v. Drago Josipović, IT-95-16-R2, Decision on Motion for Review, 7 March 2003 (“Josipović Review Decision”), para. 18; Prosecutor v. Hazim Delić, IT-96-21-R-R119, Decision on Motion for Review, 25 April 2002 (“Delić Review Decision”), para. 11, referring to Prosecutor v Tadić, IT-94-1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time Limit and Admission of Additional Evidence, 15 October 1998, paras. 30, 32; Jean Bosco Barayagwiza v The Prosecutor, ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, 31 March 2000, para. 42.

[2] Delić Review Decision, para. 11.

[3] Blaškić Review Decision, paras. 15-18; Josipović Review Decision, para. 19.

[4] François Karera v. The Prosecutor, ICTR-01-74-R, Decision on Requests for Reconsideration and Review, 26 March 2012 (“Karera Review Decision”), para. 17; Blaškić Review Decision, para. 16; Delić Review Decision, paras. 10, 13.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 146
Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 14.07.2010 ŠLJIVANČANIN Veselin
(IT-95-13/1-R.1)

On 5 May 2009, the Appeals Chamber issued a judgement which, inter alia, upheld the conviction of Veselin Šljivančanin (“Šljivančanin”) for aiding and abetting torture as a violation of the laws or customs of war and added, Judges Pocar and Vaz dissenting, a new conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. The new conviction was based in part on the Appeals Chamber’s new factual findings concerning a conversation between Šljivančanin and Mile Mrkšić (“Conversation”).[1]

In an application for review filed on 28 January 2010,[2] Šljivančanin asserted that Miodrag Panić was prepared to offer testimony that invalidated Šljivančanin’s conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war, and that the content of the Conversation that would be the subject of this testimony constituted a “new fact” in the context of Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal.

At pages 2 and 3, the Appeals Chamber stated:

CONSIDERING that a “new fact” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Statute and Rules 119 and 120 of the Rules consists of “new information of an evidentiary nature of a fact that was not in issue during the trial or appeal proceedings”;[3]

[…]

CONSIDERING that the new information provided by Panić concerning the Conversation constitutes a “new fact” (“Panić New Fact”), that, if proved, could fundamentally alter the balance of evidence relating to this case, eliminating the basis for the Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement’s conclusion that Šljivančanin possessed the mens rea for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war;[4]

[1] Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Judgement, 5 May 2009 (“Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement”), para. 62.

[2] Application on Behalf of Veselin Šljivančanin for Review of the Appeals Chamber Judgment of 5 May 2009, 28 January 2010.

[3] Blaškić Decision, para. 14 (citation and quotation marks omitted). See also id., paras 17-18; Naletilić Decision, para. 11; Rutaganda Decision, para. 9.

[4] Cf. Barayagwiza Decision paras 64-65, 71.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTR Rule Rule 120;
Rule 121
ICTY Rule Rule 119;
Rule 120
Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 08.07.2015 LUKIĆ Sreten
(MICT-14-67-R.1)

11. The Appeals Chamber observes that Lukić’s condition was in issue at trial and on appeal, and the reports he relies upon for the purposes of his request are merely additional evidence going to proof of matters considered in the original proceedings.[1] Accordingly, the material submitted that relates to Lukić’s health condition does not amount to a “new fact” for the purposes of review under Rule 146 of the Rules. In any case, Lukić’s request for reduction of his sentence, and release on grounds of the recent deterioration of his health and diminished life expectancy, are more appropriately characterized as grounds in support of a request for early release. The Statute and Rules provide that the supervision of enforcement of sentences pronounced by the ICTY, and competence over requests for early release, lie within the powers of the President of the Mechanism.[2]

[1] Trial Judgement, vol. 3, para. 1203; Appeal Judgement, para. 1827.

[2] Statute, Article 25; Rules 127-128, 149-151 of the Rules.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 146
Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 08.07.2015 LUKIĆ Sreten
(MICT-14-67-R.1)

22. The Appeals Chamber considers that the relevant findings in the Ðorđević Appeal Judgment do not amount to “new information of an evidentiary nature of a fact” and thus cannot be considered a new fact for the purposes of review under Rule 146 of the Rules.[1] In the Appeals Chamber’s view, Lukić is essentially requesting reconsideration of the final judgment. However, in principle, the Appeals Chamber has no power to reconsider a final judgment in light of the legal analysis on the elements of a crime adopted by a subsequent Appeals Chamber judgment.[2]

