1 Thursday, 18 December 2003
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.
7 May I ask Madam Registrar to call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 This is the case number IT-94-2-S, the Prosecutor versus Dragan Nikolic.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: A very good afternoon to everybody. May I ask
11 first, Mr. Dragan Nikolic, can you follow the proceedings in a language
12 you understand?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I can.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I then ask for the appearances, first the
15 Prosecution, please.
16 MR. YAPA: May it please Your Honours. For the Prosecution, the
17 appearances, myself, Upawansa Yapa, with Ms. Patricia Sellers and
18 Mr. William Smith. Ms. Diana Boles is the case manager. Thank you.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And for the Defence, please.
20 MR. MORRISON: If it please Your Honours, Howard Morrison,
21 leading, Tanja Radosavljevic for the defendant, Dragan Nikolic.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. [Microphone not activated]
23 Before starting with the oral presentation --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think my microphone is on. Can you hear me?
1 Before starting with the oral presentation of the judgement, I
2 should like to thank all of you for your excellent cooperation and
3 assistance during the last year. This goes not only to those appearing in
4 the courtroom, but also to all those assisting us but never been seen
5 here: Technicians, translators, interpreters, guards, and all the other
6 assistants behind the scene.
7 On behalf of the entire Bench, let me thank especially both
8 parties. Without their professional presentation of their cases, we would
9 not be able to sit here today.
10 Personally, I want to thank the Chamber's legal assistants for
11 their enthusiastic work and well-founded contributions to the now
12 following judgement. Roza Salibekova, Lori Ibrus, Jan Nemitz, and
13 Courtney Musser.
14 The following is a summary of the Trial Chamber's judgement, which
15 will be made available in English, French, and B/C/S at the end of this
16 session. The only valid version of the summary is the one that will be
17 read out right now. This summary, however, forms no part of the
18 judgement. The only authoritative account of the Trial Chamber's findings
19 and of its reasons for those findings is to be found in the written
20 judgement, copies of which will be made available to the parties and the
21 public immediately following the hearing.
22 The accused, Mr. Dragan Nikolic, also known as Jenki, a
23 46-year-old Bosnian Serb, was the first person indicted by this Tribunal
24 on 4 November 1994. A first amended indictment was confirmed on 12
25 February 1999 and contained 80 counts of crimes against humanity, grave
1 breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws or customs
2 of war. This case deals with his individual responsibility for
3 particularly brutal crimes committed in the Susica detention camp near the
4 town of Vlasenica, in the municipality of the same name. Dragan Nikolic
5 was a commander in this camp, established by Serb forces in June 1992.
6 Already on 4 November 1994, arrest warrants for Dragan Nikolic
7 were issued. Following the failure to execute the arrest warrants,
8 proceedings pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules were initiated on 16 May
9 1995. On 20 October 1995, the Trial Chamber issued its decision
10 determining that there were reasonable grounds for believing that
11 Dragan Nikolic had committed all the crimes in the indictment. The
12 Trial Chamber stated that the failure to effect service of the indictment
13 and to execute the arrest warrant was due to the failure or refusal of the
14 then Bosnian Serb administration in Pale to cooperate.
15 The accused was finally apprehended on or about 20 April 2000 by
16 SFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and immediately transferred to the Tribunal
17 on 21 April 2000.
18 Mr. Dragan Nikolic pleaded guilty on 4 September 2003 to the third
19 amended indictment, which charged him with, inter alia, individual
20 criminal responsibility for committing murder, count 2; aiding and
21 abetting rape, count 3; and committing torture, count 4, as crimes against
22 humanity. The criminal conduct underlying these charges also forms the
23 basis, in part, for the final charge of persecutions as a crime against
24 humanity in count 1. It has to be recalled that at the time of the
25 accused's guilty plea, the commencement of his trial was already scheduled
1 and the first witnesses had arrived in The Hague to testify in the form of
2 depositions to be taken during the week of 1 to 5 September 2003.
3 For a considerable period of time during the pre-trial
4 proceedings, the Trial Chamber had to deal with jurisdictional matters.
