1 - Indictment IT-96-23.
2 - T 1482.
3 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000.
4 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 1.1
5 - Ibid, pars 1.2-1.3.
6 - Ibid, par 5.1.
7 - Ibid, par 6.1; Indictment IT-96-23/1, par 7.9.
8 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 6.2.
9 - Ibid, par 7.1-7.2.
10 - Ibid, par 11.1.
11 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, par 16. The Trial Chamber entered a judgement of acquittal in favour of the accused Dragoljub Kunarac on Count 13 (plunder of private property, a violation of the laws or customs of war). The word “plunder” was interpreted as unjustified appropriations of property either from more than a small group of persons or from persons over an identifiable area. There was no evidence in the present case that satisfied this interpretation.
12 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 8.1.
13 - Ibid, par 10.1.
14 - Ibid, par 10.2.
15 - Ibid, par 11.1.
16 - Ibid, par 11.2-11.3.
17 - Ibid, par 11.3.
18 - Ibid, par 11.4.
19 - Ibid, par 11.6.
20 - Ibid, par 11.5.
21 - Indictment IT-96-23/1, par 6.
22 - Ibid, par 6.7.
23 - Ibid, par 7.10.
24 - Ibid, par 7.11.
25 - Ibid, par 7.13.
26 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000; Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters Regarding the Accused Zoran Vukovic, 8 Mar 2000; see pars 1 and 2 of Admissions by the Parties and Other Matters not in Dispute.
27 - Defence Final Trial Brief, pp 196-197.
28 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, Matters of Facts and Law Which Remain Contested, 1 Feb 2000, p 10, par 1 and p 11, par 1; and Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters Regarding the Accused Zoran Vukovic, 8 Mar 2000; see par 1 of Admissions by the Parties and Matters of Fact and Law Which Remain Contested.
29 - FWS-33, T 485-486; FWS-152, T 1885; A.S., T 2057; FWS-96, T 2498 and FWS-48, T 2614.
30 - Witness DC, T 5015 and 5029.
31 - FWS-33, T 487-489; FWS-52, T 856; A.S., T 1989 and T 1996; FWS-78, T 2096; FWS-132, T 2407; FWS-96, T 2500; FWS-185, T 2841 and 2889; FWS-175, T 3571; FWS-183, T 3661; and FWS-61, T 3738.
32 - FWS-78, T 2096; FWS-183, T 3661 and FWS-61, T 3738.
33 - FWS-33, T 462, T 487-489 and T 521; FWS-52, T 851, T 855-856, T 913 and T 916-917; FWS-152, T 1888; A.S., T 1996; FWS-78, T 2077-2078, T 2080 and T 2096; FWS-96, T 2500; FWS-175, T 3567-3571; FWS-183, T 3659-3661; FWS-61, T 3738; Witness Rajko Markovic, T 5078.
34 - T 5079-5080.
35 - FWS-33, T 487, T 489 and T 495; FWS-93, T 1076; FWS-51, T 1160 and FWS-96, T 2557. Ex P40, 41, 42 and 43 are exit permits obtained by FWS-33 for him and his family to be allowed to leave Foca. Ex P47 is an exit permit to leave Foca obtained by FWS-93. Ex P53 is an exit permit to leave Foca obtained by FWS-51. Ex P74 is an exit permit to leave Foca obtained by FWS-96.
36 - FWS-33, T 456, T 455 and T 533; FWS-75, T 1372; FWS-65, T 651; FWS-78, T 2074.
37 - FWS-33, T 447-448 and T 536-554; FWS-65, T 640-641; Witness DA, T 4979; Witness DC, T 5015, 5021-5024 and 5030-5033; Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5042-5043 and T 5056-5058. See also Ex P25, containing video footage of a parliamentary exchange between Radovan Karadzic and Alija Izetbegovic prior to the conflict. See also Ex D1 and 1/1.
38 - See Ex P1, Request of the Serbian Municipality of Foca to the JNA General Staff in Belgrade for Stationing a Garrison in Foca, 17 March 1992.
39 - See Osman Šubasic, T 4054-4056.
40 - FWS-33, T 457; FWS-93, T 1054 and 1096; Witness Osman Šubasic, T 4049-4050, T 4054 and T 4060-4065; Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5059; Witness Rajko Markovic, T 5078; Witness Vaso Blagojevic, T 5087.
41 - Dragoljub Kunarac, T 4397-4399 and Witness Vaso Blagojevic, T 5088-5089.
42 - FWS-52, T 852-855; FWS-48, T 2619; FWS-78, T 2083; FWS-192, T 3025-3026.
43 - FWS-33, T 471; FWS-65, T 670-671; FWS-52, T 851-854 and T 926; FWS-93, T 1051-1054, T 1065 and T 1092; FWS-51, T 1118 and T 1214; FWS-50, T 1337-1339; FWS-75, T 1374-1376; A.S., T 1989; FWS-78, T 2083; FWS-95, T 2185; FWS-132, T 2403-2404 and 2452-2454; FWS-96, T 2500-2501; FWS-48, T 2618-2619; FWS-185, T 2841-2843; FWS-186, T 2917 and T 2990-2991; FWS-192, T 3024-3026, FWS-175, T 3571-3572; FWS-183, T 3662-3664.
44 - See, eg, FWS-75, T 1374-1375.
45 - FWS-50, T 1234-1235.
46 - FWS-52, T 862; FWS-62, T 951; FWS-51, T 1115; FWS-50, T 1235; FWS-75, T 1373; FWS-87, T 1665; FWS-95, T 2187-2188; FWS-96, T 2501; FWS-48, T 2616; FWS-186, T 2918; FWS-175, T 3567 and FWS-105, T 4209.
47 - FWS-65, T 659-661 and T 684-685; FWS-52, T 915; FWS-93, T 1051-1055; FWS-78, T 2088-2093; FWS-190, T 3315-3316. See also Ex P6 and 6/1 concerning the type and use of weapons used to take Foca and surrounding municipalities: Ex P6 is an order of battle instructing the units for further actions and is directed to commanders of basic units and the command of the Trnovo battalion instructing them with respect to the use of artillery weapons. Ex P6/1 are pictures of the weaponry at the disposal of the Serb forces.
48 - FWS-33, T 471-480; FWS-93, T 1058-1066; FWS-51, T 1119-1123 and T 1125-1132; FWS-62, T 959-974; FWS-75, T 1381-1393; FWS-87, T 1668-1677; FWS-127, T 1857-1865; FWS-152, T 1890-1894; A.S., T 1988-1992; FWS-95, T 2193-2200; FWS-132, T 2408-2410; FWS-96, T 2509-2522; FWS-48, T 2626-2643; FWS-185, T 2854-2857; FWS-186, T 2923-2924; FWS-192, T 3029-3030; FWS-191, T 3126-3130; FWS-190, T 3322-3324; FWS-105, T 4218-4219 and D.B., T 3374-3783.
49 - FWS-52, T 865-872; FWS-51, T 1117-1132; FWS-50, T 1235; FWS-75, T 1381-1393; FWS-87, T 1668-1677; FWS-95, T 2183-2192; FWS-96, T 2509-2522; FWS-48, T 2626-2641; D.B., T 3374-3783 and FWS-105, T 4208-4217.
50 - T 1381-1383 and T 1564.
51 - FWS-78, T 2099-2101.
52 - FWS-93, T 1055-1066.
53 - FWS-205, T 3464-3469. Kalinovik is situated in the Kalinovik municipality, about 30-35 kilometres west of Foca and borders the Foca municipality on the west (Ex P23).
54 - FWS-127, T 1857-1865; FWS-152, T 1890-1894; A.S., T 1988-1991; FWS-132, T 2408-2410; FWS-175, T 3566-3576.
55 - FWS-33, T 471; FWS-93, T 1058-1072; FWS-127, T 1857-1861; FWS-152, T 1885-1894; A.S., 1987-1991; FWS-132, T 2408-2410; FWS-175, 3573-3574; FWS-205, T 3468-3469.
56 - General Radinovic, T 4837-8 and 4787; Gordan Mastilo, T 5125; DJ, T 5521-5522.
57 - FWS-185, T 2853-2857; FWS-186, T 2921-2924; FWS-192, T 3027-3030; FWS-191, T 3121-3129; FWS-190, T 3321-3324.
58 - T 878-880.
59 - FWS-52, T 874-877; FWS-93, T 1061-1062 and 1079-1080; FWS-51, T 1120-1121; FWS-62, T 967; FWS-75, T 1377-1378; FWS-87, T 1666-1669; FWS-95, T 2192-2193; FWS-96, T 2504-2509; FWS-48, T 2621-2623; FWS-185, T 2845-2846; FWS-186, T 2920; FWS-190, T 3368; D.B., T 3773-3775; FWS-105, T 4210-4211.
60 - T 1377-1381.
61 - FWS-51, T 1121-1122; FWS-93, T 1058; FWS-75, T 1384; FWS-87, T 1669; FWS-95, T 2193; FWS-96, T 2511; FWS-48, T 2626; FWS-185, T 2854-2855; A.S., T 1991-1992; FWS-175, T 3569; FWS-105, T 4213. Some of the men had been detained even prior to their village being attacked: FWS-127, T 1845-1846; FWS-152, T 1885-1886.
62 - FWS-93, T 1062; FWS-75, T 1384; FWS-87, T 1669; FWS-48, T 2629; D.B., T 3774-3776; FWS-105, T 4213-4214.
63 - T 4213-4214. See also D.B., T 3776-3777, FWS-48, T 2629; FWS-75, T 1384-1385; FWS-87, T 1669.
64 - T 4103-4110 and Ex P225-229.
65 - The Trial Chamber emphasises that what follows in this, the following paragraph and the remainder of this Judgement is based solely on the evidence in this case. The Trial Chamber is presently hearing another trial which is concerned more directly with the events at KP Dom, and it is maintaining a completely open mind in relation to the evidence in that case.
66 - FWS-65, T 683; FWS-78, T 2151-2152.
67 - FWS-65, T 686-687.
68 - FWS-78, T 2111; FWS-65, T 676-681; FWS-175, T 3569-3570.
69 - FWS-78 was kept at KP Dom from about 25 May 1992, until sometime in October of 1994 (T 2110). FWS-65 stated that he was kept at KP Dom for 897 days, T 681. See also Witness DQ, T 6008.
70 - T 4854.
71 - FWS-65, T 683 and T 687-689; FWS-78, T 2116-2117.
72 - FWS-52, T 883; FWS-95, T 2192-2193.
73 - FWS-75, T 1599-1601 and T 1660.
74 - T 2102-2104 and T 2108-2109.
75 - FWS-78, T 2113-2115; FWS-65, T 685-687.
76 - T 686.
77 - T 2114.
78 - T 5982 and 5985.
79 - With respect to the shortages of food and electricity, see Witness DJ, T 5545; Witness DK, T 5551-5554; Witness DM, T 5659; Witness DH, T 5707; Witness DO, T 5908-5909. With respect to the fact that shops were open, see Witness DI, T 5748-5750; Witness DQ, T 6013; Witness DR, T 6017-6018.
80 - FWS-78, T 694-695.
81 - FWS-50, T 1241-1244; FWS-75, T 1386-1390; FWS-87, T 1670-1671; FWS-48, T 2637-2640.
82 - T 1389-1390.
83 - T 1242.
84 - T 1243.
85 - FWS-51, T 1126; FWS-52, T 873; FWS-62, T 968 and T 986-987; FWS-95, T 2197; DB, T 3779-3781; FWS-105, T 4217-4218.
86 - FWS-51, T 1132-1133; FWS-75, T 1396-1397; FWS-87, T 1676; FWS-95, T 2204-2205; FWS-96 T 2522-2523; FWS-48, T 2648-2649; D.B., T 3784-3785; FWS-105, T 4219-4220.
87 - T 983.
88 - FWS-51, T 1132-1134; FWS-95, T 2213; FWS-96, T 2529.
89 - FWS-51, T 1142-1143; FWS-62, T 989-990; FWS-75, T 1407-1408; FWS-87, T 1739-1740; FWS-95, T 2214-2216; FWS-96, T 2551; FWS-48, T 2653-2654 and 2818; D.B, T 3790; FWS-105, T 4225-4226.
90 - T 4225.
91 - FWS-51 said that they would only receive a jar of soup and slices of bread, T 1143. See also FWS-62, T 989-990; FWS-75, T 1407; FWS-87, T 1740; FWS-95, T 2215-2217; FWS-48, T 2818.
92 - FWS-95, T 2215-2216.
93 - FWS-51, T 1143.
94 - FWS-62, T 991; FWS-75, T 1485-1490; FWS-95, T 2215-2216; FWS-96, T 2530; FWS-50, who was once beaten up with a rifle butt, T 1255.
95 - T 993-995.
96 - T 1407.
97 - FWS-185, T 2858; FWS-186, T 2925-2926; FWS-192, T 3032; FWS-191, T 3130.
98 - T 3032.
99 - FWS-185, T 2858; FWS-186, T 2994; FWS-191, T 3133; FWS-190, T 3325-3326.
100 - FWS-185, T 2860; FWS-192, T 3034-3035; FWS-191, T 3131-3132; FWS-190, T 3327-3328.
101 - FWS-75, T 1397; FWS-87, T 1688; FWS-95, T 2205; FWS-96, T 2523; FWS-48, T 2649-2650.
102 - T 1205.
103 - T 1258.
104 - T 4855 and 4869-4870.
105 - T 4862-4864.
106 - With respect to Partizan, see FWS-75, T 1408; FWS-87, T 1689; FWS-95, T 2217; FWS-48, T 2649. With respect to Kalinovik High School, see FWS-185, T 2857-2858; FWS-186, T 2926; FWS-192, T 3032; FWS-191, T 3134.
107 - T 1741-1742.
108 - T 2216-2217.
109 - FWS-185, T 2857-2858; FWS-186, T 2994; FWS-191, T 3133; FWS-190, T 3325-3326.
110 - T 3080.
111 - FWS-48,T 2641-2642.
112 - FWS-62, T 998-999; FWS-51, T 1160 and T 1218; FWS-50, T 1280-1281; FWS-87, T 1690-1691, FWS-95, T 2249; FWS-96, T 2536; FWS-48, T 2683 and 2692; FWS-105, T 4244.
113 - T 2243-4 and 2304-2305. See also FWS-51, T 1221; FWS-48, T 2683-2684 and FWS-105, T 4244.
114 - T 2250.
