Untitled Document

484. As a result of certain issues that had arisen between Akayesu and Counsel assigned to defend him at trial, and following the verdict rendered on 2 September 1998,[872] Akayesu was left without Counsel. On 20 January 1999, Akayesu filed a Motion for judicial review, in which he requested the Appeals Chamber to rule inter alia “null and void and discriminatory” the Registrar’s “policy” excluding John Philpot from assignment as his Counsel and to order the Registrar to assign Mr. Philpot as Defence Counsel for Akayesu’s retroactively to 18 September 1998 (“the Motion for judicial review”).[873] On 30 March 1999, the Appeals Chamber directed the Registrar to respond to the Motion for Judicial Review by 12 April 1999 and notified Akayesu that he had until 26 April 1999 to file his Reply together with the supporting documentation referred to in the Motion.[874]

485. At the same time, the Registrar was working on assigning a Defence Counsel to Akayesu and, thus, by letter of 9 February 1999, assigned Giacomo Barletta Caldarera as Lead Counsel for Akayesu. Following a correspondence from Giacomo Barletta Caldarera alleging that John Philpot and Akayesu were persistently urging him to withdraw as Counsel, the Registrar decided on 31 March 1999 to maintain Giacomo Barletta Caldarera as Defence Counsel for Akayesu.[875]

486. On 12 April 1999,[876] the Registrar filed his response to Akayesu’s Motion for Judicial Review, and Akayesu filed his Reply on 28 April 1999.[877] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber was seized of a petition dated 28 April 1999[878] from the Association internationale des avocats de défense (International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association) to appear as amicus curiae, pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules.

487. The Appeals Chamber decided not to hold an inter partes hearing on the Motion for Judicial Review and rendered a decision on 27 July 1999 solely on the basis of the aforementioned filings.[879]

488. The Appeals Chamber found that although there is no provision in the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel for right of appeal against a decision by the Registrar not to assign a specific counsel, such a right is necessary in order to ensure that the accused is effectively able to exercise his rights under Article 20(4) of the Statute, and, indeed as recognized by ICTY in other cases. The Appeals Chamber, considering that John Philpot’s name was included in the list of Counsel eligible for assignment by the Registrar at the Appellant’s urgent request and, moreover, that the Registrar had thus given the Appellant a legitimate hope that Mr. Philpot would be assigned to defend him before the Tribunal, directed the Registrar to assign Mr. Philpot as Lead Counsel with effect from 22 September 1998, when his name was included in the list of counsel maintained by the Registry. The Appeals Chamber also decided to dismiss the petition by the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association to appear as amicus curiae.

489. Subsequently, the Registrar, by a decision dated 10 August 1999, withdrew the assignment of Mr. Caldarera as Defence Counsel with effect from 27 July 1999.[880]

490. Akayesu filed his first Notice of Appeal (a handwritten letter ) on 1 October 1998. His second Notice of Appeal, prepared by his Counsel, was filed with the Registry on 2 October 1998.[881] Akayesu filed his Notice of Appeal Against Sentence on 2 November 1998.[882] In its Decision of 24 May 2000 the Appeals Chamber granted Akayesu leave to include four additional grounds in his Notice of Appeal relating to the admissibility of “hearsay” evidence, the refusal by the Trial Chamber to permit Akayesu to ask leading questions during cross-examination, the unlawful disclosure of Defence witness statements and an allegation concerning witness DAAX. Akayesu was also allowed to amend the ground of appeal relating to out-of-court evidence. In its Decision of 22 August 2000, the Appeals Chamber denied Akayesu leave to add further grounds of appeal or to amend certain grounds of appeal already filed.[883]