5 On 17 May 2001 and 29 October 2001, the Defence filed motions
6 challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal based upon the alleged
7 illegality of the arrest of the accused. The Defence submitted that the
8 allegedly illegal arrest of the accused by unknown individuals on the
9 territory of what was at that time the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
10 should be attributable to SFOR and the Prosecution, thereby barring the
11 Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction over the accused. SFOR had
12 arrested him on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina after he had been
13 handed over by these unknown individuals. The Defence further submitted
14 that, irrespective of whether or not this conduct was attributable to the
15 Prosecution, the illegal character of the arrest should in and of itself
16 bar the Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction.
17 On 9 October 2002, the Trial Chamber dismissed the relief sought
18 by the Defence. The Trial Chamber decided on whether the arrest of the
19 accused and his subsequent transfer to the Tribunal violated the principle
20 of state sovereignty and/or international human rights and/or the rule of
22 The Trial Chamber held that there was no collusion or involvement
23 by SFOR or the Prosecution in the alleged illegal acts. The Trial Chamber
24 held that SFOR was, in accordance with Article 29 of the Statute and Rule
25 59 bis of the Rules, obliged to arrest Dragan Nikolic and to hand the
1 accused over to this Tribunal.
2 The Trial Chamber decided that there was no violation of state
3 sovereignty in the current case and based its decision on three grounds:
4 First, the Trial Chamber held that in the vertical relationship between
5 the Tribunal and states, sovereignty cannot by definition play the same
6 role as in the horizontal relationship between states. Second, the
7 Trial Chamber recalled that neither SFOR nor the Prosecution were at any
8 time prior to Dragan Nikolic's crossing the border between the then
9 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in this
10 transfer. Third, the Trial Chamber held that, in contrast to cases
11 involving horizontal relationships between states, even if a violation of
12 state sovereignty had occurred, the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
13 would have been obliged, under Article 29 of the Statute, to surrender the
14 accused after his return to the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In
15 this context, the Trial Chamber recalled the maxim "dolo facit qui petit
16 statim redditurus est", which means "a person acts with deceit who seeks
17 what he will have to return immediately."
18 The Trial Chamber re-emphasised the close relationship between the
19 obligation of the Tribunal to respect the human rights of the accused and
20 the obligation to ensure due process of law. The Trial Chamber held,
21 however, that the facts assumed by the parties did not at all show that
22 the treatment of the accused by the unknown individuals was of such an
23 egregious nature that it would constitute a legal impediment to exercise
24 jurisdiction over the accused.
25 The Defence filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision on
1 24 January 2003, following certification of the appeal by the
2 Trial Chamber. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeals Chamber in its
3 decision of 5 June 2003. First, the Appeal Chamber held that, even if the
4 conduct of the unknown individuals could be attributed to SFOR, thus
5 making SFOR responsible for a violation of state sovereignty, there was no
6 basis upon which the Tribunal should not exercise its jurisdiction in the
7 present case. In reaching this conclusion, the Appeals Chamber weighed
8 the legitimate expectation that those accused of universally condemned
9 offences will be brought to justice against the principle of state
10 sovereignty and the fundamental human rights of the accused.
11 Second, the Appeals Chamber held that certain human rights
12 violations of such a serious nature, that they require that the exercise
13 of jurisdiction be declined. The Appeals Chamber concurred, however, with
14 the Trial Chamber's evaluation on the gravity of the alleged violation of
15 the accused's human rights and found that the rights of the accused were
16 not egregiously violated in the process of his arrest.
17 On 2 September 2003, the parties submitted a plea agreement, based
18 on the factual basis of the new third indictment, which was accepted by
19 the Trial Chamber at the plea hearing of 4 September 2003.
20 A sentencing hearing was held between 3 and 6 November 2003, at
21 which the Prosecution called three witnesses and submitted the written
22 statements of two victims and one expert into evidence. The Defence
23 called two witnesses and tendered into evidence written statements of
24 three Defence witnesses.
25 Prior to the sentencing hearing, the Trial Chamber ordered,
1 proprio motu, two expert reports, one on sentencing practices and the
2 other on the socialisation of the accused. During the sentencing hearing,
3 professor Dr. Ulrich Sieber of the Max Planck Institute for foreign and
4 international criminal law in Freiburg, testified as an expert witness
5 regarding the sentencing report, and Dr. Nancy Grosselfinger testified
6 regarding the socialisation report.
