Case No. IT-96-21-Tbis-R117

IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Richard May, Presiding
Judge Patrick Robinson
Judge Mohamed Fassi Fihri

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
25 May 2001

PROSECUTOR

v.

ZDRAVKO MUCIC a/k/a "PAVO"
HAZIM DELIC
ESAD LANDZO a/k/a "ZENGA"

___________________________________________________________

DECISION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

___________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. James Stewart

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Mr. Howard Morrison, for Zdravko Mucic
Mr. Salih Karabdic and Mr. Thomas Moran, for Hazim Delic
Ms. Cynthia Sinatra and Mr. Peter Murphy, for Esad Landzo

 

THIS TRIAL CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal"),

BEING SEIZED OF a "Motion for Clarification of Scheduling Order of 2 May 2001", filed on 15 May 2001 by Hazim Delic ("Delic Motion") and a "Joint Motion of Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo for Modification of the Scheduling Order Dated May 2, 2001", filed on 15 May 2001 ("Joint Motion"),

NOTING that the Delic Motion seeks clarification of two questions relating to the Scheduling Order of 2 May 2001 ("Scheduling Order"), namely, the scope of the briefs ordered by the Scheduling Order, and the scope of the oral hearing,

NOTING that the Joint Motion seeks an extension of the time limits set by the Scheduling Order for the filing of briefs and responses by the parties and for oral arguments,

NOTING that the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") filed its response to the Joint Motion on 21 May 2001, wherein the Prosecution expresses no objection to the request for extension of time as contained in the Joint Motion,

NOTING that, on 21 May 2001, the Prosecution also filed its response to the Delic Motion, arguing that the remitting by the Appeals Chamber of this matter to this Trial Chamber does not involve a complete re-hearing on sentencing, that the issue is that of adjustment, if any, of the existing sentences, in accordance with the remit of the Appeals Chamber, and that no additional evidence is required and the decision of this Trial Chamber will be based on the existing record,

NOTING the professional, health, and personal difficulties raised by counsel in the Joint Motion,

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has defined the issues for determination by the Trial Chamber (after the parties have had the opportunity of making relevant submissions) as involving an adjustment of sentence and not a re-hearing; and that, accordingly, no further evidence is necessary,

HEREBY GRANTS the Joint Motion in part and VARIES, accordingly, the Scheduling Order as follows:

1. the parties shall by 22 June 2001 file their briefs on sentencing;

2. the parties may by 13 July 2001 file any responses to the briefs; and

3. the oral hearing will be held on 27 July 2001,

and, in disposing of the remainder of the Joint Motion as well as the Delic Motion, ORDERS the parties to address their arguments, both in their briefs and responses and during the oral hearing, to the following issues as remitted by the Appeals Chamber:

1. what adjustment, if any, should be made to the sentence of Hazim Delic after the Appeals Chamber quashed his convictions on Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment;

2. what adjustment, if any, should be made to the existing sentences imposed on Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic, and Esad Landzo, following the conclusion of the Appeals Chamber regarding the issue of cumulative convictions;

3. what effect, if any, the original Trial Chamberís error in making adverse reference to the failure of Zdravko Mucic to give oral evidence at his trial should have on the sentence currently imposed on him; and

4. what should be the appropriate sentence for Zdravko Mucic, given the instruction of the Appeals Chamber as to the manifest inadequacy of the sentence of seven years currently imposed on him, and the indication by the Appeals Chamber that, for his offences, a term of 10 years imprisonment would have been appropriate, had it not been necessary to take into account a possible adjustment in sentence because of the dismissal of the cumulative counts.

 

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

________________
Richard May
Presiding

Dated this twenty-fifth day of May 2001
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]