Case No. IT-03-67-PT

IN TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Jean Claude Antonetti
Judge Kevin Parker

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision of:
13 May 2005

PROSECUTOR

v.

VOJISLAV SESELJ

_____________________________________

DECISION ON THE REQUEST OF THE ACCUSED FOR AN OPINION OF TRIAL CHAMBER II ON PROFESSIONAL ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL

(Submission Number 87)

_____________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff
Mr. Ulrich Mussemeyer
Mr. Daniel Saxon

The Accused:

Mr. Vojislav Seselj

Standby counsel:

Mr. Tjarda Eduard van der Spoel

 

TRIAL CHAMBER II ("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 ("Tribunal")

BEING SEISED OF the "Request of the Accused for an Opinion of Trial Chamber II on Professional Arguments Challenging the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" ("Request"),1 filed by Vojislav Seselj ("Accused") on 5 April 2005, wherein the Accused makes a variety of submissions, all of which essentially challenge the lawfulness of the establishment of the Tribunal;2

NOTING that the Accused has already challenged the lawfulness of the establishment of the Tribunal by the Security Council on exactly the same grounds;3

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has already ruled upon the lawfulness of the establishment of the Tribunal by the Security Council in the Tadic Jurisdiction Decision;4

CONSIDERING further that the ratio decidendi of the decisions of the Appeals Chamber is binding upon the Trial Chambers;5

REITERATING the Trial Chamberís previous ruling that

[Ö] the objections raised by the Accused have already been addressed in previous decisions of the Tribunal and in particular by the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic Jurisdiction Decision. Even if the Accusedís objections might have fallen within the scope of Rule 72, they would be dismissed in view of the established case law of the Tribunal. The Trial Chamber does not see any reason to further discuss this part of the Motion.6

FINDING that there is no need for the Trial Chamber to address the submissions in the Request once again;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS

PURSUANT TO Rules 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

HEREBY REJECTS the Request.

 

Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.

Dated this thirteenth day of May 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands

____________________________
Carmel Agius
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]


1. Submission No. 87.
2. Request, p. 1, 2.
3. Objection to the Indictment, 24 December 2003; Decision on the Accusedís Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, 15 December 2004.
4. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, paras 26-48.
5. See Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 March 2000, para. 113.
6. Decision on Motion by Vojislav Seselj Challenging Jurisdiction and Form of Indictment, 26 May 2004, para. 12.