Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mladić: Motion to Reconsider Decision of 24 May 2012

Mladić: Motion to Reconsider Decision of 24 May 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,550|Likes:
Published by ICTY News

More info:

Published by: ICTY News on Jun 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

06/18/2012

pdf

text

original

 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALFOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIACase No. IT-09-92-TIN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before:
Judge Alphons Orie, PresidingJudge Bakone Justice MolotoJudge Christoph Flügge
 Registrar:
Mr. John Hocking
 Date Filed:
30 May 2012
THE PROSECUTOR v.RATKO MLADI
Ć
 
 Public
 ___________________________________________________________________________ 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECISION OF 24 MAY 2012
 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Dermot GroomeMr. Peter McCloskey
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Branko Luki
ć
 Mr. Miodrag Stojanovi
ć
 
40719IT-09-92-TD40719 - D4070031 May 2012 TR
 
 
Case No: IT-09-92-T 2 30 May 2012
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALFOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIAPROSECUTOR v.RATKO MLADI
Ć
 
 PUBLIC 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECISION OF 24 MAY 2012
The Accused,
RATKO MLADI
Ć
, by and through his Defence counsel, hereby files theinstant MOTION, and states further:
 I.
 
INTRODUCTORY AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1.
 
On 16 May 2012 the Trial in the instant matter commenced, over the objectionof Defence Counsel who objected to very serious irregularities in the pre-trial disclosures of the Prosecution. It should be noted in this regard that the Defence has continually, diligently been making complaints throughout the history of the pre-trial phase about the manner of disclosure and irregularities in the same, and has documented such irregularities and broughtthem to the attention of the Trial Chamber numerous times without obtaining adequate relief from the Chamber.
2.
 
On 17 May 2012, the Trial Chamber responded to some of the Defencecomplaints and stated as follows – 
 In light of the Prosecution's significant disclosure errors,which the Chamber has addressed briefly yesterday, theChamber hereby informs the parties that it has decided tosuspend the start of the presentation of evidence. TheChamber is still in the process of gathering informationas to the scope and the full impact of this error. TheChamber aims to announce the start date for the
40718
 
 
Case No: IT-09-92-T 3 30 May 2012
 presentation of the Prosecution's evidence as soon as possible.
1
 
3.
 
On 24 May 2012 the Trial Chamber entered its Decision entitled “Decision onUrgent Defence Motion of 14 May 2012 and reasons for Decision on Two Defence Requestsfor Adjournment of the Start of Trial of 3 May 2012.” (hereinafter the “Subject Decision”)
 4.
 
The Subject Decision specified, among other things, that the hearing of Evidence would commence on the 25
th
of June 2012. This finding was based on clear errorsof reasoning and without regard for relevant new information and arguments from theDefense.
 
5.
 
Accordingly, the Defence at this time seeks RECONSIDERATION by theTrial Chamber of its Subject Decision, as set forth in greater detail herein. Insofar as theinstant submission addresses the fundamental rights of the Accused in respect to a fair trialupon the serious charges against him, the Defence, on behalf of Mr. Ratko Mladic,respectfully requests the Chamber’s permission to exceed the customary word limit for Motions
2
with this filing. Efforts have been undertaken to make this submission as concise as possible, but given the severity of the subject matter, the Defence asks for the indulgence of the Chamber to briefly exceed
3
the word limit to permit the Defence to present its fullarguments in the following submission. Otherwise the Defence would be forced to filemultiple filings on the various grounds submitted, which would not assist the Chamber, andwould detract the Defence from further preparations for Trial. It is much more efficient thatthey be dealt with together, and presents a full picture of the breadth of the concerns raised.
 
1
Tr.524
2
3000 words, per the relevant Practice Direction.
3
By 792 words
40717

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->