491. On 2 October 1998, the Prosecution filed its Notice of Appeal setting out eight grounds of appeal[884] in which it requested the Appeals Chamber: (1) to quash the Trial Chamber’s verdict in respect of Counts 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 (acquittals under Article 4 of the Statute), and to substitute verdicts of guilty for them; and (2) to quash the erroneous legal findings put forward in the Trial Judgement. On 15 October 1999, the Prosecution filed a Notice Abandoning Ground 6[885] while in the Prosecution’s Brief, it notified the Appeals Chamber that it no longer wished to proceed on Ground 4.[886] The Prosecution submitted that Ground 1 “does not as such constitute a ground of appeal, but rather intends to group Grounds 2 to 4” [887] and that it did not request that any further grounds be included under Ground 8.[888]

492. Following the filing by the parties of their respective notices of appeal, the issue of the assignment of Counsel to Akayesu arose. The Appeals Chamber ruled on the issue in its Decision of 27 July 1999 discussed above and, at the same time, issued a briefing schedule. The Appeals Chamber ordered that the parties must file their Appellant’s Briefs by 25 October 1999, their Respondent’s Briefs by 22 November 1999 and the Briefs in Reply by 6 December 1999.[889]

493. On 21 October 1999, the Appeals Chamber suspended the above time-limits pending a ruling on various motions filed by Akayesu on, inter alia, alleged errors in the composition of the trial record.[890] These motions were disposed of in the 24 May 2000 Decision. In a Scheduling Order also dated 10 August 2000, the pre-hearing Judge ordered that the Briefing schedule should be resumed, that Appellant’s Briefs should be filed by 10 July 2000, Respondent’s Briefs should be filed by 10 August 2000 with Briefs in Reply to be filed by 25 August 2000.[891]

494. Akayesu filed his Appellant’s Brief on 7 July 2000 (“Akayesu’s Brief”)[892] and the Prosecution filed its Brief on 10 July 2000 (‘Prosecution’s Brief”). On 24 July 2000, Akayesu filed a motion for the Appeals Chamber to declare the Prosecutor’s Brief inadmissible.[893] By a Decision dated 27 July 2000, the pre-hearing judge ruled that to the extent that the Appellant’s motion addressed the “merit” of the Prosecution’s appeal, it could be considered as Akayesu’s Response, unless he chose to file another Respondent’s Brief within the prescribed time-limit.[894] On the same date, the pre-hearing judge suspended the briefing schedule pending disposition of several pending motions. He ordered that the Respondent’s Briefs and Briefs in Reply be filed within 13 to 28 days, respectively, from the date the Appeals Chamber rules on the pending motions.[895] The Appeals Chamber ruled on the pending motions in a Decision rendered on 22 August 2000 and the Prosecution filed its Respondent’s Brief on 4 September 2000 (Prosecution’s Response).[896] Akayesu did not file any response to the Prosecution’s Brief. Akayesu and the Prosecution filed their Briefs in Reply on 19 September 2000 (“Akayesu’s Reply” and “Prosecution’s Reply”) respectively.[897]

495. Lastly, by Order of 2 October 2000, the inter partes hearing on appeal was set for 1 November 2000 to continue on 2 November 2000, if necessary.[898]

496. The Appeals Chamber heard the arguments of the parties on 1 and 2 November 2000 at the seat of the Tribunal at Arusha.

497. On 16 May 2001, the Appeals Chamber issued a Scheduling order stating that the appeal Judgment would be delivered at the seat of the Tribunal at Arusha on 1 June 2001.[899]

498. The instant appeal has been marked, primarily, by the filing, often in very rapid succession, of a large number of motions by Akayesu. In said motions, Akayesu raised both procedural issues and issues relating to the merits of his appeal, including requests for leave to add new grounds of appeal and to admit additional evidence on appeal.

499. Due to the number and, in particular, the frequency of the motions filed by Akayesu, the Appeals Chamber ordered him on two occasions to file “consolidated” motions in a bid to oblige him to set out clearly and concisely the arguments put forward in support of each of the requests made in his various motions. The relevant Scheduling Orders were issued on 30 November 1999[900] and 24 May 2001[901] respectively.