[1] See Tharcisse Muvunyi v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-55A-R, Decision on Request for Variation of Protective Measures and Request for Review, 28 September 2012, para. 24 (“the Appeals Chamber considers that a finding made by a separate trial chamber on the criminal liability of another accused based on a different evidentiary record does not amount to a new fact for the purposes of review”); Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Request for Review, 6 March 2007, para. 7 (“The Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the reasoning applied in the Rwamakuba Trial Judgement constitutes new information of an evidentiary nature of a fact that was not in issue during the trial or appeal proceedings”); Prosecutor v Goran Jelišić, IT-95-10-R, Decision on Motion for Review, 2 May 2002, pp. 2-3 (“Noting the Applicant’s submissions that a new fact has arisen, being the development, since the Appeal Judgement, in the case law of the Tribunal with respect to the approach to sentencing […] Finding that the alleged new fact relied upon by the Applicant is not of an evidentiary nature and, therefore, that the Applicant has failed to show the existence of a new fact”). See also Eliézer Niyitegeka v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16-R, Decision on Niyitegeka’s Request for Assignment of Counsel, 6 November 2014, para. 8.

[2] See Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perisić, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, 20 March 2014, p. 2

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 146
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 19.03.2009 NALETILIĆ Mladen
(IT-98-34-R)

11. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the term “new fact” refers to new evidentiary information supporting a fact that was not at issue during the trial or appeal proceedings.[1] The requirement that the fact was not at issue during the proceedings means that “it must not have been among the factors that the deciding body could have taken into account in reaching its verdict.”[2] Essentially, the moving party must show that the Chamber did not know about the fact in reaching its decision.[3]

 

[1] Blaškić Review Decision, paras 14-15; Tadić Review Decision, para. 25. See also Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Niyitegeka Review Decision, para. 14.

[2] Blaškić Review Decision, para. 14; Tadić Review Decision, para. 25. See also Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Niyitegeka Review Decision, para. 14.

[3] Blaškić Review Decision, para. 14. See also Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Niyitegeka Review Decision, para. 14.

 

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 12.03.2009 NIYITEGEKA Eliézer
(ICTR-96-14-R)

22. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the term “new fact” refers to new evidentiary information supporting a fact that was not in issue during the trial or appeal proceedings.[1] The requirement that the fact was not in issue during the proceedings means that “it must not have been among the factors that the deciding body could have taken into account in reaching its verdict.”[2] Essentially, the moving party must show that the Chamber did not know about the fact in reaching its decision.[3]

47. This being said, the Appeals Chamber does not find it necessary to order Niyitegeka to file the Additional Statements or information concerning the identity of their authors. Niyitegeka makes clear that, in his view, the information contained in the Additional Statements reveals that Witness GGV was not credible. The Appeals Chamber notes that Witness GGV’s credibility is a matter that was litigated at trial and on appeal. While the Additional Statements may constitute material of an evidentiary nature, in light of what Niyitegeka discloses of their content they do not constitute “new facts” within the meaning of Article 25 of the Statute. Accordingly, Niyitegeka’s attempt to have them admitted as new facts for the purposes of review is bound to fail.  

[1] Third Review Decision, para. 14; Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Blaškić Review Decision, paras. 14, 15; Tadić Review Decision, para. 25.

[2] Third Review Decision, para. 14; Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Blaškić Review Decision, paras. 14, 15; Tadić Review Decision, para. 25.

[3] Third Review Decision, para. 14; Rutaganda Review Decision, para. 9; Blaškić Review Decision, para. 14.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTR Rule Rule 120 ICTY Rule Rule 119
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Assignment of Investigator and Counsel - 19.01.2015 NTABAKUZE Aloys
(MICT-14-77-R)

12.     The Appeals Chamber is also not persuaded that Ntabakuze’s potential ground of review in relation to the IAMSEA killings satisfies the requirements for the assignment of an investigator and counsel at the expense of the Mechanism. The Appeals Chamber notes that this is the first time that Ntabakuze specifically raises the argument that the Para-Commando soldiers who were involved in the crimes at IAMSEA might have been under the control of another battalion, and specifically that in March 1994 they might have been reassigned to the Presidential Guard.[1] However, the issue of whether Ntabakuze had effective control over the Para-Commando soldiers who participated in the killings was litigated both at trial and on appeal.[2] Ntabakuze’s intention to pursue additional evidence in relation to the alleged presence of the Presidential Guard in the vicinity of IAMSEA and the possibility that the Para-Commando soldiers involved in the crimes might have been under the Presidential Guard’s command,[3] does not appear to constitute a “new fact” that may have a chance of success on review.

