2010-05-10, The Hague, The Netherlands. Judge Orie certified the Cermak and Markac Defence appeal of the Chamber’s confidential decision to reopen the OTP’s case in order to present new evidence.
Statement of Law and Application (Rule 73 (B)).
1. the decision involved an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial. The Trial Chamber found that this requirement was met because the new evidence could have significant bearing on the individual criminal responsibility of the Accused.
2. an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings. The Trial Chamber found that this requirement was satisfied because if the Appeals Chamber finds later that the Trial Chamber should not have reopened the Trial, this would have repercussions on all the sections of the judgment which were influenced by or based on the new evidence, and would have a considerable impact on the judgment and entail significant complications and delays for the proceedings as a whole.
Decision
This entry was posted in ICTY and tagged Alan Tieger, Alphons Orie, Andrew Cayley, Ante Gotovina, Elizabeth Gwaunza, Gillian Higgins, Goran Mikulicic, Gregory Kehoe, IT-06-90-T, Ivan Cermak, Luka Misetic, Mladen Markac, Payam Akhavan, Rule 73 (B), Steven Kay, Tomislav Kuzmanovic, Uldis Kinis. Bookmark the
permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
ICTY: Gotovina: Leave to Appeal the Reopening of the Trial Granted
2010-05-10, The Hague, The Netherlands. Judge Orie certified the Cermak and Markac Defence appeal of the Chamber’s confidential decision to reopen the OTP’s case in order to present new evidence.
Statement of Law and Application (Rule 73 (B)).
1. the decision involved an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial. The Trial Chamber found that this requirement was met because the new evidence could have significant bearing on the individual criminal responsibility of the Accused.
2. an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings. The Trial Chamber found that this requirement was satisfied because if the Appeals Chamber finds later that the Trial Chamber should not have reopened the Trial, this would have repercussions on all the sections of the judgment which were influenced by or based on the new evidence, and would have a considerable impact on the judgment and entail significant complications and delays for the proceedings as a whole.
Decision