500. In the Order of 30 November 1999, the Appeals Chamber directed Akayesu to consolidate nine motions that he had filed between 23 September and 15 November 1999.[902] Akayesu filed his Consolidated Motion on 10 December (“the First Consolidated Motion”)[903] The Prosecution filed its Response on 21 December 1999[904] after having filed inter alia, on 15 December 1999, an urgent motion for extension of time-limits for filing its Response.[905] Said request was granted by Order of 30 December 1999,[906] and on 13 March 2000, the Prosecution filed an Additional Response.[907]

501. By a Decision dated 17 April 2000, the pre-hearing judge ruled on two motions grouped under the first consolidated motion and which related essentially to procedural issues and to the record on appeal. The pre-hearing judge directed the Registrar to incorporate certain documents in the record and to serve them on the parties.[908] In its Decision of 24 May 2000, the Appeals Chamber ruled on the other consolidated motions not already disposed of and which were included in the First Consolidated Motion (“the Decision of 24 May 2000”).[909] The Appeals Chamber granted requests for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal and for Admission of New Evidence on Appeal.

502. In the Scheduling Order of 24 May 2001, the Appeals Chamber directed Akayesu to consolidate into a single document all his pending motions dating from 7 December 1999, namely all the motions filed since the Scheduling Order of 30 November 1999 and which had not been disposed of by the Appeals Chamber in its Decision of 24 May 2000.[910]Akayesu filed his Consolidated Motion on 2 June (‘the Second Consolidated Motion”)[911] and the Prosecution filed its Response thereto on 12 June 2000.[912] The Appeals Chamber rendered a Decision on the Second Consolidated Motion on 22 August 2000 (“the Decision of 22 August 2000”)[913] In said Decision, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Akayesu’s Request for Leave to Amend his Notices of Appeal and for Admission of New Evidence on Appeal.

503. Akayesu filed several other motions which were addressed neither in the Decision of 24 May 2000 nor in the Decision of 22 August 2000, including a Motion to set a date for the holding of a Status Conference which was dismissed by the Scheduling Order of 24 May 2000,[914] a Motion for the translation of documents filed by Akayesu before the Appeals Chamber which was dismissed in a Decision rendered on 25 May 2000[915] and a motion for correction of an Order which was allowed and dismissed in part by an Order issued on 25 May 2000.[916]

504. Furthermore, Akayesu filed two last-minute motions before the start of the hearing on appeal. Firstly, on 20 October 2000, Akayesu filed a Motion to Rectify or Correct and Reconsider Part of the Decision of 22 August 2000 relating to the Appeals Chamber’s finding on his request for leave to add a new ground of appeal concerning, in general, his unlawful detention.[917] The said motion, is ruled on in the instant Judgement, as part of the consideration of Akayesu’s tenth ground of appeal. Subsequently, on 30 October 2000, Akayesu filed a motion for a postponement of the hearing on appeal (scheduled for 1 November 2000) to allow for the translation of certain documents. [918] The Prosecution filed its Response thereto on 31 October, arguing that the motion was late and that such a postponement was unnecessary. On 1 November 2000, the Appeals Chamber denied the motion at the start of the hearing on appeal and proceeded with the hearing.[919]

505. Lastly, Akayesu filed two motions during the judges’ deliberations following the hearing on appeal.

506. In his first motion, Akayesu sought translation of his Brief and Reply.[920] The Prosecution responded on 16 March 2001[921] and Akayesu filed a reply on 21 March 2001.[922] The Appeals Chamber rendered a decision on 29 March 2001 in which it stated that “it is imperative, for the proper administration of justice and for equality of treatment of the parties, that their written submissions, and particularly their briefs, are translated into the Tribunal’s two working languages”. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to have the briefs translated into English within a specific time-limit.[923]

507. On 17 April 2001, Akayesu filed a second motion requesting the Appeals Chamber to return the case to the Trial Chamber for review, pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules,[924] which provides that: “If the judgement to be reviewed is under appeal at the time the motion for review is filed, the Appeals Chamber may return the case to the Trial Chamber for disposition of the motion”. At that juncture, Akayesu had already filed before the Trial Chamber, on 12 April 2001, a motion for review of the Trial Chamber’s decision rendered on grounds of what he alleged to be newly discovered facts.[925] The Prosecution filed its response on 4 May 2001.[926] On 9 May 2001Akayesu filed[927] a notice of intention to file a reply to the Prosecution’s response, which he did on 11 May 2001.[928]