115 - T 3676.
116 - FWS-50, T 1249-1254; FWS-75, T 1397-1405; FWS-87, T 1676-1687; FWS-95, T 2206-2211, FWS-48, T 2645-2652 and FWS-105, T 4221-4224. Some other women were not raped but testified about seeing other women being taken out and coming back: FWS-52, T 873; FWS-51, T 1134-1137; FWS-62, T 975-979; FWS-96, T 2524-2529; D.B., T 3786-3790.
117 - FWS-50, T 1250-2; FWS-75, T 1398; FWS-87, T 1678; FWS-95, T 2206-2207.
118 - FWS-50, T 1249-54; FWS-75, T 1397-1405; FWS-87, T 1676-1687; FWS-95, T 2206-2213; FWS-48 T 2645-2652; FWS-105, T 4219-4224.
119 - FWS-51, T 1145-1150 and T 1155-1162; FWS-50, T 1258; FWS-75, T 1405-1429; FWS-87, T 1690-1700; A.S., T 1995-1996; FWS-95, T 2217-2225 and T 2230-2246; FWS-48, T 2659-2713; D.B., T 3790-3815; FWS-105, T 4225-4247. The same women also testified about other women being taken out of Partizan. In addition, some women who had not themselves been taken out, testified about other women being taken from Partizan: FWS-62, T 995-1001; FWS-127, T 1870-1872; FWS-96, T 2530-2534.
120 - T 2208.
121 - FWS-75, T 1410; FWS-95, T 2224. Other witnesses without expressly stating that some soldiers were indeed the same, specifically name some of them as coming both to Foca High School and Partizan; see FWS-96, T 2524 and T 2531 for example.
122 - FWS-51, T 1160-1161 and 1218; FWS-62, T 998-999; FWS-50, T 1280; FWS-87, T 1690-1691; FWS-95, T 2250-2252; FWS-96, T 2536; FWS-48, T 2683 and 2692; FWS-105, T 4244.
123 - T 2217-2219. See also FWS-105, T 4244.
124 - T 2700.
125 - FWS-105, T 4226.
126 - FWS-95, T 2242-2244.
127 - FWS-75, T 1411 and T 1414-1415; FWS-87, T 1694 and T 1698-1699; D.B., T 3797 and T 3801-3802; FWS-190, T 3336-3345; FWS-205, T 3480; Dragoljub Kunarac, T 4517-4520 and T 4667-4669.
128 - FWS-50, T 1272-1278; FWS-75, T 1411-1431; FWS-87, T 1690-1700; FWS-95, T 2236-2240; FWS-48, T 2664-2668 and T 2700-2702; D.B., T 3795-3815; FWS-105, T 4228-4230.
129 - FWS-75, T 1433-1442; FWS-87, T 1702-1707; FWS-AS, T 1995-2005; FWS-132, T 2414-2425; FWS-190, T 3352-3371 and D.B., T 3817-3836.
130 - FWS-75, T 1433-1435; D.B., T 3815-3818; FWS-87, T 1700; FWS-190, T 3352-3353.
131 - FWS-75, T 1443-1445; FWS-87, T 1707-1708 and A.S., T 2005-2007. See also FWS-190, T 3372-3375.
132 - FWS-75, T 1449-1451.
133 - FWS-75, T 1454-1456.
134 - FWS-75, T 1494.
135 - FWS-75, T 1599; FWS-87, T 1814-1815; A.S., T 2012 and T 2022.
136 - FWS-191, T 3142 and 3154; FWS-186, T 2930-2935; FWS-190, T 3337-3339; FWS-205, T 3470-3477.
137 - FWS-191, T 3155-3156.
138 - FWS-186, T 2938-2940 and FWS-191, T 3160-3166.
139 - See FWS-191, T 3182; FWS-186, T 2952.
140 - FWS-33, T 486-487; FWS-65, T 664 and T 675-676; FWS-52, T 865-866 and T 870-871; FWS-62, T 955-956 and T 1017; FWS-51, T 1119; FWS-75, T 1374 and T 1386; AS, T 1987; FWS-78, T 2081-2082, T 2085 and T 2133; FWS-95, T 2189-2191; FWS-96, T 2522; FWS-48, T 2633; FWS-185, T 2851; FWS-190, T 3367-3368; FWS-61, T 3748-3749; FWS-105, T 4214.
141 - T 865 and 871.
142 - T 486-487.
143 - T 665.
144 - T 674-675.
145 - FWS-65, T 675-676; FWS-52, T 866 and T 871; FWS-51, T 1119-1120; FWS-75, T 1386; FWS-78, T 2099 and T 2133; FWS-96, T 2522.
146 - T 2099.
147 - T 4981-4984 and T 5002-5003. See also Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5059-5062; Witness Rajko Markovic, T 5076-5077; Witness DK, T 5577. Ex D100 shows the ethnical distribution, by house and the result of the attack on each house in the Prijeka Carsija neighbourhood.
148 - T 4996.
149 - T 5004.
150 - FWS-33 stated that two thirds of the Muslim houses were destroyed in Donje Polje (T 486-487). See also Tejshree Thapa, T 374; FWS-65, T 675-676; Witness Osman Šubasic, T 4067-4070.
151 - T 5001-5003.
152 - FWS-183, T 3659-3660; FWS-61, T 3743; FWS-78, T 2120-2121 and T 2094.
153 - FWS-93, T 1065; FWS-50, T 1276; FWS-87, T 1668-1669; FWS-127, T 1860; FWS-152, T 1894; FWS-48, T 2644-2645; FWS-192, T 3050-3051; FWS-190, T 3329; FWS-183, T 3710-3711, FWS-61, T 3747-3748; FWS-105, T 4216-4217.
154 - FWS-33, T 495-496.
155 - See also FWS-33, T 487; FWS-65, T 669; FWS-78, T 2133.
156 - T 665.
157 - FWS-50, T 1275; FWS-75, T 1429; FWS-87, T 1698; FWS-96, T 2532; D.B., T 3810; Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5062.
158 - T 5062-5063.
159 - T 6014.
160 - T 369-374. Ex P22 and 22/1-5 are two sets of aerial photos from before (10 Oct 1991) and after (10 Aug 1992) the attack on Foca.
161 - T 5064-5065.
162 - T 5003-5004.
163 - See Ex P18, Ethnic composition of Foca municipality by settlement, according to the results of the 1991 census (from Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Croatia Bureau of Statistics, pp 101-110, Apr 1995).
164 - T 6032. See also Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5066-5067.
165 - Defence witness Radovan Radinovic (T 4861). See also Witness Velimir Djurovic, T 5067.
166 - Ex 2a, p 3.
167 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, pars 5 and 6.
168 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters of 1 February 2000, Case No IT-96-23-PT at p 7, par 15.
169 - FWS-191, T 3229; FWS-190, T 3385; Witness DA, T 4970 and 5007-5008; Witness DH, T 5724-5725; Witness DO, T 5900-5904.
170 - Osman Šubasic, T 4081; FWS-190, T 3378; FWS-191, T 3236.
171 - T 1663.
172 - T 1669.
173 - T 1676 and T 1688.
174 - Ex D32 (Statement of 19-20 January 1996) and Ex D33 (Statement of 4-5 May 1998).
175 - T 1665 and 1676.
176 - T 1688 and T 1698.
177 - T 1687 and T 1710.
178 - T 1676-1678.
179 - T 1687.
180 - T 1687.
181 - T 1688 and T 1709.
182 - T 1678-1684.
183 - T 1684-1685.
184 - T 1681.
185 - Ex D32 at p 3.
186 - Ex D33 at p 3.
187 - T 1682. Several witnesses, including FWS-87, identified the accused in court. However, the Trial Chamber gives no positive probative weight to these “in court” identifications (see pars 561 and 562).
188 - T 1694.
189 - T 1691-1698.
190 - T 1699.
191 - T 1699.
192 - T 1700.
193 - Her name was written by FWS-87 on Ex P194.
194 - T 1700-1706.
195 - T 1703-1704 and T 1709.
196 - Ex D32.
197 - Ex D33, p 5.
198 - Ex D33 (Statement of 5 May 1998, at p 5).
199 - T 1707.
200 - T 1707.
201 - Ex D32, p 14.
202 - T 1690.
203 - T 1695.
204 - T 1712 and T 1832.
205 - T 1720 and T 1814-1815.
206 - T 1830-1831.
207 - T 6135.
208 - T 1713.
209 - T 1716.
210 - T 1715-1716.
211 - T 6116.
212 - T 6128.
213 - T 6117; T 6132-6134.
214 - T 6137.
215 - T 6132.
216 - T 6135.
217 - T 6108.
218 - T 6114.
219 - T 6108, T 6125.
220 - T 6108.
221 - T 6109, T 6121-6123.
222 - T 6124-6125.
223 - T 6113, T 6129.
224 - T 1721-1727.
225 - T 6130.
226 - T 6113. The importance of the alleged sale of the TV will be dealt with later.
227 - T 4208-4209.
228 - FWS-105, T 4216, T 4219, T 4224-4225 and T 4258-4259.
229 - T 3770, T 3774, T 3778, T 3782-3784, T 3790 and T 3854.
230 - FWS-62, T 972-974; FWS-51, T 1132-1133; FWS-50, T 1245; FWS-75, T 1396-1397 and 1400; FWS-87, T 1676; FWS-95, T 2204-2205 and 2220; FWS-96 T 2522-2523; FWS-48, T 2648-2649; D.B., T 3784-3785; FWS 105, T 4219-4220.
231 - See below par 237.
232 - T 1388.
233 - See the testimony of FWS-75 (pars 165-166, 168-170); FWS-50 (pars 239 and 241-244); FWS-95 (par 311).
234 - T 995.
235 - T 993-994.
236 - T 1144.
237 - T 1258 and T 1261.
238 - FWS-95, T 2217, T 2222 and T 2224; FWS-96, T 2530-2531; D.B., T 3791, T 3820-3821 and T 3866; FWS-105, T 4225-4227.
239 - FWS-50, T 1273; FWS-75, T 1411-1419 and T 1423; D.B., T 3795-3809; FWS-95, T 2236 and T 2240; FWS-48, T 2700-2701; FWS-105, T 4229.
240 - See par 175.
241 - See par 226.
242 - See par 271.
243 - See par 178.
244 - See par 210.
245 - See par 271.
246 - See par 211.
247 - See par 213.
248 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 88.
249 - Witness Osman Šubasic, T 4072, 4086-4089 and 4120.
250 - T 4421.
251 - T 4426.
252 - T 5089.
253 - T 5090.
254 - T 5091.
255 - T 5091.
256 - T 5093.
257 - T 5093.
258 - T 5094.
259 - T 5094.
260 - T 4433.
261 - T 4433.
262 - T 4434.
263 - T 5094.
264 - T 5095.
265 - T 5095.
266 - T 5095-5096.
267 - T 4436.
268 - T 4436.
269 - T 4437.
270 - See also Witness Vaso Blagojevic, T 5098-5099.
271 - T 4440-4441.
272 - T 4441.
273 - T 4442.
274 - T 4445.
275 - T 4433.
276 - T 4445-4446.
277 - T 4445.
278 - Ex D78.
279 - T 5106.
280 - T 4448.
281 - T 5098-5099.
282 - T 5097.
283 - T 5101.
284 - T 5106.
285 - T 5096.
286 - T 5096-5097.
287 - T 5106; T 5097.
288 - T 5114.
289 - T 5114-5115.
290 - T 5118.
291 - T 5118.
292 - T 5106.
293 - T 4449.
294 - T 4450.
295 - T 4451.
296 - T 4452.
297 - T 4454-4455.
298 - T 5126.
299 - T 5129.
300 - T 5128.
301 - T 5128.
302 - T 5128.
303 - T 5129.
304 - T 5152-5153.
305 - T 5522.
306 - T 5522-5523.
307 - T 5525.
308 - T 5526.
309 - T 5528-5529.
310 - T 4458-4459.
311 - T 4461.
312 - T 4462.
313 - T 4683-4684.
314 - T 4684.
315 - T 5140-5142.
316 - T 5142-5143.
317 - T 5526-5527.
318 - T 5528.
319 - T 5528.
320 - T 5143.
321 - T 5144.
322 - T 5529.
323 - T 5531.
324 - T 5531-5533.
325 - T 5144-5145.
326 - T 5531.
327 - T 5531-5532.
328 - T 5141-5142.
329 - T 5156.
330 - T 5154.
331 - T 5155-5156.
332 - T 5149.
333 - T 5532.
334 - T 5531.
335 - T 5541-5543.
336 - T 5543.
337 - T 4464.
338 - T 4465.
339 - T 4465.
340 - T 4466.
341 - T 4703.
342 - T 4468.
343 - T 4469-4470.
344 - T 4470.
345 - T 4472.
346 - T 4473.
347 - T 4476 and 4703.
348 - T 4476.
349 - Ex P2.
350 - T 4475-4476.
351 - T 4477-4478.
352 - T 4485.
353 - T 4483-4484.
354 - T 4485.
355 - T 4489.
356 - T 4489-4490.
357 - T 4490-4491.
358 - T 4491.
359 - T 4492-4493.
360 - T 4493.
361 - T 4502.
362 - T 4503.
363 - T 4503.
364 - T 4504.
365 - T 4505.
366 - T 4505.
367 - T 4512.
368 - T 4513.
369 - T 5193.
370 - T 5179.
371 - T 5180.
372 - T 5181.
373 - T 5209.
374 - T 5182.
375 - T 5182.
376 - T 5200-5201.
377 - T 5227.
378 - T 5238.
379 - T 5239.
380 - T 5238.
381 - T 5239.
382 - T 5266.
383 - T 5267.
384 - T 5267.
385 - T 5268.
386 - T 5269.
387 - T 5269.
388 - T 5283.
389 - T 5283.
390 - T 5284.
391 - T 5272-5273.
392 - T 5288-5289.
393 - T 5290.
394 - T 5289.
395 - T 5290-5291.
396 - T 5309.
397 - T 5309.
398 - T 5317.
399 - T 4514.
400 - T 5183 and 5270.
401 - T 5184.
402 - T 4514.
403 - T 4515.
404 - T 4516.
405 - T 4517.
406 - T 4517.
407 - T 4519.
408 - T 4522.
409 - T 4525.
410 - T 4536.
411 - T 4532-4533 and 4712.
412 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 103.
413 - T 4533-4534.
414 - T 4534.
