Oral hearing of pre-appeal matters
|Decision on Motion for Severance - 24.07.2009||
BAGOSORA et al. (Military I)
In his Motion, Appellant Ntabakuze requests the severance of his case from the cases of his two co-Appellants and the retention of the briefing schedule for the Prosecution as foreseen by Rules 111 and 112 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”). Previously, the Prosecution had notified the Appeals Chamber of its intention to file a consolidated response to all three appeal briefs.
22. The Appeals Chamber notes that it is within its discretion to decide a motion with or without an oral hearing. Ntabakuze’s sole argument for an oral hearing seems to be based on the premise that oral arguments would expedite the Appeals Chamber’s decision. However, he fails to specify why and how an oral hearing could expedite the decision. The Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that an oral hearing is necessary in this case, nor that it would expedite its decision on the matter since the information before it is sufficient to enable it to reach an informed decision. […]
 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Decision on Mile Mrkšić’s Second Rule 115 Motion, 13 February 2009, para. 11; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-AR72.1, Decision on Ante Gotovina’s Interlocutory Appeal Against Decision on Several Motions Challenging Jurisdictions, 6 June 2007, para. 8; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motion for Leave to Present Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 5 May 2006, para. 9.
 Motion, Conclusion [Aloys Ntabakuze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Extremely Urgent Motion for: (a) Severance, and Retention of Briefing Schedule; or, in the Alternative, (b) Judicial Bar to the Untimely Filing of Respondent’s Brief, and Dismissal of Appellant’s Conviction, 24 June 2009], p. 11.