7 The accused was given the final word. He made a statement
8 expressing remorse and he accepted responsibility for his crimes.
9 The Trial Chamber will now turn to a brief summary of the factual
11 On or about 21 April 1992, the town of Vlasenica was taken over by
12 Serb forces consisting of the JNA, paramilitary forces, and armed locals.
13 Many Muslims and other non-Serbs fled from the Vlasenica area, and
14 beginning in May 1992 and continuing until September 1992, those who had
15 remained were either deported or arrested.
16 In late May or early June 1992, Serb forces established a
17 detention camp run by the military and the local police militia at Susica.
18 It was the main detention facility in the Vlasenica area and was located
19 approximately one kilometre from the town.
20 From early June 1992 until about 30 September 1992, Dragan Nikolic
21 was a commander in Susica camp.
22 The detention camp comprised two main buildings and a small house.
23 The detainees were housed in a hangar which measured approximately 50 by
24 30 metres. Between late May and October 1992, as many as 8.000 Muslim
25 civilians and other non-Serbs from Vlasenica and the surrounding villages
1 were successively detained in the hangar at Susica camp. The number of
2 detainees in the hangar at any one time was usually between 300 and 500.
3 The building was severely overcrowded and living conditions were
5 Men, women, and children were detained at Susica camp, some being
6 detained as entire families. Women and children as young as eight years
7 old were usually detained for short periods of time and then forcibly
8 transferred to nearby Muslim areas.
9 Many of the detained women were subjected to sexual assaults,
10 including rape. Camp guards or other men were allowed to enter the camp
11 frequently took women out of the hangar at night. When the women
12 returned, they were often in a traumatised state and distraught.
13 By September 1992, virtually no Muslims or other non-Serbs
14 remained in Vlasenica.
15 The Trial Chamber recalls that the accused admitted the veracity
16 of each and every particular fact contained in the third amended
17 indictment that forms the factual basis of the plea agreement. The
18 Trial Chamber also recalls that it is bound by the assessment contained in
19 the plea agreement and the factual basis underlying that agreement, in
20 this instance, the third amended indictment.
21 Regarding murder, Dragan Nikolic admitted his individual criminal
22 responsibility for the killing of nine human beings: Durmo Handzic,
23 Asim Zildzic, Rasim Ferhatbegovic, Muharem Kolarevic, Dzevad Saric,
24 Ismet Zekic, Ismet Dedic, Mevludin Hatunic, and Galib Music.
25 Concerning the charge of aiding and abetting rape, from early June
1 until about 15 September 1992, Dragan Nikolic personally removed and
2 otherwise facilitated the removal of female detainees from the hangar,
3 which he knew was for purposes of rapes and other sexually abusive
4 conduct. The sexual assaults were committed by camp guards, special
5 forces, local soldiers, and other men.
6 Female detainees were sexually assaulted at various locations,
7 such as the guardhouse, the houses surrounding the camp, at the
8 Panorama Hotel, a military headquarters, and at locations where these
9 women were taken to perform forced labour. Dragan Nikolic allowed female
10 detainees, including girls and elderly women, to be verbally subjected to
11 humiliating sexual threats in the presence of other detainees in the
12 hangar. Dragan Nikolic facilitated the removal of female detainees by
13 allowing guards, soldiers, and other males to have access to these women
14 on a repeated basis and by otherwise encouraging the sexually abusive
16 Regarding torture, Dragan Nikolic admitted to his individual
17 criminal responsibility stemming from his criminal conduct in the torture
18 of five human beings. Fikret Arnaut, Sead Ambeskovic, Hajrudin Osmanovic,
19 Suad Mahmutovic, and Redjo Cakisic.
20 Dragan Nikolic admitted to saying to the tortured detainees words
21 to the effect of: "What? They did not beat you enough. If it had been
22 me, you would not be able to walk. They are not as well trained to beat
23 people as I am" and "I can't believe how an animal like this can't die; he
24 must have two hearts."