508. The Appeals Chamber disposed of the motion on 16 May 2001 finding that in the circumstances of the case, there was no cause to return the case to Trial Chamber I. It ruled that: (1) the case is not deemed to be before the Trial Chamber unless the Appeals Chamber decides to remit the case to it and that, in the absence of such a remit, the Trial Chamber has no power to rule on the motion for review; (2) in deciding whether there is cause to return the case to a Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber takes note of the provisions governing review before the Tribunal; (3) it appears prima facie, in the instant case, that Akayesu did not present new facts; (4) even assuming that the Appeals Chamber equates the motion for return of the case with an application for leave to present new evidence on appeal, such an application must be dismissed since the requirements of Rule 115 of the Rules are not met in the instant case.[929]

509. On 13 March 2000, the Prosecution filed the “Prosecutor’s urgent motion for protection of witnesses”, following a motion filed by Akayesu which included a document[930] disclosing the names of 12 witnesses, some of whom were covered by witness protection orders made during the trial. The Appeals Chamber ordered, inter alia, that a redacted version of the document in question be prepared and that the identity of all protected witnesses not be disclosed to any member of the public or to any other person not involved in this appeal.[931]

510. On 31 May 2000, the Prosecution filed a motion for admission as new evidence,[932] of certain material extracted from the transcripts of the Georges Rutaganda case. Akayesu responded thereto on 16 June 2000, stating that he saw no problem.[933] By a decision dated 12 July 2000, the Appeals Chamber admitted the transcripts in question as additional evidence.[934]

[871] The titles of the documents cited in the footnotes to this annex reflect verbatim the original documents and therefore contain any errors or omissions reflected therein.

[872] This review procedure relates only to the assignment of counsel and the necessary intervention by the Appeals Chamber.

[873] Motion for Judicial Review under Article 19 of the Statute and Rules 73 and 105 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, urgent motion for oral hearing, filed on 20 January 1999.

[874] Scheduling Order, dated 30 March 1999 but issued on 31 March 1999.

[875] Decision to maintain Giacomo Barletta Caldarera as Counsel for Akayesu, dated 24 March 1999, but filed on 31 March 1999. Akayesu filed a “Reply” to the said Decision of 4 May 1999 (Réplique d’Akayesu sur la décision du Greffier datée du 24 mars 1999 pour maintenir la commission de Me Giacomo).

[876] Registry’s Brief in Reply to Motion for Judicial Review under Article 19 of the Statute and Rules 73 and 105 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed on 12 April 1999.

[877] Appellant’s Reply to Registrar’s arguments, dated 23 April 1999 but filed on 28 April 1999.

[878] “Petition for Intervention as Amicus Curiae of the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence)”, filed 28 April 1999. On 1 June 1999, a Brief was filed in support of the said Petition ( “Brief of the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association [Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence])”. Rule 74 of the Rules provides that: “A Chamber may, if it considers it desirable for the proper determination of the case, invite or grant leave to any State, organization or person to appear before it and make submissions on any issue specified by the Chamber.”

[879] Decision Relating to Assignment of Counsel, dated 27 July 1999 and rendered on 28 July 1999.

[880] “Decision on Withdrawal of Barletta Caldarera as Counsel for Jean-Paul Akayesu, dated 10 August 1999 and filed on 1 December 1999.

[881] Notice of Appeal, filed on 2 October 1998. The Prosecution submitted that the Appeals Chamber must dismiss the first Notice of Appeal and only take into account the second Notice of Appeal. Prosecution’s Response, paras. 1.33 to 1.38 (see with respect to this issue Akayesu’s Reply, para. 3). At the start of the hearing on appeal, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the said argument. It found that although it had followed the grouping of Akayesu’s grounds of appeal, as presented by him in his second Notice of Appeal, it had not rejected the first Notice of Appeal. Transcript(A) 1 November 2000, pp. 7 and 8.