415 - T 4541-4542.
416 - T 4545.
417 - T 4547.
418 - T 4546.
419 - T 4549.
420 - T 4550.
421 - T 4550.
422 - T 4552.
423 - T 4552.
424 - T 5291.
425 - T 5296 and 5302.
426 - T 5291 and T 5295.
427 - T 5292.
428 - T 5292.
429 - T 5292.
430 - T 5294-5295.
431 - T 5298.
432 - T 5293.
433 - T 5293.
434 - T 5301.
435 - T 5293.
436 - T 5293.
437 - T 5243 and 5180.
438 - T 5243.
439 - T 5244-5245.
440 - T 5244.
441 - T 4745.
442 - T 4747.
443 - T 4747.
444 - T 4749-4750.
445 - T 4751-4752.
446 - T 4750.
447 - T 5619.
448 - T 5581.
449 - T 5643.
450 - T 5649.
451 - T 5663 and 5665.
452 - T 5664.
453 - T 5665.
454 - T 5666-5671.
455 - T 5667 and 5689.
456 - T 5732 and 5713.
457 - T 5722.
458 - T 5731-5732.
459 - T 5717-5718.
460 - T 5719-5720.
461 - T 5770.
462 - T 5771.
463 - T 5772.
464 - T 5777-5778.
465 - T 5774.
466 - T 5742.
467 - T 5743-5744.
468 - T 5747.
469 - T 5759.
470 - T 5746.
471 - T 5746.
472 - T 5875.
473 - T 5875-5876.
474 - T 5880.
475 - T 5888-5889.
476 - T 5881 and 5889.
477 - T 5892.
478 - T 5892-5893.
479 - T 5893.
480 - T 5907-5909.
481 - T 5944.
482 - T 5913-5914.
483 - T 5943.
484 - T 5918-5919.
485 - T 5919-5920.
486 - T 5949.
487 - Witness DM, T 5659; Witness DH, T 5707; Witness DO, T 5908-5909; Witness DV, T 5776.
488 - T 6535.
489 - T 5748-5749.
490 - T 5675-5676.
491 - T 5676.
492 - T 5580-5581.
493 - T 5576.
494 - T 5580-5581.
495 - T 5716 and 5737.
496 - T 5717.
497 - T 5909-5912.
498 - T 5582-5583.
499 - T 5732-5733.
500 - T 5643.
501 - T 5881.
502 - T 5666. See also Witness DH, T 5718 and Witness DV, T 5772.
503 - T 5670. See also Witness DI, T 5755.
504 - Witness DK, T 5575; Witness DL, T 5645; Witness DM, T 5666; Witness DH, T 5736; Witness DV, T 5774; Witness DO, T 5921-5925.
505 - T 5575.
506 - T 5921.
507 - T 5921-5923.
508 - T 5925.
509 - T 6113.
510 - T 6489-6490.
511 - T 5923-5924.
512 - T 5924.
513 - T 5736.
514 - T 5666.
515 - T 5645.
516 - T 5774.
517 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 270.
518 - Defence Ex D107.
519 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, pars 18–26.
520 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 276.
521 - T 1376-1377.
522 - T 1377-1378.
523 - T 1398.
524 - T 1398-1399.
525 - T 1388.
526 - T 1388.
527 - T 1450-1452.
528 - T 1402.
529 - T 1401-1405.
530 - T 1411.
531 - Ex 11, photographs 7394 and 7395.
532 - T 1425.
533 - T 1414-1416.
534 - T 1412.
535 - T 1420.
536 - T 1411.
537 - T 1418-1419.
538 - T 1419.
539 - T 1420.
540 - T 1420.
541 - T 1420.
542 - T 1421.
543 - T 1425.
544 - T 1423-1425.
545 - T 1425-1426.
546 - T 1427-1428.
547 - T 1429.
548 - T 1428-1429.
549 - T 1429.
550 - T 1431-1433.
551 - She identified it on Ex P11, photograph 7355, T 1433.
552 - T 1435.
553 - T 1436-1437.
554 - T 1437-1438.
555 - T 1441-1442.
556 - T 1434 and T 1443.
557 - T 1404 and T 1443-1445; the witness identified the Brena block on Ex P11, photograph 7401.
558 - Ex D24 (Statement of 18 Oct 1995, p 14). In another statement, Ex D23, of 6 Mar 1998, the witness did not mention any time frame.
559 - T 1382-1384.
560 - T 1448-1449.
561 - T 1450 and T 1489.
562 - T 1383 and T 1422.
563 - T 1450-1452.
564 - T 1452-1453 and T 1490.
565 - T 1717.
566 - T 1454.
567 - T 1455 mentioning “Vojkan Jadz"o, Dzole”, and another whose name she did not remember.
568 - T 1456.
569 - T 1456.
570 - T 1456.
571 - T 1457-1458.
572 - T 1458.
573 - T 1459.
574 - T 1461.
575 - T 1491 and T 1598-1599.
576 - T 1494-1498.
577 - FWS-87, see par 56; FWS-50, par 237; FWS-95, par 310; FWS-51, par 178.
578 - See par 57.
579 - See par 310.
580 - See par 216.
581 - See par 219.
582 - FWS-87, par 59 and 60; FWS-50, par 241; D.B., par 216.
583 - FWS-87, par 59; FWS-50, par 241; D.B., par 216.
584 - T 3815.
585 - FWS-87, par 63; A.S., par 205; FWS-132, par 334.
586 - FWS-87, par 63; A.S., par 206; D.B., par 225.
587 - See par 226.
588 - See par 226.
589 - FWS-75, par 178; FWS-87, par 68; A.S., par 210.
590 - See par 68.
591 - FWS-87, par 72; A.S., par 211.
592 - See par 70.
593 - See par 187.
594 - See par 70.
595 - See par 187.
596 - See par 211.
597 - T 5567.
598 - T 5568 and 5604.
599 - T 5568.
600 - T 5582-5583.
601 - T 5732.
602 - T 5910.
603 - T 5944-5945.
604 - T 5772-5773.
605 - See T 5772, 5827 and 5867.
606 - Defence Ex D110a.
607 - T 5717.
608 - T 5717.
609 - T 5772.
610 - T 1983.
611 - T 1998.
612 - T 1996-1997.
613 - T 2003.
614 - T 1999-2002.
615 - T 1990, T 2002-2007, and identifying Lepa Brena on Ex P11, photograph 7401.
616 - T 2011.
617 - T 2015.
618 - T 2009-2011.
619 - T 2011.
620 - T 2019.
621 - T 2018.
622 - T 2011-2017 and T 2022.
623 - T 2022.
624 - T 2019-2020.
625 - T 2017.
626 - T 2019.
627 - T 2024.
628 - See par 66.
629 - See par 68.
630 - See par 75.
631 - T 3769.
632 - T 3770-3771.
633 - T 3774.
634 - T 3782.
635 - T 3784.
636 - T 3787.
637 - T 3790.
638 - T 3795.
639 - T 3795-3797.
640 - T 3797 and T 3799.
641 - T 3801.
642 - T 3802.
643 - T 3802.
644 - T 3802.
645 - T 3803.
646 - T 3804-3805.
647 - T 3807-3808.
648 - T 3807-3808 and T 3876.
649 - T 3807.
650 - T 3809.
651 - T 3809-3810 and T 3877.
652 - T 3810-3811.
653 - T 3823-3826.
654 - T 3810-3812.
655 - T 3813.
656 - T 3813-3814.
657 - T 3815-3817.
658 - Which she identified on Ex P11, photograph 7355 - T 3818.
659 - T 3818.
660 - T 3818-3820.
661 - T 3826.
662 - T 3830-3832.
663 - T 3832-3833.
664 - T 3833-3835.
665 - T 3826.
666 - T 3836-3838.
667 - T 3837.
668 - T 3892 and T 3896.
669 - See par 165.
670 - See par 166.
671 - T 4539.
672 - T 4540.
673 - T 4541.
674 - T 4542.
675 - T 4543.
676 - T 4544.
677 - T 4543.
678 - T 4721.
679 - T 4571.
680 - T 4571.
681 - T 4721.
682 - T 1231.
683 - T 1233.
684 - T 1235.
685 - T 1236.
686 - T 1237-1238.
687 - T 1241.
688 - T 1242-1244 and T 1262-1263.
689 - T 1245.
690 - T 1249-1254.
691 - T 1256.
692 - T 1262-1263.
693 - T 1263.
694 - T 1242.
695 - T 1242.
696 - T 1272-1273.
697 - T 1274.
698 - T 1283.
699 - T 1274.
700 - T 1277-1278.
701 - T 1278.
702 - FWS-87, par 57; FWS-75, par 162; FWS-95, par 310.
703 - See par 58.
704 - FWS-87, par 60; FWS-75 par 169.
705 - See par 220.
706 - Defence Final Trial Brief, pp 279-280.
707 - Witness DV, T 5786; Witness DP, T 5968-5970 and 5974.
708 - T 5789-5790.
709 - T 5866.
710 - T 5844-5845.
711 - T 5977-5978.
712 - T 5436.
713 - T 5446.
714 - The hearing took place on Friday, 10 Nov 2000.
715 - T 6158.
716 - T 6161 and 6163.
717 - T 6165.
718 - T 6162-6165.
719 - T 6172-6174 and 6177-6179.
720 - T 6188-6189.
721 - T 6198.
722 - T 6204-6205.
723 - T 6200-6202.
724 - T 6205-6207.
725 - T 6208-6209.
726 - T 6214-6215.
727 - T 3119.
728 - T 3119.
729 - T 3123.
730 - T 3126-3127.
731 - T 3144-3145.
732 - T 3147-3153.
733 - T 3157.
734 - T 3156-3162. The witness recognised Partizan on Ex P11, photograph 7300.
735 - T 3164-3166.
736 - T 3166-3169.
737 - T 3170-3173.
738 - T 3174-3175.
739 - T 3140-3142.
740 - T 3306.
741 - T 3141.
742 - T 3224.
743 - T 3178-3182.
744 - T 3181-3184.
745 - T 3188.
746 - T 3185-3187 and T 3271.
747 - T 3189-3197.
748 - T 3202-3203.
749 - T 3210-3213.
750 - T 3214-3215.
751 - T 3216-3217.
752 - T 3219-3227.
753 - T 3229.
754 - T 3230. She recognised the Brena block on photograph 7401 of Ex P11, T 3231.
755 - T 6090.
756 - T 6081.
757 - T 6081.
758 - T 6087, 6103.
759 - T 6083.
760 - T 6085.
761 - T 3232.
762 - T 3233.
763 - T 3236. The witness said that he was not the Zoran Vukovic referred to with respect to the house in Trnovace. It was another Zoran Vukovic, a young man who was about 25 or 26 years old at the time the events occurred, T 3217.
764 - T 3236.
765 - T 3237.
766 - See pars 358.
767 - See par 288.
768 - See par 290.
769 - See par 302.
770 - See pars 373-374.
771 - T 4554.
772 - T 4554.
773 - T 4554.
774 - T 4556.
775 - T 4557.
776 - T 4557-4558.
777 - T 4559-4560.
778 - T 4561.
779 - T 4562.
780 - T 4562-4563.
781 - T 4564.
782 - His name appears on Ex D83.
783 - T 4568.
784 - T 4568.
785 - T 4758.
786 - T 4758.
787 - T 4756.
788 - T 4756.
789 - Witness RK is sometimes referred to as MK.
790 - T 4581.
791 - T 4583.
792 - T 4593.
793 - T 2914.
794 - T 2915.
795 - T 2923.
796 - T 2923-2924.
797 - T 2924-2925.
798 - T 2930-2931.
799 - FWS-175, T 3591.
800 - T 2931.
801 - T 2933-2936 and T 2999.
802 - T 2936-2939, identifying Ex P210 at T 2940 and describing the layout of the house as well as the sleeping arrangements at T 2941-2942.
803 - T 2944.
804 - T 2945-2949.
805 - T 2931.
806 - T 2996.
807 - T 2931.
808 - T 2932.
809 - T 2945.
810 - T 2932.
811 - Ex P212.
812 - T 2965.
813 - T 2949 and T 2956-2957.
814 - T 2959.
815 - T 2958-2959.
816 - T 2961.
817 - T 2970.
818 - T 2971-2973.
819 - T 2974 and 2978.
820 - T 2974-2977.
821 - T 2976.
822 - See par 374.
823 - See par 258.
824 - See par 258.
825 - See par 260.
826 - See par 357.
827 - T 3314.
828 - T 3352-3358 and 3416.
829 - T 3336-3339.
830 - T 3337-3346.
831 - T 3345.
832 - T 3346.
833 - T 3348-3350 and T 3414.
834 - T 3350.
835 - T 3344.
836 - T 3333.
837 - T 3345.
838 - T 3345.
839 - T 3363.
840 - T 3388.
841 - T 3351.
842 - T 3400.
843 - T 3373.
844 - Ex P218 and P218a.
845 - T 3372.
846 - T 3378.
847 - T 3378.
848 - T 3378-3379.
849 - T 3381-3382.
850 - T 3452.
851 - T 3385.
852 - FWS-87, par 60; FWS-75, par 170.
853 - FWS-191, pars 255-257; FWS-186, pars 285 and 287.
854 - See par 292.
855 - See par 267.
856 - T 2183.
857 - T 2195.
858 - T 2206-2207, T 2282.
859 - T 2206-2207.
860 - T 2293 and T 2213-2224.
861 - T 2222.
862 - T 2236-2237.
863 - Ex D40 (Statement of 25-26 Apr 1998, p 3).
864 - Ex P75 (Statement of 9-11 Feb 1996, p 8).
865 - T 2237.
866 - T 2237-2238.
867 - Ex P75 (Statement of 9-11 Feb 1996).
868 - Ex D40 (Statement of 25-26 Apr 1998, p 3).
869 - T 2240.
870 - Ex D40 (Statement of 25-26 Apr 1998, p 3).
871 - T 2231.
872 - T 2232.
873 - T 2310.
874 - T 2233.
875 - T 2232.
876 - T 2370.
877 - T 2231 and T 2233. Several witnesses, including FWS-95, identified the accused in court. However, the Trial Chamber gives no positive probative weight to these “in court” identifications (see pars 561 and 562).
878 - See, for instance, FWS-87, par 57; FWS-75, par 162; D.B., par 215; FWS-50, par 237.
879 - See par 162.
880 - See par 57.
881 - See par 330.