25 As part of the persecutions, Dragan Nikolic subjected detainees to
1 inhumane living conditions by depriving them of adequate food, water,
2 medical care, sleeping and toilet facilities. As a result of the
3 atmosphere of terror and the conditions in the camp, detainees suffered
4 psychological and physical trauma.
5 The accused persecuted detained Muslims and other non-Serbs by
6 assisting in their forcible transfer from the Vlasenica municipality. Most
7 of the women and children detainees were transferred either to Kladanj or
8 Cerska in Bosnian Muslim-controlled territory.
9 The Trial Chamber will now turn to the sentencing law. A guilty
10 plea indicates that an accused admits the veracity of the charges
11 contained in an indictment and acknowledges responsibility for his acts.
12 Undoubtedly, this tends to further the process of reconciliation. A
13 guilty plea protects victims from having to relive their experiences and
14 reopen old wounds. As a side effect, albeit not really as a significant
15 mitigating factor, it also saves the Tribunal's resources.
16 As opposed to a pure confession or guilty plea, a plea agreement,
17 while having its own merits as an incentive to plead guilty, has two
18 negative side effects. First, the admitted facts are limited to those in
19 the agreement, which might not always reflect the entire available factual
20 and legal basis. Second, it may be thought that an accused is confessing
21 only because of the principle "do ut des", give and take. Therefore, the
22 reasons why an accused entered a plea of guilty has to be analysed: Were
23 charges withdrawn or was a sentence recommendation given? In any event, a
24 plea agreement does not allow the Trial Chamber to depart from the mandate
25 of this Tribunal, which is to bring the truth to the light and justice to
1 the people of the former Yugoslavia. While treating plea agreements with
2 appropriate caution, it should be recalled that this Tribunal is not the
3 final arbiter of history. For the judiciary focussing on core issues of a
4 criminal case before this International Tribunal, it is important that
5 justice be done and be seen to be done.
6 When considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed in each
7 case, the Trial Chamber emphasises that the individual guilt of an accused
8 limits the range of the sentence. Other goals and functions of a sentence
9 can only influence the range within the limits defined by individual
11 The Trial Chamber considers that the fundamental principles to be
12 taken into consideration when imposing a sentence are deterrence and
13 retribution. When combatting serious international crimes, general
14 deterrence refers to the attempt to integrate or to re-integrate those
15 persons who believe themselves to be beyond the reach of international
16 criminal law. Such persons must be made aware that they have to respect
17 the fundamental global norms of substantive criminal law or, otherwise,
18 face not only prosecution but also sanctions imposed by international
20 In the view of this Trial Chamber, retribution should not be
21 understood as fulfilling a desire for vengeance, but solely as duly
22 expressing the outrage of the international community at these crimes.
23 Another main purpose of a sentence imposed by an
24 International Tribunal is to influence the legal awareness of the accused,
25 the victims, the witnesses, and the general public, in order to reassure
1 them that the legal system is implemented and enforced. Additionally, the
2 process of sentencing is intended to convey the message that globally
3 accepted laws and rules have to be obeyed by everybody. "All persons
4 shall be equal before the courts and tribunals." This fundamental rule
5 fosters an internationalisation of these laws and rules in the minds of
6 legislators and the general public.
7 With regard to the applicable range of sentences, the Defence in
8 this case has raised the question of the applicability of the principle of
9 lex mitior, meaning that if the law has been amended one or more times
10 after the criminal conduct was committed, the law which is less severe in
11 relation to the offender should be applied. The Trial Chamber notes that
12 if the principle of lex mitior were to be applicable in the present case,
13 the sentencing range would be restricted to a fixed term of imprisonment
14 instead of a term up to and including the remainder of the convicted
15 person's life.
16 The Trial Chamber recalls that the principle of lex mitior is
17 enshrined, inter alia, in Article 15, paragraph 1, sentence 3, of the
18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads: "If,
19 subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for
20 the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby."