[1] The ICTR Appeals Chamber observed that Ntabakuze had not argued that the members of the Para-Commando Battalion involved in the killings at IAMSEA could have been members of a Battalion unit under the authority of the Presidential Guard at the time. Appeal Judgement, fn. 548. The Appeals Chamber notes that, while some of the material submitted by Ntabakuze in the Motion is vague on this point, the statement of NRDP provides specificity as to which companies of the Para-Commando Battalion were sent to the Presidential Guard and about the extent they still communicated with the Para-Commando Battalion. See Motion [Ntabakuze Pro Se Motion for Assignment of Investigator and Counsel in Anticipation of his Request for Review Pursuant to Article 24 MICTSt., 23 April 2014 (confidential)], Annex 8.

[2] Trial Judgement, paras. 2057-2062; Appeal Judgement, paras. 220, 225.

[3] Motion, paras. 31-35.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 146
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 31.03.2000 BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco
(ICTR-97-19-AR72)

41.     […] [I]t is clear from the Statute and the Rules[1] that, in order for a Chamber to carry out a review, it must be satisfied that four criteria have been met. There must be a new fact; this new fact must not have been known by the moving party at the time of the original proceedings; the lack of discovery of the new fact must not have been through the lack of due diligence on the part of the moving party; and it must be shown that the new fact could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision.

42.     The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has highlighted the distinction, which should be made between genuinely new facts which may justify review and additional evidence of a fact [2]. In considering the application of Rule 119 of the Rules of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (which mirrors Rule 120 of the Rules [of the International Tribunal for Rwanda]), the Appeals Chamber held that:

Where an applicant seeks to present a new fact which becomes known only after trial, despite the exercise of due diligence during the trial in discovering it, Rule 119 is the governing provision. In such a case, the Appellant is not seeking to admit additional evidence of a fact that was considered at trial but rather a new fact…It is for the Trial Chamber to review the Judgement and determine whether the new fact, if proved, could have been a decisive factor in reaching a decision”.[3]

Further, the Appeals Chamber stated that-

a distinction exists between a fact and evidence of that fact. The mere subsequent discovery of evidence of a fact which was known at trial is not itself a new fact within the meaning of Rule 119 of the Rules.[4]

43.     The Appeals Chamber would also point out at this stage, that although the substantive issue differed, in Prosecutor v. Dra‘en Erdemović,[5] the Appeals Chamber undertook to warn both parties that “[t]he appeal process of the International Tribunal is not designed for the purpose of allowing parties to remedy their own failings or oversights during trial or sentencing”. The Appeals Chamber confirms that it notes and adopts both this observation and the test established in Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić in consideration of the matter before it now.

44.     […] [A] “new fact” cannot be considered as failing to satisfy the criteria simply because it occurred before the trial. What is crucial is satisfaction of the criteria which the Appeals Chamber has established will apply. If a “new” fact satisfies these criteria, and could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision, the Appeals Chamber can review the Decision.

[1] Article 25, Rules 120 and 121.

[2] Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Decision of Appellant’s Motion for the extension of the time-limit and admission of additional evidence, Case no, IT-94-1-A, 15th October 1998.

[3] Ibid., at 30.

[4] Ibid., at 32.

[5] Judgement, Case no IT-96-22-A, 7 October 1997 at § 15. 

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 25 ICTR Rule Rule 120
Rule 121
ICTY Rule Rule 119
Rule 120
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review and Reconsideration - 23.06.2006 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

The Appeals Chamber clarified its previous decision with respect to news facts relating to the doctrine of “abuse of process” which could, in certain circumstances, warrant a review.

24. […] Or, la Chambre d’appel a précisé dès son Arrêt du 3 novembre 1999 que « la règle de l’abus de procédure […] est un processus par lequel des juges peuvent refuser de se déclarer compétents lorsqu’au vu des violations graves et flagrantes dont les droits de l’accusé font l’objet, l’exercice d’une telle compétence pourrait s’avérer préjudiciable à l’intégrité du tribunal »[1]. Elle a par suite signalé que les faits nouveaux présentés par le Procureur avaient trait à l’application de la doctrine de l’abus de procédure et à la solution que la Chambre d’appel avait donnée dans son Arrêt du 3 novembre 1999[2]. Il ressort clairement de ce qui précède que la Requête du 28 juillet 2000 avait pour objet la contestation de l’authenticité de faits nouveaux ayant conduit la Chambre d’appel à rétablir la compétence du Tribunal vis-à-vis de l’Appelant en modifiant la réparation de l’abus de procédure constaté; et que, contrairement à ce que soutient l’Appelant, la Requête visait in fine la compétence du Tribunal sur la base de prétendus faits nouveaux.