882 - See par 330.
883 - T 2611.
884 - T 2619.
885 - T 2625.
886 - T 2626.
887 - T 2628.
888 - T 2634.
889 - T 2636-2638.
890 - T 2641-2642.
891 - Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, pp 11-13).
892 - T 2659.
893 - T 2664.
894 - T 2665.
895 - T 2665-2667.
896 - T 2670-2672.
897 - T 2673.
898 - T 2673.
899 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, pars 18-26 and par 28.
900 - T 2668-2669.
901 - This is also mentioned in Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, p 14).
902 - T 2786-2792 and Ex 78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, p 14).
903 - Ex D47 (Investigator’s notes of 24 Sept 1998, p 3).
904 - Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, p 14) and T 2787-2788.
905 - Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, p 14).
906 - Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, at pp 3, 7, 10-11, 18-19).
907 - T 2687-2688.
908 - Ex P78 (Statement of 1-3 and 6-9 Sept 1995, p 19).
909 - FWS-105, par 330; FWS-95, par 312.
910 - T 4230.
911 - T 4231.
912 - T 4229.
913 - T 4266-4267.
914 - T 4234.
915 - T 4232.
916 - See pars 312-313.
917 - See pars 312-313.
918 - T 2400.
919 - T 2407-2408.
920 - T 2410.
921 - T 2411.
922 - T 2412.
923 - T 2414.
924 - T 2417-2418.
925 - T 2418-2421.
926 - T 2422.
927 - T 2422-2425.
928 - T 2426-2428.
929 - T 2427.
930 - T 2428.
931 - T 2428.
932 - T 2428.
933 - T 2436-2437 and T 2464.
934 - T 2439. It is possible that she had heard about the commander of the Foca Tactical Group, Colonel Kovac, because the accused Radomir Kovac was undisputedly not holding any higher rank at all.
935 - See par 206.
936 - A.S. par 206.
937 - T 3674-3679 and T 3680.
938 - T 3679.
939 - T 3681-3684.
940 - T 3679 and 3683.
941 - T 3685-3686.
942 - T 3657, T 3698 and T 3710-3711.
943 - T 3713.
944 - T 3686.
945 - T 3696. Several witnesses, including FWS-183, identified the accused in court. However, the Trial Chamber gives no positive probative weight to these “in court” identifications (see pars 561 and 562).
946 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, par 28(1).
947 - See par 351.
948 - See par 352.
949 - T 4686.
950 - T 3740-3743.
951 - T 3744 and T 3760.
952 - T 3745-3747 and T 3762-3763.
953 - T 3745.
954 - T 3748 and T 3752.
955 - T 3744.
956 - T 3745.
957 - T 3739.
958 - T 3749.
959 - T 3749.
960 - FWS-183, see pars 340-345.
961 - T 3119.
962 - T 3037 and T 3042.
963 - T 3045-3046.
964 - T 3046.
965 - T 3047-3048.
966 - T 3049.
967 - T 3105 and Ex D56 and D57.
968 - T 3092.
969 - T 3091.
970 - See par 255.
971 - See par 265.
972 - T 3462.
973 - T 3462.
974 - T 3463-3464.
975 - T 3468.
976 - T 3469.
977 - T 3468-3471.
978 - T 3474-3479.
979 - T 3533-3535 and T 3539.
980 - T 3483-3489.
981 - T 3488.
982 - T 3489.
983 - T 3565.
984 - T 3566.
985 - T 3573.
986 - T 3573-3574.
987 - T 3574.
988 - T 3575-3576.
989 - T 3576.
990 - T 3580 and Ex 210.
991 - T 3577.
992 - T 3581-3583.
993 - T 3583-3585.
994 - T 3583-3589.
995 - T 3590 and 3629.
996 - T 3591.
997 - T 3594.
998 - T 3591-3592 and T 3634-3635.
999 - T 3592.
1000 - T 3596-3598.
1001 - T 3598 and 3637.
1002 - T 3598.
1003 - T 3604-3605.
1004 - T 3577.
1005 - T 3628.
1006 - T 3577.
1007 - T 3577.
1008 - See par 292.
1009 - T 1110-1111.
1010 - T 1137.
1011 - T 1163 and T 1168.
1012 - T 1170.
1013 - T 1170.
1014 - See par 237.
1015 - T 2504, T 2516, T 2518 and T 2522.
1016 - T 2525.
1017 - T 2527.
1018 - FWS-87, par 57; FWS-75, par 162; FWS-50, par 237.
1019 - See par 57.
1020 - See par 237.
1021 - See par 162.
1022 - See par 162.
1023 - See par 163.
1024 - See par 56.
1025 - T 949.
1026 - T 964.
1027 - T 964.
1028 - T 965.
1029 - T 4092-4093.
1030 - T 4081.
1031 - T 4085.
1032 - T 4082.
1033 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 189. See also Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 746.
1034 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 188.
1035 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, pars 235 and 249.
1036 - Ibid, pars 233, 234 and 249.
1037 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 62 and Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 285.
1038 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, pars 162-165; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 229.
1039 - Ibid.
1040 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 232; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 689.
1041 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 346 and Prosecutor v Delalic and Other, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 189-198, 225-226, 238-239, 256, 263 (The Trial Chamber’s conclusions as to the first two elements were essentially confirmed by the Appeals Chamber. The third element was not in issue in this Appeal); Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 72.
1042 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Other, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 193 and 197.
1043 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 370 and 354.
1044 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 198.
1045 - Ibid, pars 198 and 256; Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 76. See also Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 378.
1046 - Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), p 1019.
1047 - In the SFRY, Art 5 Law on the Service in the Armed Forces distinguishes between the function of the superior and the ranks and classes of junior or senior officers. While the law proceeds on the basic assumption that normally officers will be the superiors, it provides under Art 6 par 2 that a person holding no rank or class may perform the duties of an officer and Art 5 par 3 regulates the relationship of precedence between different officers or superiors. Ranks and classes are defined by Art 11. In the Republika Srpska, the Law on the Army of 1 June 1992, in its Art 4 par 2 combines the concepts of superior and officer by defining the meaning of a “superior officer” as being a person in command of or managing a military unit or institution. Paragraph 3 and Art 5 again provide for the assignment of command positions to persons of lower or no rank or class.
1048 - Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), p 1019.
1049 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Other, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 197-198 and 256.
1050 - Art 3 of the Statute, entitled “Violations of the laws or customs of war”, states that: “The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to: (a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings; (d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science; (e) plunder of public or private property.”
1051 - Count 21 against Dragoljub Kunarac (Indictment IT-96-23) andCount25 against Radomir Kovac (ibid,).
1052 - Counts 4, 8, 10, 12, 20 against Dragoljub Kunarac (Indictment IT-96-23),Count24 against Radomir Kovac (ibid,) and Counts 24 and 36 against Zoran Vukovic (Indictment IT-96-23/1).
1053 - Counts 3, 7, 11 against Dragoljub Kunarac (Indictment IT-96-23) and Counts 23 and 35 against Zoran Vukovic (Indictment IT-96-23/1).
1054 - The Prosecutor formulated those charges in these terms: “Torture, a VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR, punishable under Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal and recognised by Common Article 3(1) (a) (torture) of the Geneva Conventions.” The Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I essentially repeats the formulation of Indictment IT-96-23 (par 141).
1055 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, par 154.
1056 - Ibid, pars 114-119.
1057 - The 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Annexed Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
1058 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 89 (“Jurisdiction Decision”); confirmed in Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 125 and 136.
1059 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 91.
1060 - Ibid, pars 65 and 67.
1061 - Ibid, par 67.
1062 - Ibid, par 70.
1063 - Ibid, par 137; confirmed in Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 140 and 150. Also see Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 184; Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 132; Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 161.
1064 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70; Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, pars 98-101; Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 690-696. Also see Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 193; and Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, pars 65 and 69.
1065 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70. The Trial Chamber in the Delalic case, required “an obvious link” (Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 193), “a clear nexus” (Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 197) between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict. The Trial Chamber in the Blaskic case, referred to this requirement as finding an “evident nexus between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict as a whole.” (Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 69).
1066 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 94.
1067 - Ibid, par 94. The Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 20, endorsed these requirements.
1068 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 143.
1069 - Ibid, pars 98 and 134; Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 143.
1070 - At par 407-408 and 436.
1071 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 420.
1072 - See pars 567-569.
1073 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 98; confirmed in Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, pars 143 and 150. Also see Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 166; and the Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), 3 May 1993, S/25704, par 35. Yugoslavia ratified both Additional Protocols (Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (“Additional Protocol I”) and Geneva Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (“Additional Protocol II”)) on 11 June 1979 and Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to both Additional Protocols on 31 December 1992. Yugoslavia ratified the four Geneva Conventions (including Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 of 12 Aug 1949, which is most relevant to the present case) on 21 April 1950 and Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to the Geneva Conventions on 31 December 1992.
1074 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 134 (emphasis added). Also see Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 134.
1075 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 134; confirmed in Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 174. Also see Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 134.
1076 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 251.
1077 - Ibid, par 248.
1078 - Art 5 of the Statute expressly uses the expression “directed against any civilian population”. See also Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, pars 635-644.
1079 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 248; see also Prosecutor v Mrksic and Others, Case IT-95-13-R61, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 Apr 1996, par 30.
1080 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 248.
1081 - Ibid, par 249. See also Prosecutor v  Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 546.
1082 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70.
1083 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 249. See also Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 546.
1084 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, pars 249 and 272. See also Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 71.
1085 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, pars 249 and 251.
1086 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70.
1087 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Form of the Indictment, 14 Nov 1995, par 11.
1088 - Art 49(1) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug 1949, eg, defines “attacks” as “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.”
1089 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, pars 248 and 255.
1090 - Prosecutor v Mrksic and Others, Case IT-95-13-R61, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 Apr 1996, par 30.
1091 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, pars 248, 251 and 271; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 659; and Prosecutor v Mrksic and Others, Case IT-95-13-R61, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 Apr 1996, par 30. See also Prosecutor v Kunarac and Others, Case IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Exclusion of Evidence and Limitation of Testimony, 3 July 2000, par 6(b).
1092 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 251. See also Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 546; and Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 69.
1093 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 648 and case law referred to. See also History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948), p 193: “the word population appears to indicate that a larger body of victims is visualised, and that single or isolated acts against individuals may be considered to fall outside the scope of the concept.”
1094 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Decision on the Form of the Indictment, 14 Nov 1995, par 11.
1095 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 635. See also History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948), p 193.
1096 - See, eg, Attorney General of the State of Israel v Yehezkel Ben Alish Enigster, District Court of Tel-Aviv, 4 Jan 1952.
1097 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 644.
1098 - Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), pp 611 and 1451-1452.
1099 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 638.
1100 - Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 549.
1101 - See Art 50 (1) of Additional Protocol I.
1102 - See Art 51, alinéas (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Additional Protocol I.
1103 - See, eg, Arts 43, 48 and 57 of Additional Protocol I. As is stated by the Commentary to the two Additional Protocols, the entire system established in The Hague in 1899 and 1907 and in Geneva from 1864 to 1977 is founded on this rule of customary law (Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), p 598).
1104 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 648.
1105 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 648; and Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 206. See also Prosecutor v Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 580.
1106 - Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session (1996) GAOR, 51st Sess, Supp No 10, UN Doc A/51/10, pp 94-95.
1107 - Prosecutor v Blaskic, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 203; and Prosecutor v Tadic, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 648. See also Prosecutor v Akayesu, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 580.
1108 - Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 550. See also Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 649.
1109 - It is open to question whether the original sources often cited by Chambers of this Tribunal and of the ICTR support the existence of such a requirement. See Prosecutor v Nikolic, Case IT-94-2-I, Review of Indictment pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 20 Oct 1995, par 26; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, pars 644 and 653; Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, pars 551-552; Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, pars 203-205, 254 and 257; Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 580; Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement, 21 May 1999, par 124; and compare the Nuremberg Judgement, reprinted in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945–1 October 1946, Vol 1, pp 84, 254, 304 (with respect to Streicher) and pp 318-319 (with respect to Von Schirach); Arts 9 and 10 of the Nuremberg Charter; the Control Council Law No 10 case of the court at Stade (Germany), ILR 14/1947, pp 100-102; Supreme Court of the British Zone, OGH br Z, Vol  I, p 19 and Vol II, p 231; In re Altstötter, ILR 14/1947, pp 278 and 284; the Dutch case In re Ahlbrecht, ILR 16/1949, p 396; the Australian case Ivan Timofeyevich Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth of Australia and Anor, (1991) 172 CLR 501, Case FC 91/026 at 1991 Aust Highct LEXIS 63, BC9102602; Yearbook of the International Law Commission (“ILC”) (1954), Vol II, p 150; Report of the ILC on the Work of its 43rd Sess, 29 Apr–19 July 1991, Supp No 10 (UN Doc No A/46/10, pp 265-266, of its 46th sess, 2 May–22 July 1994, Supp No 10 (UN Doc No A/49/10), pp 75-76, of its 47th sess, 2 May–21 July 1995, pp 47, 49 and 50, and of its 48th sess, 6 May–26 July 1996, Supp No 10 (UN Doc No A/51/10), pp 93 and 95-96.
1110 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, pars 248 and 252.
1111 - Ibid, par 248; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, par 659; Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 556.
1112 - Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, pars 247 and 251.
1113 - History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948), p 193.
1114 - See the section on the common elements to Art 3 above (pars 400-409). See, in particular, par (1)(c) of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions: “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” which includes rape. See also Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 173.
1115 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998.
1116 - Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 597. This definition of the elements of rape was adopted by a Trial Chamber of the ICTY in Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 478-9.
1117 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 177.
1118 - Ibid, par 185 (“Furundzija definition”).
1119 - The Prosecution, by its emphasis on the need to prove “coercion, force or threats” in the Final Trial Brief (par 754) also apparently favours a narrower definition of what constitutes rape than is indicated by the sources of international law surveyed in this judgement. The submissions, however, appear to misconceive absence of consent as being some sort of “further element” or “additional” factor rather than a matter which encompasses the narrower range of factors which it cites. (see Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 755 and 760). As will become apparent, the Trial Chamber does not agree with the Prosecution’s submission that proof of force, threat of force or coercion is an element imposed by international law.
1120 - T, 19 Apr 2000, p 1980-1982.
1121 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 177. See also Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A-R77, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 Jan 2000, par 15: “It is otherwise of assistance to look to the general principles of law common to the major legal systems of the world, as developed and refined (where applicable) in international jurisprudence.”
1122 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 178.