21 The Trial Chamber holds, however, that this obligation does not
22 apply in cases where the offence was committed in a jurisdiction different
23 from the one under which the offender receives his punishment. In the
24 event of concurrent jurisdictions, no state is generally bound under
25 international law to apply the sentencing range or sentencing law of
1 another state where the offence was committed. The Trial Chamber finds,
2 therefore, that it is not bound to apply the more lenient sentencing range
3 applicable under the law of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina. According to the Statute, they have merely to be taken into
6 In addition to an analysis of the range of sentences for the
7 crimes to which the accused has pleaded guilty, applicable in the states
8 on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and of the sentencing practice
9 in relation to these crimes, the sentencing report provided by
10 Professor Dr. Sieber also focussed on the relevant sentencing ranges in
11 the national jurisdictions of 23 other countries from all over the world.
12 This overview shows that in most of these countries, a single act of
13 murder committed by sustained beatings and motivated by ethnic bias
14 attracts life imprisonment or even the death penalty, as either an
15 optional or a mandatory sanction. Apparently, based on this and on the
16 United Nations general policy, aiming at the abolition of the death
17 penalty on a global level, the Security Council provided for imprisonment
18 as the only sanction without any limitation and gave primacy to this
19 Tribunal also in relation to sentencing.
20 The Trial Chamber now turns first to the gravity of the offences
21 and the aggravating circumstances only.
22 The Trial Chamber finds that Dragan Nikolic's abuse of his
23 position as a commander in Susica camp is a substantial aggravating
24 factor. He abused the especially vulnerable detainees who lived and died
25 by the hand and at the whim or will of Dragan Nikolic.
1 Furthermore, the immediate and the long-term effects of the
2 conditions in Susica camp aggravate the crimes of the accused. Not one
3 single day and night at the camp passed by without Dragan Nikolic and
4 others committing barbarous acts. The accused brutally and sadistically
5 beat the detainees. He would kick and punch them and use weapons such as
6 iron bars, axe handles, rifle butts, metal knuckles, metal pipes,
7 truncheons, rubber tubing with lead inside, lengths of wood and wooden
8 bats to beat the detainees. One of the most chilling aspects of these
9 acts was the enjoyment he derived from this criminal conduct.
10 The accused personally removed women of all ages from the hangar,
11 handing them over to men whom he knew would sexually abuse or rape them,
12 and thereafter returned them to the hangar. As a result, women would have
13 to agonise throughout the day, not knowing what was to be their personal
14 fate in the coming night.
15 The effects of Susica camp did not end once a detainee left the
16 camp. Witnesses testified that they suffer psychologically from their
17 memories to this very day.
18 Furthermore, the number of victims is a serious aggravating
20 In conclusion, the Trial Chamber accepts the following factors as
21 especially aggravating:
22 The acts of the accused were of an enormous brutality and
23 continued over a relatively long period of time. They were not isolated
24 acts, but an expression of systematic sadism.
25 The accused ignored the pleadings of his brother to stop. He
1 apparently enjoyed his criminal acts.
2 The accused abused his power. He did so especially vis-a-vis the
3 female detainees in subjecting them to humiliating conditions in which
4 they were emotionally, verbally, and physically assaulted and forced to
5 fulfil the accused's personal whims, inter alia, washing and putting cream
6 on his feet for his personal refreshment or having to relieve themselves
7 in front of everybody else in the hangar.
8 Due to the seriousness and particular viciousness of the beatings,
9 the Trial Chamber considers the conduct charged as torture as being at the
10 highest level of torture, which has all the making of de facto attempted
12 The detainees were treated rather as slaves than as inmates under
13 the accused's supervision.
14 Finally, the high number of victims in Susica camp and the
15 multitude of criminal acts have to be taken into account.
16 In conclusion, taking into consideration only, and I emphasise
17 only, the gravity of the crime and all the accepted aggravating
18 circumstances, the Trial Chamber finds that no other punishment could be
19 imposed except a sentence of imprisonment for a term up to and including
20 the remainder of the accused's life. There are, however, mitigating
21 circumstances to which the Trial Chamber will now turn.
22 The Trial Chamber will focus on four factors of special
23 importance, namely, the plea agreement and the guilty plea; remorse;
24 reconciliation; and substantial cooperation with the Prosecution.
