Case No.: IT-94-2-AR73


Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding

Judge Fausto Pocar
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Amin El Mahdi

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
6 August 2003





Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Upawansa Yapa

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Howard Morrison
Ms. Tanja Radosavljevic


THE APPEALS CHAMBER of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (respectively, “Appeals Chamber” and “International Tribunal”),

NOTING the “Decision On Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest ” issued by the Appeals Chamber on 5 June 2003 (“Decision”);

BEING SEISED of the “Motion Requesting Clarification of the Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest” filed by counsel for Dragan Nikolic (“Defence ”) on 20 June 2003 (“Request”) in which the Defence seeks “clarification or expansion of reasoning” of the Decision;

NOTING that the Defence seeks (i) “elaboration of what the Appeals Chamber contemplated” [at paragraph 31 of the Decision] in stating that the Defence "had not presented to the Appeals Chamber any alternative or more comprehensive [view] of the facts", given that the case proceeded on the basis of facts agreed to before the Trial Chamber (“First Argument”); (ii) “clarification of what was comprised in the examination by the Appeals Chamber when it referred to ‘all of the facts in this case’” (“Second Argument”); and (iii) “clarification of exactly what test is contemplated by the Appeals Chamber” in determining whether a human rights violation is “egregious” (“Third Argument”);

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has an obligation to give reasoned opinions for its decisions but that this obligation does not require it to spell out every step in its reasoning;1

CONSIDERING that motions for clarification will be granted only in exceptional circumstances, for example, when the operative part of the decision made by the Appeals Chamber is involved, and more particularly where the motion does not request a reconsideration of the decision;

CONSIDERING that, as to the statements challenged in the First Argument, the Appeals Chamber, having examined the agreed facts, merely noted that as a matter of fact the Defence had not presented any alternative or a more comprehensive view of the facts that might show that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of them ;

CONSIDERING that the statements challenged in the Second and Third Arguments require no clarification;

HEREBY REJECTS the Request and DECLARES it frivolous.


Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

Dated this 6th of August 2003,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

Judge Theodor Meron
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1 - See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 12 June 2002, para. 42.