Right to supplement a brief on appeal
|Decision on Supplementing Appeal Brief - 09.01.2007||
9. While it is true that, save for Rule 115(A) allowing parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of the additional evidence admitted by the Appeals Chamber, no specific provision of the Rules explicitly regulates the possibility for the parties to supplement their briefs on appeal, it has been recognised in the jurisprudence that an appellant may supplement his or her brief, pursuant to Rule 127(A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules, by filing the said supplement with sufficient reasons constituting good cause for the Appeals Chamber to recognize it as validly filed. In particular, the appellant must show that the proposed supplemental submissions are relevant to his grounds of appeal and add substantial new information to the submissions which have already been made.The new information at stake must be of sufficiently compelling importance to justify the admission of a supplemental brief at the stage where the briefing on appeal is completed.
 Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR1l bis.1, Decision on Second Joint Defense Supplement to Joint Appeal Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal, 16 November 2005 ("Mejakić Decision of 16 November 2005"), p. 4; Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR11bis.1, Decision on Joint Defense Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Appellant's Brief, 30 August 2005, p. 3; See also Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Confidential Decision on Prosecution's Motion for Extension of Time, 26 February 2004, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Decision on Hazim Delić's Motion for Leave to File Second Supplementary Brief, 1 February 2001 ("Delalić Decision of 1 February 200 1 "), para. 6.  Delalić Decision of I February 2001, para. 3.
 Ibid., para. 5.
 Ibid., para. 6.
|ICTR Rule Rule 116 ICTY Rule Rule 127|
|Decision on Supplementing Appeal Brief - 18.02.2005||
NALETILIĆ & MARTINOVIĆ
Download full document
CONSIDERING that, where a party alleges that the subsequent jurisprudence of the International Tribunal impacts upon the position that party took in its previous submissions, leave for it to supplement the said submissions may be granted;