25 In order to make an assessment of the mitigating effect of the
1 guilty plea, the Trial Chamber considered the country reports submitted by
2 the Max Planck Institute and the jurisprudence of the international
3 tribunals. In conclusion, the Trial Chamber accepts that a guilty plea
4 should be taken into account for mitigation since it reflects the
5 accused's acceptance of his responsibility for his crimes. The
6 Trial Chamber notes that in most of the national jurisdictions surveyed, a
7 guilty plea or confession mitigates the sentence. The Trial Chamber finds
8 that the rationale behind the mitigating effect of a guilty plea in this
9 Tribunal includes the facts that the accused contributes to establishing
10 the truth about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and tends to foster
11 reconciliation in the affected communities. The Trial Chamber recalls
12 that the Trial Chamber, acting under chapter 7 of the charter of the
13 United Nations, has the task to contribute to the restoration and
14 maintenance of peace and security in the former Yugoslavia, one
15 prerequisite for this being to come as close as possible to truth and
17 The Trial Chamber accepts that remorse was shown during the
18 sentencing hearing. In this respect, the Trial Chamber recalls that the
19 accused declared in his final statement that he genuinely feels shame and
21 The Trial Chamber also accepts that the Prosecution is satisfied
22 that the accused's cooperation with the Prosecution was substantial. The
23 Trial Chamber considers this factor to be of some importance for
24 mitigating the sentence, especially since the information about Susica and
25 Vlasenica municipality was heard for the first time before this Tribunal.
1 Thus, the accused contributed to the truth and fact-finding mission of
2 this Tribunal.
3 Considering all the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances
4 together, the Trial Chamber is convinced that a substantial reduction of
5 the sentence is warranted.
6 The Trial Chamber will now turn to the concrete determination of
7 the sentence.
8 The Prosecution has recommended a term of imprisonment of 15
9 years. The Trial Chamber is, however, under the Rules, explicitly not
10 bound by a recommended sentence specified in a plea agreement. Balancing
11 now the gravity of the crimes and the aggravating factors against the
12 mitigating factors, and taking into account the aforementioned goals of
13 sentencing, the Trial Chamber is not able to follow the recommendation
14 given by the Prosecution. The brutality, the number of crimes committed,
15 and the underlying intention to humiliate and degrade would render a
16 sentence such as that which was recommended unjust. The Trial Chamber
17 believes that it is not only reasonable and responsible, but also
18 necessary, in the interest of the victims, their relatives, and the
19 international community, to impose a higher sentence than the one
20 recommended by the parties.
21 The Trial Chamber is aware that from a human rights perspective,
22 each accused, having served the necessary part of his sentence, ought to
23 have a chance to be reintegrated into society in the event he no longer
24 poses any danger to society and there is no risk that he will repeat his
25 crimes. However, before release and reintegration, at least the term of
1 imprisonment recommended by the Prosecutor has in fact to be served. In
2 conclusion, the Trial Chamber finds that the sentence declared in the now
3 following disposition is adequate and proportional.
4 May I ask you, Mr. Nikolic, please stand up.
5 We Judges of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of
6 persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian
7 law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991,
8 established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 of 25 May
9 1993, elected by the General Assembly and mandated to hear the case
10 against you, Mr. Dragan Nikolic, and find the appropriate sentence.
11 Having heard your guilty plea and having entered a finding of
12 guilt for the crimes contained in counts 1 through 4 of the third amended
13 indictment, hereby enter a single conviction against you,
14 Mr. Dragan Nikolic, for count 1, persecutions, a crime against humanity,
15 incorporating count 2, murder, a crime against humanity; count 3, rape, a
16 crime against humanity; and count 4, torture, a crime against humanity.
17 We sentence you, Mr. Dragan Nikolic, to 23 years of imprisonment
18 and state that you are entitled to credit for three years, seven months,
19 and 29 days, as of the date of this sentencing judgement, calculated from
20 the date of your deprivation of liberty, that is, the 20th of April, 2000,
21 together with such additional time as you may serve pending the
22 determination of any appeal.
23 Pursuant to Rule 103(C) of the Rules, you shall remain in the
24 custody of the Tribunal pending the finalisation of arrangements for your
25 transfer to the state where this sentence will be served.
1 You may be seated.
2 This concludes this sentencing hearing.
3 --- Whereupon the sentencing hearing adjourned at
4 3.05 p.m.