No certification needed following remand
|Decision After Remand - 11.05.2007||
PRLIĆ et al.
18. [I]n spite of the Trial Chamber’s Certification Decision, certification was not required in this case. The Appeals Chamber remained seized of the issues raised by the Prosecution in its Interlocutory Appeal having remanded the Impugned Decision for the purpose of obtaining the Trial Chamber’s renewed assessment and further substantiation of the reasoning underpinning its decision to reduce the Prosecution’s remaining allocated time for the presentation of its case.
19. Thus, regardless of the Certification Decision, the Appeals Chamber considers itself seized of the original Interlocutory Appeal as well as of the Interlocutory Appeal Following Remand in which the Prosecution takes further issue with the sufficiency of the reasoning provided by the Trial Chamber in the Impugned Decision on Remand in support of maintaining the Impugned Decision. […]
 Appeals Chamber’s Decision [Decision on Prosecution Appeal Concerning the Trial Chamber’s Ruling Reducing Time For The Prosecution Case, 6 February 2007, summary also provided in AC Case Law tool], para. 24.
|Writ of Mandamus Decision - 27.03.2009||
GOTOVINA et al.
5. The Appeals Chamber considers that the issue in the present case is not whether it is competent to issue a writ of mandamus but rather whether the Trial Chamber complied with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision. It is established case-law before the International Tribunal that “a proper construction of the Statute requires that the ratio decidendi of its decisions is binding on Trial Chambers”. When remanding the 9 October 2008 Decision to the Trial Chamber for reconsideration, the Appeals Chamber did not request that the Trial Chamber review its entire decision, but rather that it review it in light of the two errors identified by the Appeals Chamber. To the extent that the Joint Defence now submits that the Trial Chamber failed to address the two errors identified by the Appeals Chamber and thus challenges the same issues for which leave to appeal the 9 October 2008 Decision was originally granted, the Appeals Chamber remains competent to address the Joint Request.
 Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 March 2000, para. 113.
 Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-AR73.4, Decision on Prosecution’s Appeal Following Trial Chamber’s Decision on Remand and Further Clarification, 11 May 2007, para. 18.