[882] Notice of Appeal Against the Sentence rendered by the Chamber, filed on 2 November 1998.

[883] The Appeals Chamber notes that Akayesu withdrew or abandoned several grounds of appeal. These grounds of appeal are not referred to in this Judgment.

[884] Notice of Appeal, filed on 2 October 1998.

[885] Ground 6 alleged that the Trial Chamber erred in law in holding that an accused, to be found responsible for planning under Article 6(1), must have planned the crime with the perpetrator of the crime.

[886] Ground 4 alleged that the Trial Chamber erred in fact in finding “…that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the acts perpetrated by Akayesu in the commune of Taba at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment were committed in conjunction with the armed conflict.”

[887] Prosecution’s Brief, para. 1.12.

[888] Prosecution’s Brief para. 1.15. Ground 1 alleged that Trial Chamber erred in fact and in law in finding Jean-Paul Akayesu not guilty on Counts 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 and Ground 8 intended to include such further grounds of appeal as the Prosecutor may advise and the Appeals Chamber may permit.

[889] Decision relating to Assignment of Counsel, delivered on 27 July 1999.

[890] Order for the suspension of time-limits for the filing of appeal briefs, dated 21 October 1999 but filed on 26 October 1999.

[891] Scheduling order issued on 24 May 2000.

[892] Akayesu filed together with his Brief, a document entitled “Consolidated Notice of Appeal” which “grouped together ” the grounds of appeal set out in his two Notices of Appeal and other grounds added after the filing of motions.

[893] Motion Objecting Inadmissibility of Appellant’s Brief and the Respondent’s Brief, filed on 24 July 2000.

[894] Appeals Decision (Motion to Declare Prosecution’s Appeal Inadmissible), rendered on 27 July 2000.

[895] Scheduling Order, issued on 27 July 2000.

[896] Prosecution’s Response, filed on 4 September 2000.

[897] On 22 August 2000, Akayesu filed another motion (“Urgent Motion by Defence Counsel to Suspend the Briefing Schedule”) which was dismissed by an Order dated 24 August 2000 but rendered on 25 August 2000. The Prosecution filed a Response to that motion on 25 August 2000 (“Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time”, dated 21 August 2000).

[898] Order ( Hearing on appeal ) issued on 2 October 2000. See below with respect to Akayesu’s Motion for a postponement of the hearing date, filed on 30 October 2000.

[899] Scheduling order issued on 16 May 2001.

[900] Scheduling order issued on 30 November 1999.

[901] Scheduling order issued on 24 May 2001.

[902] Motion for Extension of Time-Limits and for Admission of New Evidence on Appeal pursuant to Rule 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed on 23 September 1999; Motion to Set Aside Registry’s Certification of the Record on Appeal, to Rectify the Contents of the ‘Record’ and to Extend the Time-Limits in Respect of Appeals Pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute and Rules 73 and 105 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed on 25 September 1999 and 4 October 1999; Motion on Violation of the Right to Counsel, for Extension of the Time-Limit for Appeal and Provisional Motion Seeking Admission of New Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rules 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed on 25 October 1999; Motion for New Evidence Under Appeal, Extension and Suspension of Time-Limits and Stay of Proceedings; Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal in Respect of the Motion for New Evidence Under Appeal, Extension and Suspension of Time-Limits and Stay of Proceedings, filed on 25 October 1999; Requête en communication de preuve et en prorogation des délais d’appel suivant les règles 86, 73, 107, 115 and 116 du Règlement de procédure et de preuve et suivant l’article 20 du Statut du Tribunal, filed on 26 October 1999; Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal in Respect of the Motion for New Evidence Under Appeal, Extension and Suspension of Time-Limits and Stay of Proceedings (re. Witness DAAX), filed on 10 November 1999; Reply to the Prosecution’s Response to the motion entitled “Motion to Set Aside the Registry’s Certification of the Record on Appeal, to Rectify the Contents of the ‘record’ and to Extend the Time-Limits in Respect of Appeals Pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute and Rules 73 and 105 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed on 4 November 1999; Motion Seeking Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal and for Suspension of Time-Limits, filed on 15 November 1999. Requête en reconstitution de le case file, en communication de documentss de première instance et en prorogation des délais d’appel, filed on 15 November 1999. In its Order of 30 November 1999, the Appeals Chamber also mentioned two Responses that the Prosecution had filed on 15 October 1999, namely Prosecution’s Response to Appellant Jean-Paul Akayesu’s Motion for Annulment of the Certification of the Record and Prosecution’s Response to Appellant Jean-Paul Akayesu’s Motion for Extension of Time-Limits for Appeal and for Admission of New Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rules 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

