Примеры использования Trial chamber's decision на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Trial Chamber's decision was handed down on 31 October 2002.
The Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber's decision on 2 April 2004.
Following the Trial Chamber's decision of 30 May 2016, the Registry has collected 2,101 applications for participation in the proceedings.
The Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber's decision in October 2009.
Upon receiving the French translation of the trial judgement, on 26 January 2006, Mikaeli Muhimana filed his appeal of the Trial Chamber's decision of 28 April 2005.
The prosecution filed a motion to postpone the Trial Chamber's decision until the prosecution had been given the opportunity to present arguments.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed in part and reversed in part the Trial Chamber's decision.
Five of the six accused appealed against the Trial Chamber's decision to continue the case with a substitute judge under Rule 15 bis see para. 14 above.
On 3 October 2012, Mr. Lubanga filed appeals against the Trial Chamber I's judgment of 14 March 2012, convicting him, as well as the Trial Chamber's decision of 10 July 2012, sentencing him to 14 years of imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision inasmuch as it related to the modalities, which it found relegated the appellant to a secondary role in the trial. .
At the time of writing of this report, the accused had sought certification to appeal the Trial Chamber's decision refusing to vacate the trial date of 23 September 2009.
The Government appealed against the Trial Chamber's decision on that issue, stating that an order compelling the Government to produce evidence amounted to a violation of State sovereignty.
The Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba.On 4 June 2004, a bench of three judges dismissed in part the appeal against the Trial Chamber's decision on the preliminary defence motion regarding defects in the form of the indictment.
Karadžić appealed the Trial Chamber's decision upholding count 11 concerning hostage-taking, charging him with taking United Nations personnel hostage in May and June 2012.
Consequently, on 1 July 2010,when the Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Chamber's decision, all of the relevant evidence had already been heard.
In accordance with the Trial Chamber's decision, the authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina provide regular reports on the compliance of the three released accused with the terms and conditions set out in the decision. .
On 19 July 2010, the Appeals Chamber, by majority, granted the prosecution's request for a reversal of the Trial Chamber's decision to acquit Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj on certain counts in the indictment.
The Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber's decision, finding that before ordering a stay of proceedings, the Trial Chamber should have first imposed sanctions under article 71 of the Statute to bring about compliance.
As at 20 November, the Panel was not aware of a public decision on the motion, butit has requested information regarding the Trial Chamber's decision from the Office of Public Affairs and will inform the Committee of its findings in December.
The Appeals Chamber also affirmed the Trial Chamber's decision to award Rwamakuba $2,000 as compensation forming part of a remedy for the violations of his rights to legal assistance and initial appearance without delay.
The Appeals Chamber also affirmed the Trial Chamber's sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and rejected the challenge by the Office of the Prosecutor to the Trial Chamber's decision to suspend eight months of the sentence.
On 2 December 2004, the Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision on provisional release and ordered that the accused be provisionally released under various terms and conditions.
The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu, Justin Mugenzi, Jerôme Bicamumpaka and Prosper Mugiraneza.On 12 February 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the Trial Chamber's decision denying leave to amend the indictment.
On 13 July 2004, the prosecution filed a prosecution's appeal brief against the Trial Chamber's decision on prosecution's second motion to resolve conflict of interest regarding attorney Jovan Simić issued on 17 June 2004.
The Trial Chamber's decision directed the Registry to examine fee-splitting matters, including the allegations in that case, and to take all necessary measures to inform all accused and counsel before the Tribunal that fee splitting was unacceptable and merited sanction.
The request for severance has been denied and a request for certification to appeal the Trial Chamber's decision has been filed. On 22 July 2005 the Chamber issued its decision on the defence preliminary motions on the form of the indictment.
In upholding the Trial Chamber's decision, the Appeals Chamber stated that the mere fact that the person had agreed to testify for the defence did not preclude the prosecution from interviewing him provided that there was no interference with the course of justice.
On 21 July 2010, the Appeals Chamber granted the Prosecution's request for a reversal of the Trial Chamber's decision to acquit Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj on certain counts in the indictment and ordered a partial retrial of the case.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Chamber's decision denying the request for reciprocal disclosure because the prosecution did not show that the defence intended to use the requested material as evidence at trial. .
Despite general praise for the final verdict in case 001,OHCHR is concerned to note that a majority of judges reversed an important human rights aspect of the Trial Chamber's decision, namely, to grant Duch a five-year deduction in his sentence as compensation for the prolonged period he had spent in pretrial detention.