1123 - Ibid, par 80.
1124 - Penal Code of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991), Ch XI, Art 88(1). Art 90 also penalises sexual intercourse coerced by taking advantage of the victim’s mental illness, temporary insanity, incapacity or any other condition which has rendered her unable to resist.
1125 - Strafgesetzbuch, Art 177(1). Art 177 of the German Criminal Code was amended with effect from 1 April 1998 to provide that the crime of sexual coercion or rape is also committed when a perpetrator “tak[es] advantage of the situation in which the victim is defencelessly exposed to the offender’s impact”. Although this provision is not relevant to the determination of the state of the international law at the time of the crimes alleged in the indictments, it serves as an indication of the trend in national legal systems to a broader range of circumstances which will classify sexual activity as rape.
1126 - Criminal Code of Korea, Ch XXXII, Art 297. Translation from Korean government website http://www.dci.sppo.go.kr/laws/crimco_e.htm (site accessed 18 Mar 1999).
1127 - Criminal Law (1979), Art 139: “Whoever by violence, coercion or other means rapes a woman is to be sentenced to not less than three years and not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment”. (This law, which was in force at the time relevant to these proceedings, has been replaced by the 1997 Criminal Code. Section 236 of that Code contains the same prohibition).
1128 - General Civil Penal Code, Ch 19, Art 192: “Any person who by force or by inducing fear for any person’s life or health compels any person to commit an act of indecency or is accessory thereto shall be guilty of rape [...]”. Translation from Norwegian Ministry of Justice, The General Civil Penal Code (1995).
1129 - Strafgesetzbuch, Art 201: “[...] by use of severe force or threat of present severe danger of life or limb directed against the victim or a third person [...]” (as in force 1989-1997).
1130 - Código Penal, Art 178: “The assault on the sexual liberty of another person, with violence or intimidation, will be punishable as a sexual aggression [...]”. “Sexual abuses”, which are defined as acts of assault on the sexual liberty of another without consent, are punishable by lesser terms of imprisonment: Art 181.
1131 - Código Penal, Art 213 (“[...] violence or serious threat [...]”).
1132 - Eg, Sierra Leone, where rape is defined by common law (other than rape of minors, which is governed by statutory provisions). Rape is defined by common law in Sierra Leone as “having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent by force, fear or fraud”: see Thompson, The Criminal Law of Sierra Leone (1999), pp 68-69.
1133 - New York Penal Law, s 130.05; s 130.35: rape in the first degree involves sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim and which occurs by forcible compulsion, or with a victim who is “incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless” or is less than eleven years old. Maryland Ann Code (1957), Art 27, 463(a)(1) (“[b]y force or threat of force against the will and without the consent of the other person”). Massachusetts General Laws Ann, c 265, s 22; the definitions of rape and aggravated rape refer to a perpetrator who “compels a person to submit by force and against his will, or compels a person to submit by threat of bodily injury”.
1134 - Code Pénal, Art 190. Emphasis added.
1135 - Código Penal, Art 164 (as in force in 1992): “Whoever has intercourse with a woman, by means of violence, serious threat or, after, in order to have intercourse, having made her unconscious or has made it impossible for her to resist, or, by the same means constrain her to have intercourse with a third person, shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 to 8 years.” (unofficial translation).
1136 - Code Pénal, Art 222 (unofficial translation). Emphasis added. A commentary to this provision states that rape consists of sexually abusing someone against their will when the absence of will results from the use of physical/psychological violence or from other coercive measures or tricks to bend the will of the victim. Dalloz, Code Pénal, Nouveau Code Pénal - Ancien Code Pénal (1996-7).
1137 - Codice Penale, Art 519; see particularly subpars (3) and (4) (as in force in 1992). Translation from New York University, The Italian Penal Code (1978).
1138 - Danish Criminal Code, Ch 24, Art 216(1). Emphasis added. Translation from Hoyer, Spencer and Greve, The Danish Criminal Code (1997).
1139 - Penal Code, Ch 6, s 1 provides that rape is committed where a person “by violence or threat which involves or appears to the threatened person to involve an imminent danger, forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable sexual act” and that “[c]ausing helplessness or a similar state of incapacitation shall be regarded as equivalent to violence”. Translation from Ministry of Justice, The Swedish Penal Code (1999).
1140 - Penal Code of Finland, Ch 20, s 1(1) (“A person who forces a woman to sexual intercourse by violence or by threat of an imminent danger shall be sentenced for rape [...]. The impairment of the power of the woman to control her conduct or to offer resistance shall be deemed equivalent to violence or a threat”. Unofficial translation on file with ICTY library).
1141 - Kriminaalkoodeks 1992, s 115(1).
1142 - Criminal Code, Art 177. Translation from EHS Law Bulletin Series, The Penal Code of Japan (1996), Vol II.
1143 - Emphasis added.
1144 - Código Penal, Art 119. Emphasis added.
1145 - Código Penal, Art 156.
1146 - Código Penal, Art 272. The definition in the Uruguay Code also refers expressly to sexual intercourse being presumed to be violently imposed when imposed on an arrested or detained person by the person having power over the victim’s detention.
1147 - The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides by Art 335 that rape is carnal knowledge of a woman committed by “using force or intimidation”, “when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious” or when the victim is under twelve.
1148 - California Penal Code, s 261(a)(1), (3), (4) and (5). See also the Model Penal Code, s 213.1 which refers to sexual intercourse with a person not the perpetrator’s wife where the victim was compelled “to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone”, the perpetrator “substantially impaired (the victim’s( power to control her conduct by administering or employing without her knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance” or that the victim is unconscious or less than ten years old.
1149 - See Smith, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law (1999), p 457: “The essence of rape is the absence of consent [...]. At one time it was stated that the intercourse must have been procured through force, fear or fraud. Some books continued to state the law in those terms until very recently but they have been out-of-date for well over a century.”
1150 - See, eg, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape (1975), Cmnd 6352, pars 18-22, cited in R v Olugboja [1982] QB 320. The English common law definition of rape is reflected in the Hong Kong Crimes Ordinance, s 118: “A man commits rape if-(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not (b) consent to it; [...]”.
1151 - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, amending s 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The definition in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was again amended in 1994 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 142 which makes it an offence for a man to rape a woman or a man and specifies that the sexual intercourse may be vaginal or anal.
1152 - R v Olugboja, [1982] QB 320.
1153 - In Canada, rape falls within the statutory crime of sexual assault under s 271 of the Criminal Code. This is any assault of a sexual nature, and assault is defined by s 265 as, in effect, a touching without the consent of the victim.
1154 - The New Zealand Crimes Act, 1961 penalises “sexual violation” which is defined as the act of a male raping a female or of any person having “unlawful sexual connection” with another: s 128 (1). Rape is defined as penetration of the woman “(a) Without her consent; and (b) Without believing on reasonable grounds that she consents to that sexual connection”. Section 128A defines matters that do not constitute consent to sexual connection, including the submission or acquiescence of the victim by reason of “the actual or threatened application of force to that person or some other person”, the fear of such application of force, or a mistake as to the identity of the person or the nature and quality of the act to which consent was given.
1155 - In New South Wales, where the common law offence of rape has been repealed by statute, rape is encompassed within the crime of sexual assault under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which provides that: “Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to penal servitude for 14 years.” See also Crimes Act, 1958 (Vic), s 38(2) which provides in part that: “A person commits rape if- (a) he or she intentionally sexually penetrates another person without that person’s consent while (b) being aware that the person is not consenting or might not be consenting; [...]”. Sexual intercourse or penetration without consent is an offence in the legislation of other states and territories. See Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 92D; Criminal Code (WA), s 325; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 48.
1156 - Criminal Code, s 273.1(1).
1157 - Criminal Code, s 273.1(2).
1158 - Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 36.
1159 - Section 375, Penal Code. The section provides:“Rape. - A man is said to commit ‘rape’ who, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-First.- Against her will. Secondly.- Without her consent. Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.”
1160 - Bangladesh Penal Code, s 375. (Abdul Matin, The Penal Code (1994), p 718). The fifth circumstance enumerated in the Indian Penal Code is absent from the Bangladesh Code. The Pakistan Penal Code contained an almost identical provision until its repeal in 1979.
1161 - See, eg, the decision of K 1958 3 SA 429 (A) 421F. Consent is not established by mere submission: F 1990 1 SACR 238 (A) 249 and a number of different factors such as fear induced by violence or threats will exclude any genuine consent: S 1971 2 SA 591 (A).
1162 - Zambian Penal Code, Cap 87, s 132 of The Laws of Zambia.
1163 - Code Pénale, Art 375. See also the Nicaraguan Código Penal, Art 195.
1164 - See, eg, Canadian Criminal Code, s 273; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 36.
1165 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, par 128.
1166 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A-R77, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 Jan 2000, par 25: “Sub-rule (A) to (D) (of Rule 77( are statements of what was seen by the judges at Plenary meetings of the Tribunal to reflect the jurisprudence upon those aspects of the law of contempt as are applicable to the Tribunal. Those statements do not displace the underlying law; both the Tribunal and the parties remain bound by that underlying law”. Rule 96 was explicitly referred to by the Appeals Chamber as another example of the application of that principle (see fn 26 to par 25).
1167 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 452-454; Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, pars 139 and 143.
1168 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 454.
1169 - Adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 3452 of 9 Dec 1975.
1170 - Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 Dec 1984. Entered into force on 26 June 1987.
1171 - The Convention was signed on 9 Dec 1985 and entered into force on 28 Feb 1987. See OAS Treaty Series No 67, OEA/Ser.A/42 (SEPF).
1172 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 159.
1173 - Ibid, par 162.
1174 - Ibid, par 162.
1175 - Art 7(2) of the Statute states that: “The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment.”
1176 - Filártiga v Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 878-879 (1980).
1177 - Ibid, 878-879 and 885.
1178 - Kadic v Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir 1995), cert Denied, 64 US 3832 (18 June 1996).
1179 - Ibid, 240-241 and 244-245.
1180 - Ibid, 243-245: “It suffices to hold at this stage that the alleged atrocities are actionable under the Alien Tort Act, without regard to State action, to the extent that they were committed in pursuit of genocide or war crimes”.
1181 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 459.
1182 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, pars 160-161. See UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc A/RES/39/46 (1984) (“Torture Convention”). Art 1(1) of the Torture Convention reads as follows: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third party has committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
1183 - Art 1 of the Torture Convention. See also Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 160.
1184 - Art 1(1) of the Declaration reads as follows: “For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.” See also Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 457.
1185 - See Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, A Compilation of International Instruments, Vol II: Regional Instruments (1997), pp 48 et seq.
1186 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 457.
1187 - Emphasis added.
1188 - Ireland v UK, 18 Jan 1978, Series A, No 25, par 167.
1189 - Greek case, 1969, YB Eur Conv on H R 12, p 186.
1190 - See, eg, Costello-Roberts v UK, 25 Mar 1993, Series A, No 247-C, pars 27-28; HLR v France, 29 Apr 1997, Reports 1997-III, p 758, par 40; and A v UK, 23 Sept 1998, Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1998-VI, p 2692, par 22.
1191 - HLR V France, 29 Apr 1997, Reports 1997-III, p 758, par 40.
1192 - General Comment 7/16 of 27 July 1982 [Prohibition of Torture], par 2.
1193 - General Comment 20/44 of 3 April 1992 [Prohibition of Torture], par 2.
1194 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 160.
1195 - Ibid, par 162; Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 468.
1196 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 162; Prosecutor v Akayesu, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 594.
1197 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 470-472; Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 594.
1198 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 470.
1199 - See, eg, Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 595.
1200 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70.
1201 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 162.
1202 - Ibid, par 142.
1203 - See also Art 32 of Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.
1204 - Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), pp 1373-1374.
1205 - Emphasis added.
1206 - Art 12 of Geneva Convention II is similar in content to Art 12 of Geneva Convention I.
1207 - Pictet (gnl ed), Commentary to 1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1952), p 135. Emphasis added.
1208 - Trial of Friedrich Flick and Five Others (“Flick Trial”), US Military Tribunal, 20 Apr-22 Dec 1947, LRTWC, Vol IX, p 1, 18.
1209 - Nuremberg Judgement, pp 222-223. See also Principle No 3 of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal, 1950: “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” See also Art 227 and 228 of the Treaty of Versailles.
1210 - The Trial Chamber also notes the definition of torture contained in Art 7(e) of the International Criminal Court Statute, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal, 17 July 1998, PCNICC/1999/INF/3, (“ICC Statute”), which provides: ““Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.” See also Arts 7(1)(f) (crimes against humanity) and 8(2)(a)(ii)-1 (war crimes), of the Finalised Draft Text of the Elements of the Crimes for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 6 July 2000, PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2. Article 27(1) (“Irrelevance of the official capacity”) of the ICC Statute further states that the Statute shall apply “equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity”. Although the ICC Statute does not necessarily represent the present status of international customary law, it is a useful instrument in confirming the content of customary international law. These provisions obviously do not necessarily indicate what the state of the relevant law was at the time relevant to this case. However they do provide some evidence of state opinio juris as to the relevant customary international law at the time at which the recommendations were adopted. See, eg, Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 227; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case No IT-94-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 223.
1211 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 162; Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 468.
1212 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 162; Prosecutor v Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 594.
1213 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 470-472; Prosecutor v Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 Sept 1998, par 594.
1214 - See section dealing with common elements to Article 3 of the Statute (pars 400-409).
1215 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 89: “Article 3 is a general clause covering all violations of humanitarian law not falling under Article 2 or covered by Articles 4 or 5, more specifically [ ….] (iii) violations of common Article 3 and other customary rules on internal conflicts; [...]”. See also Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 21; Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, pars 132-133.
1216 - It is also found in Art 75(2)(b) of Additional Protocol I and Art 4(2)(e) of Additional Protocol II.
1217 - See Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, pars 21-22, implicitly affirming, in its discussion of the mental element of the offence of outrages against personal dignity, the Trial Chamber’s conviction of the accused on aCountof outrages against personal dignity under Art 3 on the basis of common Art 3(1)(c).
1218 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case No IT-95-14/1.
1219 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case No IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 49.
1220 - Ibid, pars 51 and 54.
1221 - Ibid, par 56.
1222 - The original French version of the judgement refers to “une souffrance … durable”.
1223 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case No IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 54; Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 26.
1224 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case No 96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 543. See also Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case No IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, pars 154-155 where Trial Chamber I adopts the conclusions of the judgement in the Delalic case (Case No 96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998) in relation to the offence of inhuman treatment.