[903] The Appellant’s Brief relating to the following motions referred to in the Scheduling Order of 30 November 1999, filed on 10 December 1999.

[904] Prosecution’s Response to the “Mémoire de l’appelant concernant les requêtes suivant visées par l’ordonnance comportant calendrier du 30 novembre 1999, filed on 21 December 1999.

[905] Prosecution’s Urgent Request for Extension of Time to Respond to the “Mémoire de l’appelant concernant les requêtes suivant visées par l’ordonnance comportant calendrier du 30 novembre 1999, filed on 15 December 1999

[906] Order (Prosecution’s Urgent Motion for Extension of Time-Limits), issued on 30 December 1999.

[907] Addendum to Prosecution’s Response to Brief filed by the Defence pursuant to Appeals Chamber’s Order of 30 December 1999. The Prosecution also filed on 3 November 2000 an Addendum to the Prosecutor’s Additional Response to the Defence Brief filed pursuant to the Appeals Chamber’s Order of 30 December 1999.

[908] Decision on Grounds 1 and 7 of the Appellant’s Brief relating to the following grounds referred to in the Scheduling Order of 30 November 1999 (concerning the record on appeal), dated 17 April 2000 and filed on 18 April 2000.

[909] Decision (concerning motions 2,3,4, 5, 6 and 8 Appellant’s Brief Relative to the Following Motions Referred to by the Order dated 30 November 1999), delivered on 24 May 2000.

[910] Scheduling Order of 24 May 2000. The motions concerned were the following: Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal Relating to the Impartiality and Independence of the Tribunal and Add New Grounds of Appeal, filed on 7 December 1999; Motion to Amend the Notice of Appeal (re: to clarify Part Two of the Appeal Relating to ‘Denial of the Right to a Competent Counsel”), filed on 20 January 2001 (noting that the Registry had filed its observations on the Motion pursuant to Rule 33(B) of the Rules “Registry’s observations on the Motion to Amend the Notice of Appeal (re: to clarify Part Two of the Appeal Relating to ‘Denial of the Right to a Competent Counsel”), filed on 20 March 2000; Motion for an Order to transcribe the transcripts of the hearing of 23 January 1997 and to Amend the Notice of Appeal With Respect to Exclusion of the Accused from the Hearing, filed on 17 February 2000; Requete pour produire des délais relativement à un conflit d’intérêt et inconduite du procureur, filed on 17 February 2000; Requête pour produire une preuve en appel re: Témoin Expert M. Serge A. Desouter (et Désistement d’un motif d’appel, filed on 29 February 2000; Urgent Motion for Disclosure and for an Oral Hearing, filed on 10 April 2000 and Amended Urgent Motion for disclosure and for an oral Hearing and Motion to Amend, filed on 17 April 2000.

[911] Consolidation or Summary of Pending Appeals (pursuant to the Scheduling Order of 24 May 2000), filed on 2 June 2000.

[912] Prosecution’s Response to the “Consolidation or Summary of Pending Appeals (Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of 24 May 2000).

[913] Decision on the Consolidation or Summary of Pending Appeals, delivered on 22 August 2000.

