5 motion for review of the Judgement on the basis of a “new fact” within the meaning of Rule 119 of the Rules. 24 15. The proceedings in relation to the motion continued for just under twelve months. A substantial number of extensions of time was sought by both parties. 25 16. By decision of the Appeals Chamber on 15 October 1998 and for the reasons stated therein, the Defence motion for the admission of additional evidence was dismissed (“Decision on Admissibility of Additional Evidence”). 26 Considering the motion under Rule 115 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber expressed its view that additional evidence should not be admitted lightly at the appellate stage. Construing the standard established by this Rule, it was noted that additional evidence is not admissible in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence was not available at trial. The Appeals Chamber held that such unavailability must not result from the lack of due diligence on the part of counsel who undertook the defence of the accused before the Trial Chamber. Commenting further on the second criterion of admissibility under Rule 115, it was considered that for the purposes of the present case, the interests of justice required admission of additional evidence only if (a) the evidence was relevant to a material issue, Registrar not less than fifteen days before the date of the hearing. (B) The Appeals Chamber shall authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require.” 24 Rule 119 provides: “Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known to the moving party at the time of the proceedings before a Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber, and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, the defence or, within one year after the final judgement has been pronounced, the Prosecutor, may make a motion to that Chamber for review of the judgement.” 25 “Motion to Extend the Time Limit”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 10 September 1997; “Motion for the Extension of the Time Limit” (Confidential), Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 6 October 1997; “The Motion for the Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 17 March 1998; “Application for Extension of Time to File Additional Evidence on Appeal”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 1 May 1998; “Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Cross-Appellant’s Response to Appellant’s Submissions since 9th March 1998 on the Motion for the Presentation of Additional Evidence under Rule 115”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 15 June 1998; “Request for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to the Appellant’s Motion Entitled ’Motion for the Extension of the Time Limit’”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 9 October 1997; “Request for a Modification of the Appeals Chamber Order of 22 January 1998”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 13 February 1998; “Request for a Modification of the Appeals Chamber Order of 2 February 1998”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 7 May 1998. The following orders were made in relation to these applications: “Scheduling Order”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 24 November 1997; “Order Granting Request for Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 23 March 1998; “Order Granting Requests for Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 13 May 1998; “Order Granting Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 10 June 1998; “Order Granting Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 17 June 1998; “Order Granting Request for Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 9 October 1997; “Order Granting Request for Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 19 February 1998; “Order Granting requests for Extension of Time”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 13 May 1998. 26 “Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time-limit and Admission of Additional Evidence”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, 15 October 1998. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999