1225 - In relation to the crime of outrages upon personal dignity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted at Rome on 17 July 1998, PCNICC/1999/INF/3, 17 Aug 1999, the Preparatory Commission has made a final recommendation as to the elements of the crime which makes no reference to any requirement of a lasting quality to the humiliation or degradation caused. The Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, Finalized Draft Text of the Elements of Crimes, PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2, 6 July 2000 describes the elements of the offence (Art 8(2)(b)(xxi), p 33) as: “(1) The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons. (2) The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity.” These recommendations, adopted in July 2000 obviously do not necessarily indicate what the state of the relevant law was at the time relevant to this case. However they do provide some evidence of state opinio juris as to the relevant customary international law at the time at which the recommendations were adopted. See, eg, Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 227; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case No IT-94-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 223.
1226 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case No IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 54.
1227 - For the indictment against Aleksovski, see Prosecutor v Kordic and Others, Indictment, 10 Nov 1995, par 31 supporting, inter alia, Count10 of the indictment which charged “[...] a VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR (outrages against personal dignity) as recognised by Articles 3, 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal”.
1228 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 37 (emphasis added).
1229 - Paragraph 502. The inclusion in the recommended elements of the offence for the purposes of the ICC Statute of a requirement that the “severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation [be] of such degree as to be generally recognised as an outrage upon personal dignity” is consistent with this conclusion. (See Finalized Draft Text of the Elements of the Crimes, Art 8(2)(b)(xxi), par 2).
1230 - The Appeals Chamber noted: “the Trial Chamber’s reasoning in relation to the mental element of the offence of outrages upon personal dignity [...] is not always entirely clear.”: Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 27.
1231 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 56.
1232 - The Trial Chamber’s factual findings as to the mental state of the accused in relation to the relevant acts appear to support a finding of a specific intent to humiliate as well as of knowledge of the trauma and humiliation caused by the acts – see pars 224 and 237 and Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 27.
1233 - “The Trial Chamber’s indication that the mens rea of the offence is the “intent to humiliate or ridicule” the victim may therefore impose a requirement that the Prosecution was not obliged to prove and the Appeals Chamber does not, by rejecting this ground of appeal, endorse that particular conclusion.”: Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 27.
1234 - Sandoz and Others, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, par 3047. This statement was referred to by the Trial Chamber at pars 55 and 56.
1235 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 27.
1236 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, par 56.
1237 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 27.
1238 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case No 96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 543. See also later in that par: “Thus, inhuman treatment is intentional treatment which does not conform with the fundamental principle of humanity [...]”.
1239 - Indictment IT-96-23 (Counts 18 and 22 respectively).
1240 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, pars 198-221; Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 796-872.
1241 - T 6286-6288.
1242 - Defence Final Trial Brief, pars N.3.1-N.3.8.
1243 - T 6428-6441 (in relation to Dragoljub Kunarac); T 6520-6525 (in relation to Radomir Kovac).
1244 - Art 1(1) of the Slavery Convention. Yugoslavia ratified the Slavery Convention on 28 Sept 1929.
1245 - Art 1(2) of the Slavery Convention.
1246 - Art 5 of the Slavery Convention.
1247 - Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Yugoslavia ratified the Supplementary Slavery Convention on 20 May 1958. Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to the same Convention on 1 Sept 1993.
1248 - Art 7(c) of the Supplementary Slavery Convention (“[...] ‘slave trade’ means and includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves by whatever means of conveyance.”).
1249 - Art 7(a) of the Supplementary Slavery Convention.
1250 - The Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour. Yugoslavia ratified the Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention on 4 Mar 1933. Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the same Convention on 2 June 1993. The Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention has received more than 150 ratifications.
1251 - Art 2(1) of the Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention.
1252 - Art 2(2)(d) of the Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention.
1253 - Art 2(2)(e) of the Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention.
1254 - This Convention has been ratified by more than 140 states.
1255 - Art 1 of the Forced Labour Convention.
1256 - Annexed to the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis (London Agreement), 8 Aug 1945 (signed by Britain, France, the USA and the USSR, and acceded to by 19 other states (Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia)).
1257 - Art 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. Emphasis added.
1258 - Reprinted in Trial of Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946, Vol 1 (1947), pp 27-92.
1259 - Ibid,CountOne (The Common Plan or Conspiracy), pp 29 et seq;CountThree (War Crimes), (B) Deportation for slave labor and for other purposes of the civilian populations of and in occupied territories, pp 51-52 (“During the whole period of the occupation by Germany of both the Western and Eastern Countries it was the policy of the German Government and of the German High Command to deport able-bodied citizens from such occupied countries to Germany and to other occupied countries for the purpose of slave labor upon defense works, in factories, and in other tasks connected with the German war effort. [...]”: at p 51); (H) Conscription of civilian labour, p 62 (“Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted and forced the inhabitants to labour and requisitioned their services for purposes other than meeting the needs of the armies of occupation and to an extent far out of proportion to the resources of the countries involved. All the civilians so conscripted were forced to work for the German war effort. [...]”: at p 62);CountFour (Crimes against Humanity), (A) Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations before and during the war, p 66 (“[...] (The defendants( subjected them to [...] enslavement [...]. At these and other camps the civilians were put to slave labor [...]”: at p 66).
1260 - Reprinted in Trial of Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946, Vol 22 (1947), pp 411-589 (rendered on 30 Sept and 1 Oct 1946).
1261 - Ibid, p 470 (slave labour); pp 477-478 and pp 480-481 (slave labour); pp 486-491 (The Nuremberg Tribunal found Germany’s deportation and slave labour policies to be in flagrant violation of not only Article 6(b) of the Nuremberg Charter, but also of Article 52 of the Hague Convention. (Ibid, p 486). Art 52 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (“Hague Convention”) provides that “Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.”).
1262 - Deportation to slave labour, slave and forced labour and enslavement, are referred to in relation to the convictions of the following defendants: Goering (ibid, pp 526-527); Keitel (ibid, p 536); Kaltenbrunner (ibid, pp 537-538); Rosenberg (ibid, pp 540-541); Frank (ibid, pp 542-544); Frick (ibid, p 546); Funk (ibid, p 552); Von Schirach (ibid, pp 565-566); Sauckel (ibid, 566-568); Jodl (ibid, pp 570-571); Seyss-Inquart (ibid, pp 575-576); Speer (ibid, pp 577-579); Bormann (ibid, pp. 586-587).
1263 - Ibid, pp 565-566.
1264 - Ibid, p 567.
1265 - Ibid, p 579.
1266 - Ibid, p 586.
1267 - Reprinted in Trial of Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946, Vol 3 (1947), Proceedings, 1 December 1945 – 14 Dec 1945, p 451.
1268 - Ibid, p 452.
1269 - Control Council Law No 10: Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against the Peace and Against Humanity, 20 Dec 1945. CCL 10 was enacted by the Allied Control Council of Germany, composed of Great Britain, France, the USA and the USSR. The aim was to establish a uniform legal basis in Germany for the prosecution, by the Allies in their respective zones of occupation, of war criminals and other similar offenders other than those dealt with by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
1270 - CCL 10 defines crimes against humanity as “Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population [...].” (Art II(c) of CCL 10 (emphasis added)).
1271 - US v Milch, Judgement of 31 July 1948, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol II (1997), p 773.
1272 - Ibid, p 789. Milch was found guilty of war crimes charged inCountone of the indictment in that he was responsible for the “slave labor and deportation to slave labor of the civilian populations of countries and territories occupied by the German armed forces, and in the enslavement, deportation, ill-treatment and terrorization of such persons. [...].” (ibid, p 790). Milch was also found guilty of crimes against humanity (count three) for the same war crimes insofar as they related to foreign nations (ibid, pp 790-791). With reference to the definition of the crimes in CCL 10, Judge Fitzroy D Phillips in his concurring opinion stated that CCL 10 treats as separate crimes and different types of crime deportation to slave labour (as a war crime) and enslavement (as a crime against humanity) (ibid, Concurring Opinion, p 860 at p 866). In the Krupp case (US v Krupp and Others, Judgement of 31 July 1948, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, Vol IX, Part 2 (1997), p 1327), the US Military Tribunal adopted the statement of the law applicable to the deportation to slave labour and enslavement of the Milch case made by Judge Phillips (ibid, pp 1432-1433). In that case, the Tribunal also held that the employment of concentration camp inmates under the circumstances disclosed was a crime (ibid, pp 1433-1435).
1273 - US v Oswald Pohl and Others, Judgement of 3 November 1947, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, Vol V, (1997), p 958 at p 970. Other CCL 10 cases in which enslavement and related aspects were considered, include IG Farben (US v Carl Krauch and Others), summarised in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The UN War Crimes Commission, Vol X (1997), pp 1-68 at 53; and Flick (US v Friedrich Flick and Others), reprinted in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, Vol VI (1997).
1274 - “Special Proclamation: Establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the Far East”, Order of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Tokyo, Jan 19, 1946, as amended, Apr 26, 1946.
1275 - Art 5 of the Tokyo Charter.
1276 - Reprinted in Pritchard, The Tokyo Major War Crimes Trial, The Records of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East With an Authoritative Commentary and Comprehensive Guide, Vol 2 (1998).
1277 - “Group Three: Conventional War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” (Counts 53-55), ibid, pp 12-14 of the indictment.
1278 - Count 53 obliquely contained a conspiracy charge, also referring to “persons in charge of each of the camps and labour units for prisoners of war and civilian internees [...].” (ibid, p 13 of the indictment). Appendix D to the indictment was incorporated under Group Three of the charges in the indictment. Section Two of Appendix D referred to “Illegal employment of prisoner of war labour [...] (at p iii). Section Twelve of Appendix D referred to “Failure to respect family honour and rights, individual life, [...], and deportation and enslavement of the inhabitants [...], contrary to (Article 46 of Annex III (“Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State”) of the 1907 Hague Convention] and to the Laws and Customs of War: Large numbers of the inhabitants of [occupied] territories were murdered, tortured, raped and otherwise ill-treated, arrested and interned without justification, sent to forced labour, and their property destroyed or confiscated.” (at p vi).
1279 - Reprinted in Röling and Rüter, The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) 29 April 1946-12 November 1948, Vol I (1977), pp 1-466 (rendered on 4-12 Nov 1948).
1280 - References to forced labour and slave labour in the Tokyo judgement include, in Chapter VIII (“Conventional War Crimes (Atrocities)”): ibid, p 388 (“Many of the captured Chinese were [...] placed in labour units to work for the Japanese Army [...]. Some of these captives [...] were transported to Japan to relieve the labor shortage in the munitions industries.”); ibid, pp 403-406 (use of forced labour to construct Burma-Siam railway, including use of conscripted “native labourers”); ibid, pp 413-414 (labour of prisoners of war and civilian internees); ibid, p 416 (use of prisoners of war and internees to work on war-related projects); ibid, pp 416-417 (use of forced “native” labour). References to forced labour and slave labour in relation to individual defendants include: Kimura (ibid, p 452, use of prisoners of war in forced labour, including work on the Burma-Siam railway); and Tojo (ibid, pp 462-463, ill-treatment of prisoners of war and internees, including use of prisoners of war in construction of Burma-Siam railway).
1281 - Ibid, pp 416-417 (the Chapter referred to is Chapter VIII (“Conventional War Crimes (Atrocities)”) of the judgement.
1282 - Geneva Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (“Additional Protocol II”). Yugoslavia ratified both Additional Protocols on 11 June 1979. Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to both Additional Protocols on 31 Dec 1992.
1283 - Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 of 12 Aug 1949. Yugoslavia ratified the Geneva Conventions on 21 April 1950. Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to the Geneva Conventions on 31 Dec 1992.
1284 - Art 1(1) of Additional Protocol II.
1285 - Art 4 falls under Part II (“Humane Treatment”) of Additional Protocol II.
1286 - Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), p 1376.
1287 - Art 4 of Additional Protocol II.
1288 - Art 5 of Additional Protocol II, which falls under Part II (“Humane Treatment”) of Additional Protocol II. Art 5(1) specifically provides as follows, with respect to work: “(1) In addition to the provisions of Article 4 the following provisions shall be respected as a minimum with regard to persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained; [...] (e) they shall, if made to work, have the benefit of working conditions and safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local civilian population.”
1289 - Art 17 of Additional Protocol II provides in full: “(1) The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Should such displacements have to be carried out, all possible measures shall be taken in order that the civilian population may be received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition. (2) Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict.” Art 17 falls under Part IV (“Civilian Population”) of Additional Protocol II. Various provisions of Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (“Additional Protocol I”), although relating to international armed conflicts, also underline the basic protection to be extended in particular to women and children. This includes a provision relating to fundamental guarantees, which is similar in part to that of Additional Protocol II, without the express reference to slavery (Art 75). Another provision on the protection of women states that women “shall be the subject of special respect and shall be protected in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault”. (Art 76(1)). A provision on the protection of children states that children “shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault.” (Art 77).
1290 - Art 24 falls under Part II (“General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1291 - Art 27 provides: “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.” This Article falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section I (“Provisions Common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1292 - Art 31 falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section I (“Provisions Common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1293 - Art 32 falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section I (“Provisions Common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1294 - Art 42 provides: “The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary. If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in whose hands he may be.” Art 42 falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section II (“Aliens in the Territory of a Party to the Conflict”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1295 - These provisions fall under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section IV (“Regulations for the Treatment of Internees”) of Geneva Convention IV and include: Art 80 (“Internees shall retain their full civil capacity and shall exercise such attendant rights as may be compatible with their status.”); Art 82 (“The Detaining Power shall, as far as possible, accommodate the internees according to their nationality, language and customs. [...] Throughout the duration of their internment, members of the same family, and in particular parents and children, shall be lodged together in the same place of internment, except when separation of a temporary nature is necessitated for reasons of employment or health or for the purposes of enforcement of the provisions of Chapter IX of the present Section. Internees may request that their children who are left at liberty without parental care shall be interned with them. Wherever possible, interned members of the same family shall be housed in the same premises and given separate accommodation from other internees, together with facilities for leading a proper family life.”); Art 95; and Art 96 (“All labour detachments shall remain part of and dependent upon a place of internment. The competent authorities of the Detaining Power and the commandant of a place of internment shall be responsible for the observance in a labour detachment of the provisions of the present Convention. The commandant shall keep an up-to-date list of the labour detachments subordinate to him and shall communicate it to the delegates of the Protecting Power, of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of other humanitarian organisations who may visit the places of internment.”).