[1] Arrêt du 3 novembre 1999 [Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza c. le Procureur, affaire n°ICTR-97-19-AR72, Arrêt, 3 novembre 1999], par. 74.

[2] Arrêt du 31 mars 2000 [Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza c. le Procureur, affaire n°ICTR-97-19-AR72, Arrêt (Demande du Procureur en Révision ou Réexamen), 31 mars 2000], par. 17. 

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTR Rule Rule 120
Rule 121
ICTY Rule Rule 119
Rule 120
Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 23.11.2006 BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir
(IT-95-14-R)

17.     In a review proceeding, the moving party defines for the Chamber its purported “new facts.” It is then for the review Chamber to compare those alleged new facts against the previously litigated facts as found in the plain language of the final judgement or decision at issue and the record underlying that final judgement or decision. Where the “new facts” are identical to facts already at issue, then review under Rule 119 is not available. Of course, at times, the facts previously litigated are not entirely clear and they could be interpreted more broadly or narrowly vis-à-vis the alleged new facts. In those cases, the review Chamber does not, a priori, decide to interpret the previous facts more narrowly. It will, after considering the final judgement or decision and underlying record, weigh the arguments of the parties in order to determine the most appropriate characterization of the facts as they were considered by the original Chamber for purposes of comparing them to the purported “new facts.”

18.     The Appeals Chamber does not consider that its past jurisprudence supports the Prosecution’s position that, as a rule, review Chambers have maintained a narrow focus on previously litigated facts despite there being “broad facts” that were at issue in the original proceedings to which the proffered “new facts” were related. In other words, the Appeals Chamber does not find that past review Chambers have been inclined to compare alleged “new facts” against “narrow facts” previously litigated rather than against related “broad facts” in the original proceedings. Rather, the focus has rightly been on looking to the previously litigated facts that are most relevant vis-à-vis the alleged “new fact”, whether “broad” or “narrow”, to determine whether they preclude the availability of a review.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTR Rule Rule 120
Rule 121
ICTY Rule Rule 119
Rule 120
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 19.03.2009 NALETILIĆ Mladen
(IT-98-34-R)

25. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the term “new fact” for the purposes of review refers to new evidentiary information supporting a fact that was not in issue or considered in the original proceedings.[1] Accordingly, as the issue of Simang’s credibility was considered during the trial and appeal proceedings in light of allegations regarding the promises made by the Prosecution to Simang and Mrachaz, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the evidence submitted in the Application regarding Simang’s credibility constitutes a new fact for the purposes of review.[2]

[1] See supra, para. 11, fn. [4].

[2] See Prosecutor v. Tholimir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-R, Confidential Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, 23 November 2006, paras 15-17, 60-61. See also, Rutaganda Review Decision, paras 15-17, where the Appeals Chamber found that some information concerning the credibility of two witnesses constituted new facts, notwithstanding the circumstance that those witnesses’ credibility was already litigated throughout the case. In the Rutaganda Decision, the Appeals Chamber based its finding on the circumstance that, in contrast to the present case, the allegations presented by the moving party in relation to witness credibility were not in issue during the original proceedings and amounted to new facts.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 25 ICTY Statute Article 26
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision re Prosecution Witnesses - 29.01.2016 NIYITEGEKA Eliézer
(MICT-12-16)

9. […] Given that the proceedings against Niyitegeka have been concluded, the only legitimate forensic purpose for obtaining access to this material is to establish a “new fact” capable of constituting the basis for a review of Niyitegeka’s convictions.[1] In this regard, Niyitegeka merely advances a broad and speculative assertion that any evidence provided by the witnesses in other proceedings before the ICTR necessarily serves a legitimate forensic purpose.[2] It follows from jurisprudence that the requesting party may not engage in a “fishing expedition”.[3] In the absence of more particularized submissions, the mere fact that witnesses may have testified in more than one case does not necessarily reflect that their evidence is relevant to establishing a “new fact” in the context of review proceedings, or demonstrate that any related material may be of material assistance to the preparation of a review application. […]

[1] See Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-R, Decision on Georges A. N. Rutaganda’s Appeal against Decision on Request for Closed Session Testimony and Sealed Exhibits, 22 April 2009, para. 16. See also Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33-R86.2, Second Decision on Motion for Access to Confidential Material from the Nshogoza Case, 9 November 2015, para. 5.