[914] Motion to Hold a Status Conference (Rules 65 bis and 107 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), filed on 12 February 2000. The Prosecution responded in its Prosecution’s Response to the Defence Motion to Hold a Status Conference, filed on 13 March 2000.

[915] Decision (re: Requête en urgence relative à la traduction de documents déposés par l’appelant pour étude par la Chambre d’appel),5 May 2000. The motion by Akayesu (Requête en urgence relative à la traduction de documents déposés par l’appelant pour étude par la Chambre d’appel) was filed on 7 March 2000 and the Reply (Réplique d’Akayesu à la Requête en urgence relative à la traduction de documents déposés par l’appelant pour étude par la Chambre d’appel) was filed on 21 March 2000.

[916] Decision [re: Requête en rectification de l’ordonnance (Prosecutor’s Urgent Request for Extension of Time) filed on 30 December 1999], rendered on 25 May 2000. Akayesu’s Motion [Requête en rectification de l’ordonnance (Prosecutor’s Urgent Request for Extension of Time) filed on 30 December 1999, was filed on 13 January 2000. The Prosecution’s Response (Prosecution’s Response to the Defence’s Requête en rectification de l’ordonnance) was filed on 20 January 2000.

[917] Notice of motion to Rectify or Correct and Reconsider part of the Decision of August 22, 2000 (Decision on the Consolidation or summarisation of motions Not Yet Disposed Of ) (Re: Amendment of Notice of Appeal), filed on 20 October 2000.

[918] “Motion to Postpone a Hearing”, filed on 30 October 2000. The Prosecution filed its Response on 31 October 2000 [Prosecution Response to the Motion for Postponement of the Hearing of the Appeal (filed on 31 October 2000). The Appeals Chamber was initially seized of the said motion through a letter from Counsel for Akayesu dated 24 October 2000 and filed on 25 October 2000 (Letter from John Philpot to Judge Claude Jorda, President of the Appeals Chamber).

[920] Extremely urgent notice of motion requesting an order for translation of Appellant’s Brief and Appellant’s Brief in Reply, filed on 15 March 2001.

[921] Prosecution Response to the “extremely urgent notice of motion requesting an order for translation of Appellant’s Brief and Appellant’s Brief in Reply”, filed on 16 March 2001.

[922] Reply to Prosecutor’s Response to the Appellant’s extremely urgent notice of motion requesting an order for translation of Appellant’s Brief and Appellant’s Brief in Reply, filed on 21 March 2001.

[923] Order (for translation of Appellant's Briefs), filed on 29 March 2001.

[924] Motion and Brief of argument pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, filed on 17 April 2001.

[925] Defence Motion for review of the Trial Chamber’s decision of 2 September 1998 and Brief in support of Defence Motion for review of the Trial Chamber’s decision of 2 September 1998, filed on 12 April 2001.

[926] Prosecution Response to Appellant’s motion pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence filed on 17 April 2001, filed on 4 May 2001.

[927] Notice of intention to file a reply to the Prosecution’s response to the “Motion and brief of argument pursuant to Rule 123 of the (Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), filed on 9 May 2001.

[928] Reply to the Prosecution’s response to the “motion and brief of argument pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, filed on 11 May 2001.

[929] Decision (Motion for return of the case to Trial Chamber I), rendered on 16 May 2001.

[930] Motion to amend Notice of Appeal (Re: to clarify Part two of the Notice of Appeal relating to “Denial of the right to a competent counsel), filed on 24 January 2000.

[931] Order (Prosecutor’s urgent motion for protection of witnesses), dated 20 March but rendered on 21 March 2000.

[932] Prosecution’s Motion for admission of new evidence on appeal following the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 24 May 2000, filed on 31 May 2000.

[933] Response to the Prosecutor’s Motion for admissibility of new evidence on appeal following the Appeals Chamber Decision on 24 May 2000, filed on 19 June 2000.

[934] Decision (Prosecution’s Motion for admission of new Evidence on Appeal), rendered on 12 July 2000.