1296 - Internees permanently detailed for such work shall be paid fair wages by the detaining power (Art 95 of Geneva Convention IV).
1297 - Art 40 falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section II (“Aliens in the Territory of a Party to the Conflict”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1298 - Art 51 falls under Part III (“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”), Section III (“Occupied Territories”) of Geneva Convention IV.
1299 - The Trial Chamber interprets “honour” in the sense of “dignity”, without thereby detracting from its view that these are violent crimes.
1300 - Pictet (gnl ed), Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958), p 205, with reference to Commission of Government Experts for the Study of the Convention for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, Apr 14-26, 1947). Preliminary Documents, Vol III, p 47.
1301 - See Art 42 of Geneva Convention IV, quoted above. Also see Arts 41, 43 and Part III, Section IV (“Regulations for the treatment of internees”, Arts 79-141) of Geneva Convention IV and Art 17 of Additional Protocol II, quoted above. With respect to Art 42 of Geneva Convention IV, Pictet (gnl ed), Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958), p 258, states as follows: “[...] the mere fact that a person is a subject of an enemy Power cannot be considered as threatening the security of the country where he is living; it is not therefore a valid reason for interning him or placing him in assigned residence. To justify recourse to such measures the State must have good reason to think that the person concerned, by his activities, knowledge or qualifications, represents a real threat to its present or future security. [...] Henceforward only absolute necessity, based on the requirements of state security, can justify recourse to these two measures, and only then if security cannot be safeguarded by other, less severe means.”
1302 - The UDHR provides that “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” (Art 4 of the UDHR).
1303 - The ICCPR provides that “(1) No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. (2) No one shall be held in servitude. (3) (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour; [...] (c) For the purpose of this paragraph the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include: [...] (iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community [...].” (Art 8 of the ICCPR; no derogation from Arts 8(1) and (2) may be made: Art 4(2) of the ICCPR). The travaux préparatoires shows that the term “slavery” implied the destruction of the juridical personality, a relatively limited and technical notion, whereas servitude was a more general idea covering all possible forms of man’s domination of man (Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1987), pp 164-165, 167-168; Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (1993), p 148). Furthermore, involuntariness is the fundamental definition feature of “forced or compulsory labour”, whereas slavery and servitude are prohibited even in event of voluntariness (Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1987), p 167).
1304 - Art 4 of the European Convention provides: “(1) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. (2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. (3) For the purposes of this Article the term ‘forced or compulsory labour’ shall not include: (a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention [...] or during conditional release from such detention; (b) any service of a military character [...]; (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; (d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.” Under Art 15(2) of the European Convention, no derogation from the first par  of Art 4 is permitted under any circumstances.
1305 - The American Convention provides that “No one shall be subject to slavery or to involuntary servitude, which are prohibited in all their forms, as are the slave trade and traffic in women.” (Art 6(1)). It further provides that no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour (Art 6(2)), except for certain limited exceptions (Art 6(3)). Art 6 may in no circumstance be suspended (Art 27).
1306 - The African Charter provides that “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.” (Art 5 of the African Charter).
1307 - Application No 7906/77, Decision of 5 July 1979 on the admissibility of the application, European Commission of Human Rights, D/R 17, 59.
1308 - Ibid, p 72.
1309 - Ibid.
1310 - Application No 8919/80, Judgment (merits) of 23 November 1983, European Court of Human Rights, A 70.
1311 - Ibid, par 32.
1312 - Ibid.
1313 - Ibid.
1314 - Ibid, par 33.
1315 - Ibid, par 34.
1316 - Ibid.
1317 - Ibid, par 37.
1318 - Observing that it derives not from Article 2(1) of the 1930 Forced and Compulsory Labour Convention but from other unrelated Articles of that Convention concerned with transitional arrangements (ibid, par 40).
1319 - Ibid.
1320 - Ibid, par 40.
1321 - Art 6 of the CEDAW. Yugoslavia ratified the CEDAW on 26 Feb 1982. Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to the CEDAW on 1 Sept 1993. More than 160 states are party to the CEDAW.
1322 - Art 11(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.”) Yugoslavia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 Jan 1991. Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded to that Convention on 1 Sept 1993. More than 190 states are party to this Convention.
1323 - The Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery also recently adopted a recommendation stating that “transborder trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a contemporary form of slavery and constitutes a serious violation of human rights.” (Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on its twenty-third session (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/14), recommendation 4).
1324 - See Art 2, par 11 of the 1954 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1954), Vol II, Documents of the sixth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly, p 150.
1325 - Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April-19 July 1991, GA, Supplement No 10 (A/46/10), p 265 (Art 21).
1326 - Ibid, pp 267-268.
1327 - Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eight session, 6 May-26 July 1996, GA, Supplement No 10 (A/51/10), p 93 (Art 18 (Crimes against Humanity) of the Draft Code).
1328 - Ibid, par 10, p 98.
1329 - Ibid, p 93.
1330 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Judgement, Case IT-95-17/1-T, 10 Dec 1998, par 227.
1331 - Art 142 of the SFRY Criminal Code (“Whoever in violation of rules of international law effective at the time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders that civilian population be subject to [...] inhuman treatment [...], immense suffering or violation of bodily integrity or health [...]; forcible prostitution or rape; [...] other illegal arrests and detention [...]; forcible labour [...] or who commits one of the foregoing acts, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years or by the death penalty.”) Art 154 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 28 Nov 1998 is similar to Art 142 of the SFRY Criminal Code.
1332 - Art 155 of the SFRY Criminal Code. Art 167 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1998 provides: “(1) Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law, enslaves another person or puts him/her in similar position, or keeps him/her in such position, buys, sells or hands him/her over to another person, or whoever mediates in the buying, selling or handing over of such a person, or whoever incites another person to sell his/her freedom or freedom of persons he/she supports or takes care of, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment for a term between one year and ten years. (2) Whoever transports persons in slavery or similar relation from one country to another, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment for a term between six months and five years. (3) Whoever commits the act described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article against a juvenile, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment for not less than five years.”
1333 - Also see the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998 (“ICC Statute”), adopted at Rome on 17 July 1998, PCNICC/1999/INF/3 (17 Aug 1999) (as of early February 2001, 27 states have ratified the ICC Statute, and 139 states signed it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, which signed it on 17 July 2000. The ICC Statute requires 60 ratifications before it enters into force). Art 30 (“Mental element”) of the ICC Statute provides: “(1) Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. (2) For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where: (a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. (3) For the purposes of this article, “knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. “Know” and “knowingly” shall be construed accordingly.” The ICC Statute makes numerous references to enslavement. As a crime against humanity (Art 7), “[e]nslavement” as well as “[r]ape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity” (Art 7(1)(g)) are prohibited. “Enslavement” “[...] means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.” (Art 7(2)(c)). “Forced pregnancy” is defined as “the unlawful confinement, of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. [...].” (Art 7(2)(f)). The setting out of the violations in separate sub-paragraphs of the ICC Statute is not to be interpreted as meaning, for example, that sexual slavery is not a form of enslavement. This separation is to be explained by the fact that the sexual violence violations were considered best to be grouped together. These provisions obviously do not necessarily indicate what the state of the relevant law was at the time relevant to this case. However they do provide some evidence of state opinio juris as to the relevant customary international law at the time at which the recommendations were adopted. See, eg, Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 227; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case No IT-94-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, par 223.
1334 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, par 205.
1335 - Ibid, par 207.
1336 - Ibid, par 208.
1337 - Ibid, par 209.
1338 - Ibid, par 210.
1339 - Ibid, par 211.
1340 - Ibid, par 212.
1341 - Ibid, par 213.
1342 - Ibid, par 214.
1343 - Ibid, par 216.
1344 - Ibid, par 220.
1345 - Ibid, par 926.
1346 - Defence Final Trial Brief, pars N.1.2, N.2.1 and N.4.6.
1347 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001.
1348 - Ibid, par 400.
1349 - Ibid.
1350 - Ibid, pars 412-413.
1351 - Ibid.
1352 - Ibid, pars 429 and 430.
1353 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 925 and fn 1979 (Counts 1 and 3 and 5 and 7 of Indictment IT-96-23).
1354 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 925 and fn 1979 (Counts 1 and 3 and 5 and 7 of Indictment IT-96-23).
1355 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 925 and fn 1981 (Counts 18 and 21 of Indictment IT-96-23).
1356 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 925 and fn 1982 (Counts 21 to 24 of Indictment IT-96-23/1). The Trial Chamber considers that the Prosecutor mistakenly left out a reference to Counts 33-36 in this context.
1357 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 800-807.
1358 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 801.
1359 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 772.
1360 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 690-696; Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, pars 98-105; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 70 (“closely related”); Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 193 (referring to an “obvious link”, “closely related”), 197 (“clear nexus”) and 295. This nexus requirement was not considered in Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, pars 699 et seq.
1361 - Rule 89(B).
1362 - The frailty of identification evidence is discussed generally in a decision given during the course of the trial in this case: Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, par 8.
1363 - The effect of the failure by such a witness to make an “in court” identification is discussed in the same decision: ibid, par 19.
1364 - Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 113.
1365 - The Appeals Chamber has, moreover, held that the testimony of a single witness on a material fact does not, as a matter of law, require corroboration: Prosecutor v Zlatko Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, 24 Mar 2000, par 62.
1366 - T 5326-5363 (Aleksandar Jovanovic); T 5412-5448 (Dusan Dunjic); T 5449-5477 (Sanda Raskovic-Ivic).
1367 - See par 407 where the Trial Chamber referred to the possible requirement under common Article 3 that the perpetrator may have to have some relationship to one of the parties to the conflict.
1368 - Defence Final Trial Brief, par B22.
1369 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, p 4, point 3; Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters Regarding the Accused Zoran Vukovic, 8 Mar 2000, p 4, point 3.
1370 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 30.
1371 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, pars 22-23.
1372 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, par 5.
1373 - Ex P21 is a map of Sarajevo, Gorazde, Foca, Kalinovik and Gacko municipalities (from UNPROFOR map series 1002, 1995).
1374 - Ex D78 is a letter of discharge from Foca’s Hospital regarding Goran Miletic, numbered 3396.
1375 - T 4743.
1376 - T 4463.
1377 - T 4740.
1378 - T 4742-4743.
1379 - Witness DD, T 5209; Witness Radosav Djurovic, T 5272-5273; Witness Radijove Pavlovic, T 5304.
1380 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, point 7.
1381 - Ex P67, tape 2, side A, pp 6 and 7.
1382 - T 4730.
1383 - T 5299.
1384 - T 5298-5299.
1385 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, p 6, point 5
1386 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 5.2.
1387 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 5.3.
1388 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 5.4.
1389 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 5.5.
1390 - The Trial Chamber has not relied upon the identification made in court.
1391 - Investigator’s notes, 24 Sept 1998.
1392 - See pars 593-625, section on Dragoljub Kunarac’s alibi defence with respect to these events.
1393 - Prosecution Submission Regarding Admissions and Contested Matters, 1 Feb 2000, p 6, point 8.
1394 - Indictment IT-96-23, par 10.1.
1395 - Indictment IT-96-23, pars 10.2 and 10.3.
1396 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 272.
1397 - T 6546.
1398 - Indictment IT-96-23/1, par 6.6.
1399 - Indictment IT-96-23/1, par 6.7.
1400 - The Trial Chamber held in the Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July, 2000, that the accused Zoran Vukovic had no case to answer in relation to the allegations made by Witness FWS-48 in support of Counts 33 to 36.
1401 - Defence Final Trial Brief, p 284.
1402 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000.
1403 - Witness DV, T 5853-5856; Witness DQ, T 5994 and 6006; Witness DR, T 6027.
1404 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 198.
1405 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000.
1406 - IT/32/Rev 19 of 12 Jan 2001. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the rights of the three accused are not prejudiced by the application of the latest amended version of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, in accordance with Rule 6.
1407 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, pars 226-240; Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 937-993.
1408 - T 6329-6343.
1409 - Defence Pre-Trial Brief I, pp 31-32 (in relation to Dragoljub Kunarac and Radomir Kovac); Defence Final Trial Brief, pars K.h.1-K.h.8 (in relation to Dragoljub Kunarac); pars L.h.1-L.h.14 (in relation to Radomir Kovac); par M.g.1 (in relation to Zoran Vukovic); and pars P.1-P.11 (joint submissions).
1410 - T 6447-6457 (in relation to Dragoljub Kunarac); T 6527-6532 (in relation to Radomir Kovac); and T 6553-6554 (in relation to Zoran Vukovic).
1411 - Defence Submission of Expert Witness Statement under Rule 94bis(A), 4 July 2000 (RP D5255-D5239) on “The criminal act rape in Yugoslav legislature and legal practice”. (T 4733-4734; T 4619-4624; T 4692-4695); admitted into evidence: 11 Sept 2000 (T 5380-5382, as Ex D147)).
1412 - T 5364-5409.
1413 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, 26 Jan 2000, par 21; Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 813.
1414 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 820 (“[...] the Tribunal is not bound by the practice of the courts of the former Yugoslavia, but it may simply turn to them for guidance.”)
1415 - Adopted on 28 Sept 1976, entered into force on 1 July 1977 (unofficial translation).
1416 - Official Gazette of the FRY, No 37, 16 July 1993, p 817.
1417 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 1206. From Nov 1998 the law in Bosnia and Herzegovina may prescribe the death penalty only in exceptional circumstances: Art 34 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which came into force on 28 Nov 1998, reads as follows: “[...] (2) On an exceptional basis, for the more severe forms of criminal offences punished with long term imprisonment which were committed during the state of war or of imminent war danger, the law may exceptionally prescribe capital punishment. (3) In the case defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, the capital punishment may be pronounced and executed only during the sate of war or imminent war danger.” (Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina published by “Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, No 43-98, Nov 20, 1998). That Criminal Code also now provides for the imposition of “long term imprisonment” ranging from 20 to 40 years for the “the gravest forms of criminal offences [...] committed with intention”. (Art 38).
1418 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Sentencing Judgement, 14 July 1997, par 8.
1419 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995, par 89 (the Appeals Chamber stated that Art 3 of the Statute inter alia covers infringements of provisions of the Geneva Conventions other than those classified as “grave breaches” by the Geneva Conventions, violations of Art 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and other customary rules on internal conflicts).
1420 - Ibid.
