Practical interest in the case
|Decision on Motions to Strike and Word Limit - 06.11.2009||
16. The Appeals Chamber does not agree with the Appellant that the participation of the Amicus Prosecutor would have the “incongruous effect of allowing a proxy of the Trial Chamber to defend on appeal the case that it has prosecuted on its behalf”. This argument is based upon the faulty premise that the Amicus Prosecutor and the Trial Chamber were one and the same entity. Having been appointed by the Registrar, upon order of the Trial Chamber, the Amicus Prosecutor proceeded to prosecute the case on behalf of the Chamber without becoming an “agent” or “proxy” thereof. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber has already stated that the participation of the Amicus Prosecutor would assist it in its consideration of the appeal.
18. The Appeals Chamber notes that it is not uncommon for a party to challenge on appeal the actions of an opposing party during trial, and that such a challenge does not preclude the Appeals Chamber from presenting questions to the opposing party on appeal in relation to the actions being challenged. The Appeals Chamber thus finds no merit in the Appellant’s contention that the involvement of the Amicus Prosecutor in the Appeal proceedings would preclude the Defence and/or the Appeals Chamber from hearing evidence potentially relevant to this case. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber reminds the Appellant that the Appeals Chamber determines an appellant’s grounds of appeal after the Appeals Chamber has had the benefit of reviewing the submissions of both parties and hearing their oral arguments. The Appeals Chamber accordingly finds no basis in the Appellant’s argument that allowing the Amicus Prosecutor to participate in the appeal proceedings would create the appearance that the Appeals Chamber condones the alleged improper contacts challenged under Ground 3 of the Appeal.
 In the Case Against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.5-A, Motion to Strike Motion by Former Amicus Prosecutor, 5 October 2009, para. 14.
 In the Case Against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.5-A, Order to the Registrar to Serve Appeal Related Filings on the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor, 9 October 2009.
|Decision on Amicus Curiae Brief - 01.09.2008||
The Appeals Chamber held that although Rwanda had been granted leave to appear as an amicus curiae during the referral proceedings, Rwanda proposed to make submissions on matters not covered by the amicus curiae brief it submitted during those proceedings. At page 3, the Appeals Chamber granted Rwanda’s request, on the following basis:
RECALLING that the Appeals Chamber granted Rwanda permission to file an amicus curiae brief in Munyakazi on the basis that Rwanda had a practical interest in the determination of the appeal, and that the Appeals Chamber would be assisted in the determination of the appeal by further amicus curiae submissions from Rwanda on issues relevant to the determination of the appeal;
CONSIDERING that Rwanda also has a practical interest in the determination of the appeal in this case;
CONSIDERING that the issues identified by Rwanda in the Motion as matters about which it could provide further detail are relevant to the determination of the appeal and that the Appeals Chamber may therefore be assisted by further amicus curiae submissions from Rwanda;
 See The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis, Decision on Request from the Republic of Rwanda for Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief, 18 July 2008, p. 3.
|ICTR Rule Rule 74|