[2] [Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16-R, Urgent Request for Orders Relating to Prosecution Witnesses, 21 December 2015 (public with public and confidential annexes) (“Motion”)], paras. 35-36.

[3] See Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Motion for Access to Confidential Material in the Dragomir Milošević Case, 19 May 2009, para. 11, referring to Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović et al., Case No. IT-01-47-AR73, Decision on Appeal from Refusal to Grant Access to Confidential Material in Another Case, 23 April 2002, p. 3.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Review Decision - 23.11.2006 BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir
(IT-95-14-R)

14.     The Appeals Chamber recalls that a new fact within the meaning of Article 26 of the Statute and Rules 119 and 120 of the Rules refers to “new information of an evidentiary nature of a fact that was not in issue during the trial or appeal proceedings”.[1] This “means that it must not have been among the factors that the deciding body could have taken into account in reaching its verdict.”[2] In other words, “[w]hat is relevant is whether the deciding body […] knew about the fact or not” in arriving at its decision.[3]

[1] Prosecutor v Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-R, Decision on Motion for Review, 2 May 2002 (“Jelisić Review Decision”), p. 3.

[2] Tadić Review Decision, para. 25.

[3] Ibid.; see also Niyitegeka Review Decision, para. 6.

Download full document
ICTY Statute Article 26 ICTY Rule Rule 119;
Rule 120
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 19.06.2017 NGIRABATWARE Augustin
(MICT-12-29-R)

Pages 2-3:

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute of the Mechanism (“Statute”) and Rules 146, 147, and 148 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism (“Rules”) a request to have the Appeals Chamber review a final judgement will be granted, if the moving party shows that: (i) there is a new fact; (ii) the new fact was not known to the moving party at the time of the trial or appeal proceedings; (iii) the new fact could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (iv) the new fact could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision;[1]

CONSIDERING that [REDACTED] contain new information of an evidentiary nature that relates to [REDACTED] that could not have been taken into account at trial or on appeal and therefore constitute a new fact,[2] which, if proved, could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision [REDACTED];[3]

[1] See Prosecutor v. Sreten Lukić, Case No. MICT-14-67-R.1, Decision on Sreten Lukić’s Application for Review, 8 July 2015, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Milan Lukić, Case No. MICT-13-52-R.1, Decision on Milan Lukić’s Application for Review, 7 July 2015, para. 5; Juvénal Kajelijeli v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-R, Decision on Request for Review, 29 May 2013 (“Kajelijeli Review Decision”), para. 7; Prosecutor v. Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 14 July 2010 (“Šljivančanin Review Decision”), p. 2.

[2] See Kajelijeli Review Decision, paras. 24, 32, 43.

[3] See Decision of 5 May 2016 [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion Regarding Protected Witnesses and Ngirabatware’s Motion for Assignment of Counsel, 5 May 2016 (confidential)], paras. 3, 21, referring to [REDACTED].

Download full document
MICT Statute Article 24 MICT Rule Rule 146;
Rule 147;
Rule 148
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Review - 19.06.2017 NGIRABATWARE Augustin
(MICT-12-29-R)

Page 3:

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Rule 147 of the Rules, a hearing to consider evidence on the new fact (“Review Hearing”) will be held;

CONSIDERING that the Review Hearing will allow the parties to provide supporting and rebuttal evidence concerning the new fact and that, before setting the date and structure of the Review Hearing, it is appropriate to allow adequate time for preparation and to consider the scope of the evidence, if any, the parties wish to present;[1]

[1] Šljivančanin Review Decision [Prosecutor v. Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 14 July 2010], p. 4. Cf. [MICT] Rules 55 and 131 of the Rules.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 147
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on a Motion to Reclassify Filings - 03.10.2017 KARADŽIĆ Radovan
(MICT-13-55-A)

RECALLING ALSO that circumstances that may merit reconsideration include new facts and that, to succeed on that basis, an applicant must demonstrate how any new facts justify reconsideration;

[1] Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Case No. MICT-15-96-PT, Decision on Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Decision on Stanišić’s Request for Stay of Proceedings, 7 April 2017, para. 7; Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-AR73.16, Decision on Jadranko Prlić's Interlocutory Appeal against the Decision on Prlić Defence Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision on Admission of Documentary Evidence, 3 November 2009, para. 18; Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Decision on Defence’s Request for Reconsideration, 16 July 2004, p. 2.

Download full document