1421 - T 5390.
1422 - T 5402-5404.
1423 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, pars 955-956.
1424 - T 5391-5392.
1425 - T 5387.
1426 - T 5391.
1427 - T 5391.
1428 - T 5404.
1429 - T 5404-5405.
1430 - Eg, Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 185 (deterrence as “purpose” and deterrence and retribution as “factor” used in “overall assessment of sentences”); Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeal, 26 Jan 2000, par 48 (deterrence as “principle” and “factor” used in the “overall assessment of the sentences”); Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, pars 761-763 (under the heading “Purposes and objectives of the sentence”, retribution, protection of society, rehabilitation, deterrence, putting an end to serious violations of international humanitarian law and contribution towards restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia as “parameters” and “objectives” when fixing the length of a sentence); Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, pars 848 and 849 (under the respective heading and sub-heading of “Factors to be considered in sentencing” and “General sentencing policy of the International Tribunal”, deterrence, retribution, what appears to be a positive general prevention theory and rehabilitation are referred to as “purposes”); Prosecutor v Jelisic, Case IT-95-10-T, Judgement, 14 Dec 1999, par 133 (as an aggravating circumstance the contribution of the International Tribunal to the restoration of peace in the former Yugoslavia); Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, pars 288-291 (under the heading “Sentencing Policy of the Chamber”, deterrence and retribution as “functions”, rehabilitation, public reprobation and stigmatisation used as guidance in determination of sentence); Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, pars 1230-1235 (retribution, deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation and motives for the commission of offences as “factors” to be taken into consideration in determination of sentence).
1431 - T 6330.
1432 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 185; Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 848; and Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 806.
1433 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov. 1998, par 1234; Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case 95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 Dec 1998, par 288.
1434 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeal, 26 Jan 2000, pars 41-50.
1435 - Ibid, par 48.
1436 - Ibid.
1437 - The Appeals Chamber found that in the circumstances of that case the Trial Chamber did not give undue weight to deterrence as a factor in the determination of the appropriate sentence (ibid,).
1438 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 185.
1439 - Ibid, par 179.
1440 - Ibid, par 185.
1441 - Ibid.
1442 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 803.
1443 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 185.
1444 - Ibid, par 182 (with reference to Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 1225).
1445 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 182 (with reference to Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 852).
1446 - See, eg, Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 762; Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-Tbis-R117, Sentencing Judgement, 11 Nov 1999, par 7.
1447 - S/Res/827 (1993), 25 May 1993.
1448 - Art 39 of the UN Charter reads as follows: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and  42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Art 41 of the UN Charter, the legal basis for the establishment of the International Tribunal, reads as follows: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions [...].” Both these articles are part of Chapter VII (“Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”) of the UN Charter.
1449 - See, eg, Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 1232; Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 761.
1450 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, 10 Dec 1998, par 291. On rehabilitation, see, in general, Prosecutor v Blaskic, Case IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 Mar 2000, par 761; Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 849; Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-T, 10 Dec 1998, par 291; Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 1233.
1451 - See Art 27 of the Statute and Rules 103 and 104.
1452 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 806.
1453 - T 273-274.
1454 - T 274.
1455 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 979.
1456 - Ibid.
1457 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 763 (“The Appeals Chamber agrees that only those matters which are proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused may be [...] taken into account in aggravation of that sentence.”)
1458 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 976.
1459 - Ibid.
1460 - Ibid, par 978.
1461 - Ibid, par 980.
1462 - Ibid, par 981.
1463 - Ibid.
1464 - T 271-274.
1465 - T 271.
1466 - T 271-272; and Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw One Sentence From the Prosecutor’s Pre-trial Brief on Zoran Vukovic Filed on 21 February 2000, 8 Mar 2000.
1467 - T 273.
1468 - T 274.
1469 - T 6226, 6227-6228, 6264 and 6338.
1470 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 763 (“The Appeals Chamber agrees that only those matters which are proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused may be the subject of an accused’s sentence or taken into account in aggravation of that sentence.”)
1471 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, par 230.
1472 - Ibid, fn 146.
1473 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-Tbis-R117, Sentencing Judgement, 11 Nov 1999, pars 27-29.
1474 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, 26 Jan 2000, par 69.
1475 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 69.
1476 - Ibid, par 69.
1477 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000, par 243.
1478 - Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief I, par 230 (with reference to Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 Nov 1998, par 1226, which is not wholly unambiguous).
1479 - Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, par 970.
1480 - Ibid, par 975.
1481 - Ibid, pars 984 and 985.
1482 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 769.
1483 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 182 (“Consideration of the gravity of the conduct of the accused is normally the starting point for consideration of an appropriate sentence. The practice of the International Tribunal provides no exception. The Statute provides that in imposing sentence the Trial Chambers should take into account such factors as the gravity of the offence. This has been followed by Trial Chambers. Thus, in the Celebici Judgement, the Trial Chamber said that “[t]he most important consideration, which may be regarded as the litmus test for the appropriate sentence, is the gravity of the offence”. In the Kupreskic judgement, the Trial Chamber stated that “[t]he sentences to be imposed must reflect the inherent gravity of the criminal conduct of the accused. The determination of the gravity of the crime requires a consideration of the particular circumstances of the case, as well as the form and degree of the participation of the accused in the crime”. The Appeals Chamber endorses these statements.”)
1484 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 731.
1485 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 Mar 2000, par 182.
1486 - Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000, par 249.
1487 - Kambanda v Prosecutor, Case ICTR-97-23-A, Judgement, 19 Oct 2000, par 125.
1488 - Prosecutor v Kupreskic and Others, Case IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, par 852.
1489 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeal, 26 Jan 2000, par 55.
1490 - Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, Case IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb 2001, par 847.
1491 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A & IT-94-1-Abis, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, 26 Jan. 2000, par 69 (“The Appeals Chamber has taken account of the arguments of the parties and the authorities to which they refer, inclusive of previous judgments of the Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal. After full consideration, the Appeals Chamber takes the view that there is in law no distinction between the seriousness of a crime against humanity and that of a war crime. The Appeals Chamber finds no basis for such a distinction in the Statute or the Rules of the International Tribunal construed in accordance with customary international law; the authorized penalties are also the same, the level in any particular case being fixed by reference to the circumstances of the case. The position is similar under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8(1) of the Statute, in the opinion of the Appeals Chamber, not importing a difference. [...].”); and , Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000, pars 243 and 247.
1492 - In relation to Counts 1-4 (pars 630-687), Counts 9-10 (pars 699-704), Counts 11-12 (pars 705-715), Counts 18-20 (pars 716-745).
1493 - Eg, pars 647, 670 and 710-711.
1494 - Eg, par 744.
1495 - Eg, pars 685, 727 and 742.
1496 - At par 714.
1497 - At pars 636 and 656.
1498 - At par 670.
1499 - At par 583, 654 and 669.
1500 - In relation to Counts 22-25 (pars 746-782).
1501 - 10 Nov 2000, par L.h.2.
1502 - Eg, pars 757, 759, 772 and 780.
1503 - In relation to Counts 33-36 (pars 799-822).
1504 - T 6340.
1505 - Indictment IT-96-23.
1506 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000.
1507 - Indictment IT-96-23.
1508 - Indictment IT-96-23/1.
1509 - Indictment Against Dragan Gagovic and Others, Case IT-96-23-I, 26 June 1996.
1510 - Order of the President Assigning a Case to a Trial Chamber, Case IT-96-23-I, 5 Mar 1998.
1511 - T 42-44, Case IT-96-23-I, 13 Mar 1998.
1512 - Decision on the Prosecution Motion to Protect Victims and Witnesses, Case IT-96-23-PT, 29 Apr 1998. Other decisions on victim and witness protection include Order on Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protection for Witnesses at Trial, Case IT-96-23-PT, 5 Oct 1998 and Order on Protective Measures, Case IT-96-23-PT & IT-96-23/1-PT, 20 Mar 2000.
1513 - Order Appointing a Pre-trial Judge, Case IT-96-23-PT, 18 June 1998.
1514 - Order, Case IT-96-23-PT, 15 July 1998.
1515 - T 69-75, Case IT-96-23-PT, 16 July 1998.
1516 - Order Granting Leave to File an Amended Indictment and Confirming the Amended Indictment, Case IT-96-23-PT, 19 Aug 1998.
1517 - T 79-81, Case IT-96-23-PT, 28 Aug 1998.
1518 - Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Amended Indictment, Case IT-96-23-PT, 6 Oct 1998
1519 - Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Amended Indictment, Case IT-96-23-PT, 21 Oct 1998.
1520 - Order of the President for the Assignment of a Judge to a Trial Chamber, Case IT-96-23-PT, 16 Nov 1998.
1521 - Prosecutor's Submission Related to Admissions Made by the Defence, Case IT-96-23-PT, 8 Feb 1999; Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, Case IT-96-23-PT, 8 Feb 1999; Prosecutor's Submission Related to Rule 73bis (B)(IV) and (V), Case IT-96-23-PT, 8 Feb 1999.
1522 - Pre-Trial Brief Addressing the Factual and Legal Issues, Case IT-96-23-PT, 28 Feb 1999.
1523 - T 123-136, Case IT-96-23-PT, 5 Mar 2000.
1524 - Order Granting Leave to Withdraw Indictment, Case IT-96-23-I, 30 July 1999.
1525 - T 161-62, Case IT-96-23-I, 4 Aug 1999.
1526 - Order Granting Leave to File a Second Amended Indictment and Confirming the Second Amended Indictment, Case IT-96-23-PT, 3 Sept 1999.
1527 - T 170-71, Case IT-96-23-PT, 24 Sept 1999.
1528 - Amended Indictment, Case IT-96-23-I, 5 Oct 1999.
1529 - Decision on Defence Request for Provisional Release of Dragoljub Kunarac, Case IT-96-23-PT, 11 Nov 1999.
1530 - Further Decision on Request for Provisional Release of Dragoljub Kunarac, Case IT-96-23-PT, 17 Nov 1999.
1531 - Order Rejecting Application for Leave to Appeal, Case IT-96-23-AR65, 25 Nov 1999.
1532 - Decision on the Form of the Indictment, Case IT-96-23-PT, 4 Nov 1999.
1533 - Order Granting Leave to File a Third Amended Indictment and Confirming the Third Amended Indictment, Case IT-23-96-PT, 1 Dec 1999.
1534 - Scheduling Order for a Trial Date, Case IT-96-23-PT, 18 Nov 1999.
1535 - Request for Postponment [sic] of the Commensment [sic] of Trial, Case IT-96-23-PT, 30 Nov 1999.
1536 - Record of Rulings Made in Status Conference, Case IT-96-23-PT, 16 Dec 1999.
1537 - T 237-238, Case IT-96-23-I, 29 Dec 1999.
1538 - Defence Request for Joint [sic] of Trial, Case IT-96-23-PT, 31 Jan 2000.
1539 - Decision on Joinder of Trials, Case IT-96-23-PT, 9 Feb 2000. The proceedings against Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic were assigned the combined case number IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1. All further footnotes refer to this combined number, unless otherwise stated.
1540 - Order of the President Assigning a Judge to a Trial Chamber, Case IT-96-23-PT, 1 Feb 2000.
1541 - Defence of the Accused Mr Zoran Vukovic Approves for Joint Trial to Start on 20 March 2000, Case IT-96-23-PT, 10 Feb 2000.
1542 - Decision on Joinder of Trials, Case IT-96-23-PT, 15 Feb 2000.
1543 - Order for Severance and Combined Case Number, 16 Feb 2000.
1544 - Order for Severance and Combined Case Number, 16 Feb 2000.
1545 - T 244-89, Case IT-96-23-PT, 2 Mar 2000. At the Status Conference the Prosecutor sought to withdraw one sentence and the accompanying from the Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief II relating to Zoran Vukovic’s alleged participation in the killing of an elderly man at Buk Bijela, which could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Prosecutor sought instead to use Zoran Vukovic’s participation as a sentencing factor (which according to the Prosecutor need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the Rules), without charging it as a separate Count of the Indictment. The Trial Chamber rejected this line of argument, stipulating that matters of aggravation for sentencing must be established beyond a reasonable doubt (T 274). On 8 Mar 2000 the Trial Chamber granted leave to withdraw the sentence and ordered that it be struck from the brief (Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw One Sentence from the Prosecutor’s Pre-trial Brief on Zoran Vukovic filed on 21 Feb 2000, 8 Mar 2000).
1546 - T 247, 248
1547 - Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A-R77, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 Jan 2000.
1548 - Decision on the Request of the Accused, Radomir Kovac to allow Mr Milan Vujin to Appear as Co-counsel Acting Pro Bono, 14 Mar 2000.
1549 - Judge Hunt appended a separate opinion: Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Request by Radomir Kovac to Allow Milan Vujin to Appear as Counsel Acting Without Payment by the Tribunal, 24 Mar 2000.
1550 - Motion Pursuant to Rule 79(i) (ii) (iii), 14 Mar 2000.
1551 - Order on Defence Motion Pursuant to Rule 79, 22 Mar 2000.
1552 - Confidential Defence Joint Request for Presence of Defence Experts During the Trial, 20 Mar. 2000.
1553 - Order on Defence Experts, 29 Mar. 2000.
1554 - T 1482.
1555 - T 1920-21.
1556 - Defence Motion of the Accused Mr Dragoljub Kunarac, Mr Radomir Kovac, and Mr Zoran Vukovic for Judgement of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis, 20 June 2000.
1557 - Ibid, par 16.
1558 - Ibid, par 25.
1559 - Confidential Decision on Medical and Psychiatric Examination, 11 Jul 2000.
1560 - Confidential Defence Motion to Grant Forensic Medical and Forensic Psychiatric Examination of the Witnesses, 21 June 2000.
1561 - Order for Medical Examination of the Accused Zoran Vukovic, 21 Sept 2000
1562 - Confidential Defence Motion for Medical Examination of the Accused Zoran Vukovic, 21 Sept 2000.
1563 - T 6051.
1564 - Decision on Rebuttal Case, 28 Sept 2000.
1565 - T 6071.
1566 - Revised Scheduling Order for Closing Argument, 17 Oct 2000.
1567 - Decision on Defence Motion for Rejoinder, 31 Oct 2000.
1568 - Second Revised Scheduling Order for Closing Briefs and Arguments, 31 Oct 2000.
1569 - T 1466, 3Apr 2000.
1570 - T 2824-2827.
1571 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, pars 14-16.
1572 - Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, paras 18-26.